The Problem Is Palestinian Rejectionism

[vminfla]

Nearly two decades of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians have failed miserably. The key reason for this failure is the Palestinians’ refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

The basic paradigm of the Oslo accords, signed in 1993, held that both the Israelis and the Palestinians were, at long last, prepared to recognize the legitimacy of each other’s national rights and aspirations. With that essential threshold crossed, it was thought, all that would remain was to work out a compromise on core issues: where to draw borders, whether and how to divide Jerusalem, and how to resolve the Palestinian demand that refugees from the 1948 war be allowed to return to Israel.

That, at least, was the theory. Yet over the course of the last 18 years, during which negotiations were conducted along these lines, the rhetoric and actions of the Palestinian leadership have proved that paradigm wrong. The Palestinians have not in fact recognized the legitimacy of the national rights of the Jewish people. Consider, for example, the Palestinians’ refusal to negotiate with Israel over the past year, a result, they say, of continued settlement construction in Jerusalem and beyond the 1967 lines. This is a dubious claim given that the Palestinians have never made halting construction a precondition before. And when Israel did freeze settlement building for ten months in 2009–10, the Palestinians still refused to talk, only agreeing to do so at the last moment and even then only to prevent a crisis in their relations with the United States.

The true reason for the intransigence among Palestinian officials has nothing to do with settlement building; rather, it is their continued rejection of the Jewish character of Israel. The Palestinians are fully aware that once they sit down at the negotiating table and agreement is reached on all other outstanding issues, they will need to answer whether they are ready to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. And as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the U.S. Congress this past May, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state.” He continued: “The Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it.”

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136588/yosef-kuperwasser-and-shalom-lipner/the-problem-is-palestinian-rejectionism

[TheWraith]

1. Right. Has NOTHING to do with the Israelis periodically invading Palestinian territory...

As well as what amounts to colonizing Palestinian land through "settlements."

[shira]

5. Nope. It's the same problem as 1948. Rejection of a Jewish homeland in any part of that region.

Also,

1. Israel doesn't just periodically invade Palestinian territory. No rockets or terror against Jews = no "invasions" by Israel. Simple arithmetic.

2. There were no settlements in 1948 when Palestinians had the same problem with Israel as they do now.


So try again, Ace.

[azurnoir]

6. Try again shira first its not 1948 anymore its 2011 remember and that tired whine just don'tcut it

the PLO recognized Israel in 1994 the Jewish State was a religious/ethnic add on in part to stall negotiations and in part to deny RoR to Palestinians and quite possibly the civil rights of Palestinians with Israeli citizenship in the future

try again

[vminfla]

7. The Oslo Accords demanded that the PLO recognize Israel

However, the PLO charter that called for the destruction of Israel was never ammended.

[JoDog]

9. Yes, but

What they say and what they do are 2 different things. They said they accept Israel's right to exist. However, they never amended their charter to reflect that. Plus, take a look at their official symbol. Doesn't look like they think Israel is going to continue to exist, does it?

[azurnoir]

10. you do realize that the PLO are the ones working with Quartet

and that they are no longer considered a terrorist group

[vminfla]

12. You do realize that the PLO is rejecting to work with the Quartet

and has even demanded the makeup of the quartet to be more conducive to their likings, demanding that Blair be replaced. Which is an amazing thing for a terrorist organization to demand that someone be replaced for lesser "crimes" than they themselves have committed.

[azurnoir]

14. the PLO is not a terrorist organization as you falsely claim

and yes they did reject the resumption of talks without a freeze in settlement building Israel's response was to announce the oking of thousands of new settlement units

[vminfla]

19. Sinn Fein is not a terrorist organization anymore than the PLO is

reformed terrorists, but terrorism still in their fundamental DNA. The PLO still calls for the destruction of Israel despite the failed Oslo Accord.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. So why would you claim they're a terrorist org when they're not? Also, you got another thing wrong..

The PLO still calls for the destruction of Israel despite the failed Oslo Accord.

Rubbish. It does nothing of the sort.

[vminfla]

60. The PLO never ammended their charter that called for the destruction of Israel

IF you are impressed with flowery words and kind rhetoric, that is OK. However, until substantive progress is made for the recognition of Israel and the denouncement of their terrorist past and repudiation of any future terror attacks, their words are hollow.

[Violet_Crumble]

65. So what? Likud's never amended theirs either. Yr still wrong in what you claimed...

The PLO does NOT call for the destruction of Israel. Quite the opposite. In 1993 it officially recognised Israel....

It looks very much like there's absolutely nothing that could be said or done that would satisfy you personally when it comes to recognition of Israel.

[shira]

18. When the PA/PLO publishes maps replacing all Israel with Palestine, what does that mean to you?

For example, if the Israeli gov't under Netanyahu were to do the same and go public with their desire to claim ALL of historic Israel - by erasing the W.Bank and claiming all that is greater Israel - what would that mean to you? Would it really mean that the current Israeli gov't recognizes Palestinian aspirations for self-determination and therefore two states for two people?

Say 'YES' if you want to remain consistent.

Otherwise admit such "recognition" is just words and isn't worth the paper it's written on.

[vminfla]

61. Let us not forget that those words were spoken in English, not Arabic

Until the PLO ammends their charter to recognize the right of Israel to exist, no such recognition legitimately occured.

[JDPriestly]

55. Israel was established by the UN as a "Jewish state."

There is nothing new about Israel's being a Jewish state.

UN General Assembly Resolution 181
(Partition Plan)
November 29, 1947 . . . .

A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE

The Mandate for Palestine shall terminate as soon as possible but in any case not later than 1 August 1948.

The armed forces of the mandatory Power shall be progressively withdrawn from Palestine, the withdrawal to be completed as soon as possible but in any case not later than 1 August 1948.
The mandatory Power shall advise the Commission, as far in advance as possible, of its intention to terminate the mandate and to evacuate each area. The mandatory Power shall use its best endeavours to ensure that an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide facilities for a substantial immigration, shall be evacuated at the earliest possible date and in any event not later than 1 February 1948.

Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in Parts II and III below.

The period between the adoption by the General Assembly of its recommendation on the question of Palestine and the establishment of the independence of the Arab and Jewish States shall be a transitional period.

Please read the entire Resolution at the link. It specifically addresses the Palestinian problem.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/UN%20General%20Assembly%20Resolution%20181

[King_David]

102. That post was proof that often people

missing fundamental knowledge of the situation feel they are qualified to dbate this.

[Violet_Crumble]

105. The one Az replied to was definately in that category n/t

[King_David]

112. Nope

You totally missed thus one .

[Violet_Crumble]

128. Nope, you totally missed it...

Better luck next time...

[King_David]

137. .

;)

[Shaktimaan]

17. correct.

because thus far there is no such thing as palestinian territory. it still needs to be negotiated.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Wrong...

Of course the West Bank and Gaza are Palestinian territory. Just the same as East Timor was East Timorese territory during the long occupation by Indonesia. Just because the occupiers and their supporters don't agree doesn't make a difference...

[Shaktimaan]

22. umm...

and what makes it so? Your sense of what is ethical does not count here. There is equal standing for either group to a good deal of that land. And according to the Oslo Accord exactly who owns what is to be negotiated. Just because the PLO changed their mind doesn't make a difference...

Or do you know something I don't?

[Violet_Crumble]

24. Did what I said about East Timor not explain it?

But while we're on it, yr sense of what's ethical doesn't count either. So let's dispense with the nonsense about Israel having equal right to the West Bank. It doesn't unless you want to try arguing that international law is trumped by yr sense of what's ethical. I'm not sure what you think the PLO changed its mind about, btw...

[Shaktimaan]

25. what law are you referring to?

Israel and the PLO have an agreement stipulating that it is up to negotiations. And the agreement with Jordan, Egypt, etc clearly stipulates that the green line is not to be considered a border.

Beyond that what in the world makes you think that the Palestinians have a greater claim to all of the OPT anyway? Why would East Jerusalem be legally considered Palestinian land?

Why do you think no countries have their embassies in West Jerusalem? Because it is not officially Israel... the same goes for the entire WB. It has absolutely nothing to do with whatever I consider ethical, this is merely the law as I understand it.

I'm not sure what you think the PLO changed its mind about, btw...

I was referring to their statement renouncing any claim over the West Bank as being part of Palestine.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. I'm referring to international law...

Maybe you could explain how this supposed agreement trumps international law? And I highly doubt the Palestinians would believe that Israel has an equal right to the West Bank.

Beyond that what in the world makes you think that the Palestinians have a greater claim to all of the OPT anyway?

Gosh, maybe because it's their territory and just like all other people in the world, they have a right to self-determination? Israel has absolutely no right at all to the West Bank, no matter what you want to believe...

Why would East Jerusalem be legally considered Palestinian land?

Because it's occupied territory. Have you seen a map of the way Israel has extended the municipal boundaries of East Jerusalem deep into the West Bank? It's a real eye-opener and I can repost it for you if you haven't seen it.

Why do you think no countries have their embassies in West Jerusalem? Because it is not officially Israel...

Huh? Did you mean to say East Jerusalem? West Jerusalem is part of Israel...

I was referring to their statement renouncing any claim over the West Bank as being part of Palestine.

Can you point me to that statement? Seeing as how the West Bank was specifically mentioned as part of the Palestinian state only a little while back when the application was made to become a full member of the UN, I'd be interested to see it in its context...

[Shaktimaan]

31. I know you mean intl law.

WHAT intl law are you speaking about. You clearly think that the west bank is strictly palestinian territory. I am asking you why. What law makes it exclusively Palestinian? Was it ALWAYS thus? Is it because the Palestinians managed to throw ALL the Jews out a few decades ago? Jews have always lived in these areas... when and how did they lose any claim to the entirety of the land? By what statute? By what law?

East Jerusalem contains the most important cultural and religious sites in all of Judaism. It contains the Jewish Quarter. And the city had a long term Jewish majority. So the Jews lost control of part of it for 19 years... and that makes it occupied? Why? It was never supposed to be part of Palestine. Why would you consider it occupied as opposed to disputed?

Gosh, maybe because it's their territory and just like all other people in the world, they have a right to self-determination?

What exactly makes it THEIR territory exclusively from a legal standpoint?

Israel has absolutely no right at all to the West Bank, no matter what you want to believe...

I never said I believed that. My point is that neither have an inherent right to ALL of anything. According to every agreement signed by them it must be negotiated. When and how did the green line become the border when everything official insists that it is not?

Huh? Did you mean to say East Jerusalem? West Jerusalem is part of Israel...

Nope. West Jerusalem, just like east jerusalem, was never allocated to either state, so most of the intl community doesn't consider it an official part of Israel. Which is why all of the embassies are in Tel Aviv. For all practical purposes it is part of Israel and the Palestinians have zero chance of getting any of it but that does not change the facts.

Can you point me to that statement?

Sure. In the original PLO charter.

Article 24. This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.

I was making a point. Obviously this is not considered valid currently.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Then why ask?

You clearly think that the west bank is strictly palestinian territory. I am asking you why. What law makes it exclusively Palestinian? Was it ALWAYS thus? Is it because the Palestinians managed to throw ALL the Jews out a few decades ago? Jews have always lived in these areas... when and how did they lose any claim to the entirety of the land? By what statute? By what law?

I'm going to ask why you haven't taken any notice of I said about East Timor. Think about those questions in relation to the situation in East Timor and you'll see what I mean. No-one but Indonesia and its supporters would have ever claimed that East Timor wasn't anything but East Timorese territory. As for yr question about Palestinians managing to throw out all the Jews? WTF?? The last question is a bit weird. Palestinians have always lived in what's now Israel. Apparently everyone's fine with them losing any claim to the entirety of the land. I'd be asking why it doesn't go both ways...

What exactly makes it THEIR territory exclusively from a legal standpoint?

You claimed that Israel had an equal claim to the West Bank. I think it's rather ridiculous to go on about exclusivity and legality when it comes to occupied territory. And let's apply yr logic to indigenous Australians. Much of the reason they lost everything was because of the European mindset that seeing there was no legal ownership of land that it was all Terra Nullius. That was overturned only in the 1990's. Trying to put up any sort of argument that the West Bank is Terra Nullius is totally unimpressive and the only way to do so is to completely overlook the connection of the Palestinians to their land.

I was making a point. Obviously this is not considered valid currently.

Thanks for the link. Yes, I'd agree that something from back when Jordan occupied the West Bank isn't particularly valid. Those guys really need to get that Charter up to date...

Just so I don't have to reply to both yr recent posts, I've read yr other one and there were lots of agreements back then that never went anywhere. Those final status negotiations never happened, and now decades later, it's very unreasonable to demand that the Palestinians hang back and wait for those talks to ever happen. The issues that were being shoved to the side and left till the end of the road meant that Oslo was always doomed to fail, even without the helping hand that Nutty and the extremists on both sides gave it...

[Shaktimaan]

37. Let's refrain from drawing awkward comparisons.

The reason I didn't mention east timor is because I fail to see the relavence. I don't know all that much about it, but I don't think East Timor was ever populated by Indonesians, or that Indonesians draw so much of their cultural history from ET. It's not a comparison that has many points in common. The main point you seem to be making is that it is the same because no one else but the Indonesians considered it Indonesia. OK. But there are actual reasons for that. Regarding I/P it is entirely political. For instance:

I think it's rather ridiculous to go on about exclusivity and legality when it comes to occupied territory.

Well why is it considered occupied territory and not merely disputed territory? What about specific areas, like East Jerusalem or Hebron make it exclusively Palestinian by right? I chose those places because they best illustrate my point.

Trying to put up any sort of argument that the West Bank is Terra Nullius is totally unimpressive and the only way to do so is to completely overlook the connection of the Palestinians to their land.


Terra Nullius is land belonging to no one. That's not my point. My point is that this land is disputed. And to automatically assume the rights belong strictly to the Palestinians overlooks the connection to the land that the Jews ALSO possess. Are you honestly trying to deny the legitimate Jewish connection to the Temple Mount or the Western Wall or the Jewish Quarter? Do you see the difference with East Timor?

Please note that my point is NOT that these areas are exclusively Jewish by right. Merely that the border and land is clearly dependent on negotiations, it is not pre-ordained.

Apparently everyone's fine with them losing any claim to the entirety of the land. I'd be asking why it doesn't go both ways...

Legally it does, hence my point about west Jerusalem. Realistically, the Palestinians don't have much leverage, so they won't get any of it. But there's a reason no one has their embassies there although it's Israel's capital.

I've read yr other one and there were lots of agreements back then that never went anywhere.

Yes but every agreement referred to the fact that the final borders were TBD. These agreements ARE the international law. That's it. The idea that the territories are magically palestinian because people consider them occupied doesn't hold water.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. Of course it's relevant...

I don't know all that much about it, but I don't think East Timor was ever populated by Indonesians, or that Indonesians draw so much of their cultural history from ET.

Now those points are what are absolutely irrelevant. Y'know, there's lots and lots of people that draw much of their cultural history from the West Bank but don't insist that they have some claim to the territory...

Well why is it considered occupied territory and not merely disputed territory? What about specific areas, like East Jerusalem or Hebron make it exclusively Palestinian by right? I chose those places because they best illustrate my point.

First question. That's been explained many times now and rather than repeat myself (I'm heading off for dinner in a bit), if you can't remember, I'll go back into the archives and search for a previous discussion.

Second question. I don't get what yr point is. Are you claiming that because some Jews lived in a place, that means Israel has some claim to it via extremist settlers, some of who were born and raised in the US, yet claim they have more of a tie to the place than Palestinians who've lived there all their lives? If so, that thinking would also apply to many parts of Israel when it comes to Palestinians...

Terra Nullius is land belonging to no one. That's not my point.

But I thought you were arguing it doesn't belong to anyone, and that Israel has some bizarre equal right to Palestinian territory. Y'know, people can feel a connection to a place or a thing without having to have sovereignty over it or take it for themselves. Is there some reason why this wouldn't apply to places in the West Bank?

Yes but every agreement referred to the fact that the final borders were TBD. These agreements ARE the international law. That's it.

No, agreements like that aren't international law. They're a bilateral agreement between two parties which in the case of Oslo was ignored by both parties when it suited their purposes...

[Shaktimaan]

171. sry for delay

Now those points are what are absolutely irrelevant. Y'know, there's lots and lots of people that draw much of their cultural history from the West Bank but don't insist that they have some claim to the territory...

That is besides the point. The two factions arguing over it are the Israelis and Palestinians. Not "lots and lots of people." I think that a nation's claim to any parcel of land is partly dependent on showing a long term historical connection to that land. It's hardly irrelevant that Jews have lived in Hebron for thousands of years. If it is, then wouldn't it be equally irrelevant that the Palestinians have a history there?

First question. That's been explained many times now and rather than repeat myself (I'm heading off for dinner in a bit), if you can't remember, I'll go back into the archives and search for a previous discussion.

Please do. I have never once heard it reasonably defended. Let's keep it simple... Why is East Jerusalem considered to be strictly Palestinian territory as opposed to disputed territory?

Second question. I don't get what yr point is. Are you claiming that because some Jews lived in a place, that means Israel has some claim to it via extremist settlers, some of who were born and raised in the US, yet claim they have more of a tie to the place than Palestinians who've lived there all their lives?

No. The claim does not come FROM the presence of settlers. Rather the settlers presence is born of the claim, which existed before them and would exist without their presence. Both nations have longstanding history in these areas. Some of Hebron's settlers were its original inhabitants who can trace their lineage back over centuries. Are you asserting that they lost their right to live there when they were ethnically cleansed?

After 1949 Jordan ethnically cleansed the WB of Jews and moved in Palestinian refugees from areas now in Israel. They replaced Jews who had lived there their whole lives. Jews have since resettled some of these areas, yet you only consider THEM to be illegal settlers, right? The Palestinians who replaced the ethnically cleansed Jews (some of whom were born and raised in other countries), were NOT illegal settlers?

If so, that thinking would also apply to many parts of Israel when it comes to Palestinians.

It does. Have you not heard of the Right of Return movement? The Palestinian Authority claims all of East Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount, as the capital of the State of Palestine, and claims that West Jerusalem is also subject to permanent status negotiations.

Had Israel lost ground in Jerusalem in 67 instead of gaining it, do you suppose anyone would be accusing the Palestinians of occupying that land?

But I thought you were arguing it doesn't belong to anyone, and that Israel has some bizarre equal right to Palestinian territory.

No, I'm saying that Israel has an equal claim to disputed parts of EJ and the WB, not to areas agreed on as Palestinian territory.

Y'know, people can feel a connection to a place or a thing without having to have sovereignty over it or take it for themselves.

Good point. It is equally as valid if directed towards the Palestinians regarding EJ. Bear in mind that areas like EJ's Jewish sites have historically not fared well under Arab stewardship. Israel has a vested interest in not seeing its historical relics destroyed any further.

No, agreements like that aren't international law. They're a bilateral agreement between two parties which in the case of Oslo was ignored by both parties when it suited their purposes.

EVERY AGREEMENT, not just Oslo. And it is those agreements that we must use as guidelines in determining where the situation stands from a legal perspective. They ARE legal agreements after all... if none of them hold any validity then there is no sense in ever entering into one. If everyone signed an agreement stating that the green line was NOT to be interpreted as a permanent border, then by what legal mechanism are you now asserting that it now MUST BE considered a border?

[Violet_Crumble]

172. That's okay. Thanks for the PM letting me know you'd replied...

That is besides the point. The two factions arguing over it are the Israelis and Palestinians. Not "lots and lots of people." I think that a nation's claim to any parcel of land is partly dependent on showing a long term historical connection to that land. It's hardly irrelevant that Jews have lived in Hebron for thousands of years. If it is, then wouldn't it be equally irrelevant that the Palestinians have a history there?

Of course it's not beside the point that others draw much of their cultural heritage from the West Bank. If it was the Vatican, rather than Israel carrying out the occupation, it'd be an equally invalid excuse to use for having a claim to that territory. And yr argument also leads to the conclusion that Palestinians would have a legitimate claim on what's now Israel, as they have a long and historic cultural attachment to that land.

Please do. I have never once heard it reasonably defended. Let's keep it simple... Why is East Jerusalem considered to be strictly Palestinian territory as opposed to disputed territory?

East Jerusalem is not disputed territory. Along with the rest of the West Bank, it's occupied territory.

Here's one of the discussions in the past that I was referring to

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=332368#332664

Also, I went further back into the archives from before yr time at DU and found this one that might assist you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=57062&mesg_id=57241

No. The claim does not come FROM the presence of settlers. Rather the settlers presence is born of the claim, which existed before them and would exist without their presence. Both nations have longstanding history in these areas. Some of Hebron's settlers were its original inhabitants who can trace their lineage back over centuries. Are you asserting that they lost their right to live there when they were ethnically cleansed?

If yr claiming that, then any claims Palestinians have to Israel is equally valid. And those extremist and violent Hebron settlers weren't ethnically cleansed at all. In fact, I'd be surprised if any are descendent of those who were there. Even if they were, their horrific treatment of Palestinians should wipe out any and all claims they have...

After 1949 Jordan ethnically cleansed the WB of Jews and moved in Palestinian refugees from areas now in Israel. They replaced Jews who had lived there their whole lives. Jews have since resettled some of these areas, yet you only consider THEM to be illegal settlers, right? The Palestinians who replaced the ethnically cleansed Jews (some of whom were born and raised in other countries), were NOT illegal settlers?

So? Israel ethnically cleansed what's now Israel of Palestinians. Seeing you think a similar thing gives Israelis some legitimate right to the West Bank, why wouldn't the same logic also have you believing that Palestinians have a legitimate right to what's now Israel?

And, yes. Any Israeli living in the West Bank settlements is an illegal settler and should be moved back to Israel...

Have you not heard of the Right of Return movement? The Palestinian Authority claims all of East Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount, as the capital of the State of Palestine, and claims that West Jerusalem is also subject to permanent status negotiations.

No, that's not the same thing. The same thing would be claims on all of Israel. I take it that you'd believe any such claims are legitimate?

Had Israel lost ground in Jerusalem in 67 instead of gaining it, do you suppose anyone would be accusing the Palestinians of occupying that land?

If a Palestinian state had come into being, who knows. The reality is that it didn't happen, so let's focus on the reality of the situation instead of what if's..

No, I'm saying that Israel has an equal claim to disputed parts of EJ and the WB, not to areas agreed on as Palestinian territory.

There are no parts of the West Bank and East Jerusalem that are disputed. It's all occupied territory...

Good point. It is equally as valid if directed towards the Palestinians regarding EJ. Bear in mind that areas like EJ's Jewish sites have historically not fared well under Arab stewardship. Israel has a vested interest in not seeing its historical relics destroyed any further.

Wrong again. What would be equally valid using yr argument would be if it were to be regarding places like Haifa and the many Palestinian towns and villages that were in what's now Israel.

And it is those agreements that we must use as guidelines in determining where the situation stands from a legal perspective. They ARE legal agreements after all... if none of them hold any validity then there is no sense in ever entering into one.

No, those sort of agreements don't trump international law at all. Especially the sort of agreements we're talking about where much of them are ignored by the parties making the agreements...

[Shaktimaan]

180. A fable

I'm going to address your post in a more comprehensive fashion later today. First though I'd like to tell a hypothetical story to illustrate a point because I think I'm not adequately explaining a parallel I'd like to demonstrate. So here's the story of Abdul, Schlomo and Schlomo's son Keith.

Abdul is a Jordanian Arab from Amman. He's heard that Palestine has some cool opportunities and he's unemployed in Amman so he takes off for Jaffa around 1946. He likes Jaffa but doesn't get to stay long because when the civil war breaks out he is forced to evacuate at gunpoint by militant Zionists. He's bummed, and like so many others he evacuates back to Jordan.

Meanwhile Schlomo is a Jew living in the Jewish Quarter in the old city. He's old school... his family has lived there for generations doing business out of the same small tailor shop. Schlomo also has bad luck because during the war Jordanian soldiers force him to leave his shop and cross the new border to Israel.

Meanwhile Abdul moves to East Jerusalem and rents out Schlomo's old shop from the Jordanian government. He gets a nice business going. But it doesn't last... Abdul has crappy luck. The war of '67 happens and while Schlomo is dead, Keith is anxious to get his dad's old store back. He's got a deed and the Israeli government declines to honor the remainder of Abdul's lease. He loses his security deposit and is forced out. (Keith actually hires him for a short time, but they butt heads and Abdul is eventually fired. But he eventually goes on to become a successful radio personality, famous for his morning commute show "Abba Dabba Abdul!" so it all works out for him in the end.) Keith stays, runs his shop, is a mediocre tailor but has a charismatic personality so he manages to keep the doors of his store open until his identity is stolen by a Russian ecstasy dealer and the bank forecloses on the shop to cover his unfairly acquired debt.

The moral: According to your argument, Keith, running a store he owns that has been in his family for 250 years on the same spot, is an ILLEGAL settler. Yet Abdul, the Jordanian who only lived in Palestine for 2 years before the Nakba, and had never been to Jerusalem before 1949, was a refugee who LEGALLY worked and lived in the same store despite Jordan's illegal occupation there.

My question to you: Why is Abdul a legal refugee and Keith an illegal settler?

[Violet_Crumble]

182. That fable cuts both ways...

And if you do the same hypothetical story with a recently arrived immigrant from the US and a Palestinian who's family had lived in a small village in what's now Israel for generations and generations until they were expelled during the war, you'll get the answer.

[Shaktimaan]

183. aaannnd...

okay, I'm imagining that. So what? What is your answer? Why is Keith a settler but not Abdul? What is the difference? Both were refugees. Both were allowed to move in to occupied territory by their occupying nation. And if anything Keith has far greater claim to the land, after all, he owns it and grew up there. So why is only Keith an illegal settler? Why aren't ALL of those other Jordanians also illegal settlers?

Going back to my scenario, the following is your assertion, right? That a family living in the same house that they have passed own over hundreds of years can qualify as an illegal settler usurping the rightful inhabitants, ie: people who may or may not have ever lived there before, right?

[Violet_Crumble]

184. It should be obvious...

In yr hypothetical, which if it existed would be a very rare case as most Israelis in East Jerusalem have not been there for generations and generations, yr talking about someone who was forced out of their home during the war. He got to return to his home. I also talk about someone who was forced out of their home during the war. He didn't get to return to his home. The difference between them is you say the Israeli govt honours the deeds of Keith, which is what they do if the person making the claim is Jewish, but they don't do the same for Palestinians who were expelled from what's now Israel. So clearly the Israeli govt doesn't give a shit about whether someone has been living somewhere for generations unless that person is Jewish. That's discriminatory...

If there was actually anyone in the situation of hypothetical Keith, then the reality is that they're an Israeli citizen living in occupied territory. One person existing somewhere doesn't mean that it justifies any claim made by Israel to East Jerusalem, especially when that same claim is dismissed coming from Palestinians. What it means is that being an Israeli citizen, no-one's forcing them to leave Israel. If it worked out that East Jerusalem becomes part of a Palestinian state, then Keith would have the option of staying where he is either as a Palestinian citizen, or getting approval to reside there as an Israeli citizen. If he didn't want that, then he'd have to move to West Jerusalem, which is under Israeli sovereignty.

And if anything Keith has far greater claim to the land, after all, he owns it and grew up there.

And the Palestinian who'd lived in Haifa for generations didn't own his land and grow up there? Sorry, but he did. So how do you work it out that only one has a greater claim to the land?

btw, this hypothetical fable thing is actually quite interesting to look at and pull apart and examine. It makes a very nice change from the marathon sessions of someone else telling me what I supposedly believe about the conflict, so thanks for the discussion so far :)

[Shaktimaan]

186. Okay, you're not seeing my point here.

Sorry, been busy and haven't gone badk to the main post yet. But I relly wanted to try and articulate at least this one point first.


Okay, it's 1950. Jordan just expelled a whole mess of Jews out of East Jerusalem, annexed the land itself, and gave all of the Arabs living there, including all the refugees streaming in from what-is-now Israel, Jordanian citizenship. Now obviously, it can't legally annex EJ unilaterally. But it CAN grant the Palestinians Jordanian citizenship.

With me so far? OK, let's break it down. Now a LOT of those Pale4stinians who ended up settling in the West Bank and EJ were obviously refugees escaping the new land of Israel. OK, so I think Jordan's occupation was probably legal, but the annexation was undeniably illegal. So Jordan was nothing more and nothing less than an occupying force. (JUST like Israel later became in EXACTLY the same land.... dunum for dunum 19 years later.)

So here's the situation... Jordan occupies the WB and EJ and IMMEDIATELY begins to transfer its citizens (who were refugees originating from what was by then an entirely different country), into the property and houses left behind by the ethnically cleansed indigenous Jews. When new construction was needed, Jordan just used the raw materials gained by demolishing and salvaging several famous synagogues and a historical cemetary.

While I realize that the narrative I just articulated is usually presented in a very different way, I wanted to make the point that none of these international standards we've been debating (like the rules of occupation, how its implications change when no clear sovereign exists, especially when a dispute over such fundamental issues like borders, Right of Return, compensation, refugee camps, and so on), were usually intended to protect people from very specific, cut-and-dry scenarios experienced during WWI and II. To blindly enforce these laws without considering the exceptionally unique circumstances presented by this conflict will lead directly to a situation where the letter of the law may be adequately fulfilled but at the expense of its true spirit and meaning.

The obvious point I was making by framing events in this way was to demonstrate the legal similarities between both the Israeli and Palestinian inhabitants of East Jerusalem. In neither case is their claim born from their current physical existence in Jerusalem or from owning private property there at this exact moment, but from the truly awesome historical and cultural connection EACH nationality has with this land. The mere act of occupation by one nation (or the other), lends neither claim any greater or reduced significance.

Simply put, if civilians from an occupying country can NOT (NEVER EVER EVER), legally settle on that land while it's occupied (and the rules are indeed to be interpreted as cut and dry and unforgivingly as you have led me to believe in the past), then the label "Illegal settler" must be applied to any Palestinian refugees from the Nakba (and their offspring obvs) who settled in EJ or the WB if they concurrently held Jordanian citizenship as it is currently applied to Israeli settlers in the same area.

In other words, you can't have your cake and eat t too.

[vminfla]

187. Ethnically Cleansing Jews from East Jerusalem is good though

You keep forgetting the narrative: They are the occupiers. They are the bad guys.

[Violet_Crumble]

192. You've got no idea what yr talking about...

And even less of an idea of what ethnic cleansing actually is. Ethnic cleansing is NOT a state opting to comply with international law and removing its citizens from territory it occupies. I bet you would be full of outrage if it were pointed out to you that what was done to the Palestinians when Israel was created was an example of ethnic cleansing. See, terms such as ethnic cleansing don't have some disclaimer in the definition that says: 'Must not ever be used to describe anything Israel did, and if used in that way, rapid-fire accusations of antisemitism must be flung at the user.'

Ethnic cleansing is what would happen if some supporters of Greater Israel got their way. See, it would be the only way that Israel could get away with it and retain its Jewish majority and call itself a democracy. Of course, if you have any other ideas as to how Israel could do it without ethnic cleansing feel free to share yr ideas...

[Shaktimaan]

32. here we go...

from the wikipedia article, "positions on jerusalem"

* Palestinian National Authority The Palestinian National Authority views East Jerusalem as occupied territory according to United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. The Palestinian Authority claims all of East Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount, as the capital of the State of Palestine, and claims that West Jerusalem is also subject to permanent status negotiations. However, it has stated that it would be willing to consider alternative solutions, such as making Jerusalem an open city.<5> Jerusalem should be an open city, with no physical partition. Freedom of worship, access and protection of sites of religious significance shall be guaranteed.<21>

European Union

* European Union The European Union currently adopts the corpus separatum plan for the entire city of Jerusalem as outlined in United Nations Resolution 181.<22><23> However, in the interest of achieving a peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, it believes a fair solution should be found regarding the issue of Jerusalem in the context of the two-state solution set out in the Road Map. Taking into account the political and religious concerns of all parties involved, it envisions the city serving as the shared capital of Israel and Palestine.<24><25>

[sabbat hunter]

124. considering the fact that

Jerusalem was supposed to be an international city under UN rule, why should any of it go to Palestine? It was never intended to be a part of Palestine in the first place.

But I will grant you that the UN long ago abrogated their duty/rule over any part of Jerusalem. But it still remains why should it go to Palestine? (and I am mainly talking about the old city here) Just because it was on the wrong side of a cease fire line?

I think that Jerusalem should mostly be under Israeli political control (mainly the old city), with the various holy places in the old city watched over by the various religions.
I would not have a problem with Palestinian control over areas east of the old city.

242 also allows for negotiations on the final borders, not that the green line are the final borders. (ie safe and defensible borders)

[holdencaufield]

38. It has NEVER been Palestinian Territory

For the last 2,000 years, this land has been occupied by a lot of people -- but never Palestinians Arabs. The Palestinian Arabs had their chance in 1948, but their lands of Gaza and the West Bank (which the UN partitioned for them) were taken from them by Egypt and Jordan respectively. Egypt and Jordan gave up claim to those lands in the 1980's -- effectively leaving them under Israeli control.

Israel gave control of Gaza to the Palestinian Arabs five years ago and got never-ending attacks as a reward for that gesture. What would motivate Israel to do the same for the West Bank? Israel has nothing to gain from negotiation and the Palestinian Arabs have everything to lose.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. Sorry to break into the Joan Peters alternate universe moment...

For the last 2,000 years, this land has been occupied by a lot of people -- but never Palestinians Arabs.

Yeah, those pesky Palestinians were and are just a figment of the imaginations of all those Israel-haters out there!! ;)

As for the rest of that post, that's a really warped outline of the conflict. I really think you need to lift yr game and try to make Israel sound even more awesome and kindly and wonderful than has been done so far. That way everyone will get all teary and full of the warm fuzzies and we'll be convinced that those fictional Palestinians deserve our scorn!

[holdencaufield]

47. Who said Palestinians were fictional?

Are you confused? Prior to 1948 -- the term "Palestinian" referred to anyone living in the regional of Palestine -- Jew, Muslim, Xtian, Buddhist, whatever regardless of ethnicity. It is only recently be modified to include only Palestinian Arabs who are now, apparently, a separate ethnicity.

But, the fact remains, that at no time prior to 70CE has the region known as Palestine been an independent or autonomous state.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. My apologies. They existed, but never lived in Palestine.

They just moved there recently to be spiteful, coz everyone hates Israel soooo much!

Palestinians have lived in the West Bank for a long time. Trying to pretend otherwise is just plain ignorant.


But, the fact remains, that at no time prior to 70CE has the region known as Palestine been an independent or autonomous state.

No state existed in the region until the European powers carved up the Middle East and created many of them. Why hold that against the Palestinians?

[holdencaufield]

53. Really?

"No state existed in the region until the European powers carved up the Middle East and created many of them. "


The Ottoman Empire from 1299 to 1923?
Before that, the Mamluk Turks (from Egypt)from 1100
Before that, the Fatamids... and on and on Frankish states, Byzantine states, Kurdish and Arab states. The land has been ruled by all of them since the fall of Israel in 70CE, but never has their been a Palestinian State.

Should they have a state now? Absolutely -- but one negotiate with their neighbours in good faith and not one bent on ignoring their neighbours also legitimate claims of sovereignty.

[Violet_Crumble]

75. Israel didn't exist till 1948...

Prior to that there was't an Israeli state...

[Shaktimaan]

181. correct.

So Israel has been around for 63 years now. Palestine has still yet to come into existence.
Point being that definitively insisting a specific parcel of land qualifies as Palestinian territory seems somewhat arbitrary seeing as how Palestine doesn't even exist yet.

[vminfla]

188. Come to think of it, none of the arab nations existed until after WWI

Israel wisely chose to accept the reformation of their nation. The arab population rejected the creation of an additional arab state called "Palestine". Here we are 63 years later with the arabs demanding one more do-over after another.

[sabbat hunter]

126. so what is your solution to peace?

since it seems like you do not think Israel should withdraw from the west bank?

Should it annex the west bank and give citizenship to all that live there? (which would lead to an arab majority in Israel in a generation or two)
Should it remain status quo, thus a festering wound?

[PDJane]

2. This is a myth.

Israel has put so many pre-conditions on any peace negotiations that they cannot possibly be accepted by the palestinians. It looks reasonable, but it's not.

[Dick Dastardly]

26. No, your claim is a myth. The Palestinians refused to return to negotiations and have put many pre-

conditions. Israel has agreed to the quartets no preconditions but the PA has not and is demanding pre-conditions.

Palestinians: No talks unless Israel accepts preconditions
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/palestinians-no-talks-unless-israel-accepts-preconditions-1.392163


Palestinians Hold to Peace-Talk Preconditions
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2007604,00.html



Israel hopes Quartet push for "resumption of talks without preconditions"
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-10/26/c_122202062.htm


PA: NO TALKS UNLESS ISRAEL ACCEPTS PRE-CONDITIONS
http://www.bicom.org.uk/news/news-archive/pa--no-talks-unless-israel-accepts-pre-conditions


Israel Pushes for Peace Talks without Preconditions
http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=asIOI5NJKeK0F&b=7676985&ct=11106687

[PDJane]

64. Blah,blah, blah......

If I had Israel for a neighbour, I would demand that they get behind their own borders before even talking to them. I would demand removal of all settlements, too, come to think of it, and a removal of all military ships in the gaza. The palestinians have a right to some pre-conditions. The Israeli's don't.

[JDPriestly]

3. Thanks for posting this on DU. You are very brave and will get a lot of flack.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the problem is with the Palestinians.

As for the settlements, the Israelis have destroyed settlements before. They can do it again. The Palestinians should negotiate this if it is important to them.

The United Nations established Israel as a Jewish state, specifically as a Jewish state back in the late 1940s. The USSR proposed the resolution that established Israel.

Some of my very Protestant ancestors came to the US to escape Catholic repression. I am quite aware of that history and the stories in my family, their hardships and losses. Normally, I would advocate for strict separation of church (religion) and state everywhere. But Jews and Israel present a situation that is unknown by any other religious group or nation.

Since perhaps at least AD 70 and the fall of the Temple to Jerusalem, Jews have been persecuted simply for their religious beliefs and their strict adherence to those beliefs.

Thus the Jews are recognized by people aware of their history as a group needing special protection in order to insure their safety.

No other group that I know of has faced such consistent repression based on religion, not for so long.

Palestinians are mostly either Christians or Muslims and are welcomed and can feel safe in many countries. They have a much easier time finding welcoming homes than my ancestors did. They should show Christian or Muslim charity and understand the needs of the Israelis. The Israelis would be far less defensive and protective of their interests if the Palestinians could just grow up a bit and accept the fact that they are not the only group in history that has lost what they considered to be their homeland.

Most Americans, especially early Americans suffered far greater losses than have the Palestinians. And the Jews suffered far, far more. So suffering is not a good argument here.

I'm sorry to be so harsh about this, but if the United Nations suddenly abandons Israel after having founded the country, I don't think the United Nations will be worth much at all. I doubt seriously that it will continue to exist. That would be a shame.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. It takes bravery to post?

And here I was thinking that starting a new thread merely involved copying, pasting and hitting the submit button. So, where do we line up for our bravery awards? ;)

What it doesn't take a genius to work out is that the post I'm replying to is just a bit one-eyed where one 'side' is to blame for everything while the other is faultless.

Yes, the Jewish people have suffered over the centuries, but no amount of persecution justifies the mistreatment of another group of people. Israel has a right to exist. It doesn't have a right to territory that's not part of Israel, though the sort of folk who think Palestinians could just up and move somewhere else and stop whining probably see the concept of Eretz Israel as 'special protection'.

Palestinians are mostly either Christians or Muslims and are welcomed and can feel safe in many countries.

So? What's yr point?

[JDPriestly]

34. My point is that Israel was founded as a Jewish state because of the horrors

of the Holocaust and the many, many pogroms and other forms of persecution of Jews that have taken place through the centuries. That's my point.

And no, I am not Jewish. I lived in Europe for a number of years (various countries). Jews are not safe in many parts of the world.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. What's that got to do with the comment you made about Palestinians being welcome elsewhere?

Palestinians are mostly either Christians or Muslims and are welcomed and can feel safe in many countries.

That's the comment I want to know what yr point is in saying it.

I don't recall asking you if you were Jewish, because I don't care what you are, nor where you claim to have resided. What I recall pointing out was the obvious fact that the post I replied to was incredibly one-eyed and blaming one 'side' for everything. I'd seriously suggest you attempt to gain an understanding and empathy for the Palestinians, who have been living under a brutal occupation for decades. You might understand then why it's kinda revolting to suggest that Palestinians grow up, show some charity and understand the needs of their occupiers (those needs appear to be taking as much territory as it can and making the lives of Palestinians difficult)...

There's many parts of the world that many people aren't safe in. It's not something unique to one group of people. Do you think that makes it acceptable for them to take territory that isn't theirs and expect the people there to grow up and accept it?

[JDPriestly]

42. Armenians were not safe in Turkey. They suffered genocide in Turkey.

They should have their own country. It's quite clear.

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

Israel and Palestine should negotiate a settlement, but the Palestinians have to be willing to enforce the peace as do the Israelis. From what I can tell, the Israeli government and a majority of Israelis are willing to enforce the peace. They have shown that. In the past they have even torn down settlements.

For years the Palestinians were able to work in Israel. Now they are not wanted in Israel. And why? Because of the Palestinian terrorism.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. Are you going to answer the question you actually got asked?

I wanted to know what yr point was in saying Palestinians are welcome just about anywhere. It came across as sounding very much like you feel that the Palestinians have no ties to the land they live on and wouldn't have any problems just up and moving somewhere else.

That's really nice and all about the Armenians and would make some sense if you were replying to someone who had said Israel shouldn't exist. As it stands, it's just a bit of a random thing thrown in..


..but the Palestinians have to be willing to enforce the peace as do the Israelis. From what I can tell, the Israeli government and a majority of Israelis are willing to enforce the peace.

You remember that one-eyed thing I was discussing with you in the post you just replied to? It's happening again. Yeah, it's really awesome how the peace is enforced in the West Bank when those settlers go on their rampages or attack innocent Palestinians! I just wish the Palestinians could 'enforce the peace' in exactly the same way!!

[JDPriestly]

52. Jews were at home in Europe and have had to disperse

across the world. That is just a fact of life for many, many people. The Armenians lived in Turkey. After the Armenian genocide they had to move elsewhere.

Protestants faced persecution in Catholic areas of Europe. They sought refuge in America.

Irish ancestors of Americans faced persecution from the British. They sought refuge in the US.

People often have to move from countries or land to which they are very attached.

In our time, many South Americans have had to leave the countries of their ancestors and migrate to the US due to extreme poverty. And for similar reasons, many Africans and North Africans have immigrated to Europe in recent years -- in order to provide a minimum living standard for themselves and their families.

If you get to live in the same town or even country for the entire length of your life in this time, you are very lucky. Americans move all the time. Today, it is quite rare for any American to live in an ancestral home.

Do you live in the country in which you were born? Do or did your parents? I have not always lived in the country in which I was born. My husband was not born in the US nor were my children yet we all live here.

Having an attachment to a particular land is understandable, but it is not always possible to live there. If you have a safe place to live, you are fortunate, even if it is not where you were born.

[Crunchy Frog]

73. So ethnic cleansing is okay in your book

"because it's happened to other groups of people before". It's interesting to see what some alleged progressives believe in.

[Violet_Crumble]

76. So you think the Palestinians should just move somewhere else?

That's what yr argument seems to be. If so, that's revolting. If not, you might want to actually try answering the question you were asked instead of going on about how easy it is for everyone but Israelis to just up and move somewhere else...

[shira]

81. Sigh...so you think millions of Palestinian refugees should rot in camps another 60 years...

....waiting to return to an Israel they've never lived in, and until Israel allows just that their basic civil rights should continue to be compromised in Lebanon, within the W.Bank, Gaza....?

Or, like other human beings you believe they should be recognized as citizens of the countries they were born into?

[Violet_Crumble]

90. Oh, it's the random 'question' generator!

No offense or anything, but I'm wanting for JDPriestly to answer the question I asked them, and even if you were to try to answer it instead of flinging some unrelated thing at me, I'm not really interested in yr answer. Sorry :)

[King_David]

115. That is just rude

No wonder your not getting answers .

[shira]

117. She's pretending not to realize I asked the same question she asked of another, but in reverse. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

145. I've got no idea what yr going on about

And even less interest in trying to work out what I'm supposed to be pretending about. I really wish you could channel yr sporadic fascination with me into something constructive for a change

[Violet_Crumble]

129. No it's not. I didn't want an answer from that poster n/t

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[JoDog]

8. Thank you for posting this

It's one thing a lot of people on this side of the Atlantic fail to understand: No matter what the amount of effort and goodwill, no one can negotiate with someone who not only denies your right to continue to exist, but refuses to even acknowledge that you exist right now.

The main Israeli precondition for continued talks has been recognition of its existence. The PA has refused. The logical conclusion is that the PA has no intention of accepting a 2-state solution as an endgame. Their intent is to destroy Israel. Maybe not tomorrow. Maybe not next year. But that is the idea. If it isn't, they need to prove that by recognizing Israel immediately. I won't hold my breath.

[azurnoir]

11. They recognized Israel almost 20 years ago

Israel's precondition is not simply 'right to exist' that is not good enough Israel demands recognition as the Jewish state something quite different especially when one takes into consideration that 20% of Israel's population is non-Jewish

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Apparently that's just a bunch of words...

Or so I've read in other threads here. Which makes me wonder what folk who ignore the obvious fact that the PLO recognised Israel's right to exist long ago will find acceptable when it comes to recognition. Clearly official recognition hasn't done the trick...

[pennylane100]

16. One sided versions of the truth are just a waste of time.

The fact is that God (if you believe in him) would not even take sides in this one. The Israelis founded a country on land that was not wholly owned by them. They did not compensate the other side, they just told them to go away. The other side still wants to go home. Unfortunately, they committed many acts of terrorism around the world to get some attention.

Now both sides are locked in a standoff. Israel will not let them come home and keeps taking what little land the Palestinians have left. The Palestinians keep firing rockets onto the Israeli borders which kills innocent people, but that is all they can do, because they are trapped in two separate communities or in squalid refugee camps around the region, and essential supplies are withheld as punishment.

What would make sense would be for Israel to give back land taken since 1948, compensate for land taken before 1948 and in return, Palestine would acknowledge Israel's right to exist. However since neither side will agree to this, they must both share responsibility for the continued violence.

[Shaktimaan]

23. compensate them?

How would they have done that? The Palestinians key demand was the destruction of Israel so it could be turned into Palestine. The fact is there was a population exchange, as was common at the time. The Jewish refugees of Arab states certainly did not get anything. Yet somehow it is only Israel that mysteriously owes compensation?

Israel will not let them come home

Yes, it sucks. Some of them will have to live 20 miles from where they went to high school. It's a real war crime.

and keeps taking what little land the Palestinians have left.

You have that backwards. In the past few years Israel has been giving land to the Palestinians. Re: Gaza. And have received little more than violence in return.

because they are trapped in two separate communities or in squalid refugee camps around the region

Hey, it's their own UN organization that insisted they remain in those squalid camps.

and essential supplies are withheld as punishment.

I call shenanigans on that. What essential supplies have been withheld as punishment? And how can it be that Hamas lacks essential supplies yet manages to find resources to purchase military-grade rockets to fire at Ashdod?

What would make sense would be for Israel to give back land taken since 1948, compensate for land taken before 1948 and in return, Palestine would acknowledge Israel's right to exist.

And for Israel to gain a piece of all of the states who stole their Jewish citizens' property I assume... perhaps a nice chunk of Iraq and Libya's oil profits, their historic land in Palestine like Hebron and Jerusalem, compensation paid to the families killed by terrorism, etc. Or is it only Arabs that get compensated?

On that note, what land was "taken" prior to 1948? You mean land that was purchased? How many times are Jews required to pay for any single piece of property?

[pennylane100]

27. I do not believe that Israel ever owned all of Jerusalem

or Hebron. If there were Israelis that lost land in Hebron after Israel became a state, their compensation should definitely be part of any peace settlement. Iraq and Libya are separate countries and Palestine has no control over their relationship with Israel.

There are two very separate versions of how the events took place that have lead to the current situation in these countries depending who is talking. I have a feeling that as with all conflicts, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Growing up I had always believed that Israel was a good country that fought hard to win its right to exist. What I believe now is that there are no good guys on both either side. Israel cannot continue to play the martyr role as they have committed as many atrocities as their enemy and their contradiction of claiming to be a democracy and at the same time welcoming Jewish immigrants from all over the world while not allowing Arabs who were born there to go back and their treatment of Arab Israeli citizens makes that claim a joke.

The Palestine people are also a hard group to feel sorry for. Their governments are corrupt and their treatment of their own people makes it hard to promote their cause. Their treatment of non Arabs and women is appalling. It is also, unfortunately, very likely that they will be run as a religious state which is even further bad news for the female population and non Muslims. However, it should be up to them to decide what kind of country they want to live in.


I think it will be impossible to negotiate Peace with such opposing views and only with real concessions will it ever happen. I see nothing wrong with Israel giving up all land gained since it became a state. The other side will have to concede the right of return and they have already agreed to Israel's right to exist. Of course this will not happen and in the meantime innocent people on both sides will die and another generation of young people will grow up hating their neighbors without really understanding why.

[pelsar]

41. ok....this is what i don't understand...

Their treatment of non Arabs and women is appalling. It is also, unfortunately, very likely that they will be run as a religious state which is even further bad news for the female population and non Muslims. However, it should be up to them to decide what kind of country they want to live in.

why would one, in the progressive/liberal world, promote the addition of an additional state, with all of its intl rights that from the start that has no intention of living up to the western ideals of civil rights, that the UN was founded upon? That from its very foundation will be restricting civil and minority rights.....what kind of "liberation is that"....liberation for part of the society? Furthermore once as a state, they will no longer, practically have any pressure to change.


and who is this "they" does it include the women and non muslims who may not want to be treated as second class? and furthermore what if generation 2 and 3 (post statehood) actually want a democracy, why should they be forced to go to the streets as in Iran (failed) Syrian (murdered) Libya (bombed) gaza (beat up) and possibly anyway get themselves a hamas version of government (which is what gaza got, and even if there are "buyers regrets" now its too late).

what is it that promotes nationalism over individual rights here?

[Violet_Crumble]

44. Yeah, clearly the occupation must continue. It's the progressive thing to do!

Don't you think it should be up to the women of Palestine to decide for themselves when it comes to having self-determination or continuing to live under a brutal Israeli occupation, not an outsider like you?

[pelsar]

57. how can they?

If the PA state comes in being, "as is" then those very people will not have much of a say in what their state looks like. Today they don't have a say in what their state will look like as there are no elections, there is no free speech, there is no way of making their voice heard in any way that will affect the leadership.

Furthermore, once the state is established as non democratic entity, any serious change will have to follow:
the Iranian model as they protested got shot, beat up and retreated, the syrian model which is getting them murdered in the streets, Hamas beat up those who tried for a gaza model of the arab spring. (not to mention their "day to day" activities).

are those models less brutal than the israeli occupation?


and additional thought: dictatorships don't have an expiration date, the israeli occupation does (were just not sure when or how, but its exists.....)

[shira]

62. You get the feeling all of them are for trading one occupation for another that's far worse? And...

....they simply don't care what the average Palestinian has to say about that?

"The journalist adds: "There are two options today that could take us out of this situation: Someone strong in the Gaza Strip who does not care about a confrontation with the clans, or an Israeli occupation. Many people in the Strip hope that Israel will reoccupy it because these phenomena were not prevalent during the Israeli occupation."

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/as-gaza-burns-1.219146

=======

Bassem Al-Nabris
Palestinian poet from Khan Younis, Gaza Strip

"If a there was a referendum in the Gaza Strip 'would you like the Israeli occupation to return?' half the population would vote 'yes'... But in practice, I believe that the number of those in favor is at least 70%, if not more - much higher than is assumed by the political analysts and those who follow. For the million and a half people living in this small region, things have gone too far - in practice, not just as a metaphor. with the internal conflicts, but even earlier, in the days of the previous Palestinian administration, which was corrupt and did not give the people even the tiniest hope. The fundamentalist forces which came into power also promised change and reform, but got a siege, with no security and no making a living... If the occupation returns, at least there will be no civil war, and the occupier will have a moral and legal obligation to provide the occupied people with employment and food, which they now lack."

=======

Al-Hayat Al-Jadida columnist Yahya Rabah wrote: 'When the national unity government was formed, I thought: "This will be a government of national salvation." If a government that includes Fatah, Hamas, other factions and independents associated with various factions has not been able to save the day, it means that no one can, unless Israel decides that its army should intervene. Then it will invade the Gaza Strip, kill and arrest people - but this time not as an occupying force but as an international peace-keeping force. Look what we have come to, how far we have deteriorated, and what we have done to ourselves.' (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, PA, 15 May 2007)

=======

Palestinian journalist Majed Azzam wrote: 'We should have the courage to acknowledge the truth... The only thing that prevents the chaos and turmoil in Gaza from spreading to the West Bank is the presence of the Israeli occupation in the West Bank... as opposed to its absence from the Gaza Strip.' (Al-Risala, Gaza, 14 May 2007)

=======

"People in Gaza are hoping that Israel will reenter the Gaza Strip, wipe out both Hamas and Fatah, and then withdraw again... They also say that, since the massacres, they miss the Israelis, since Israel is more merciful than who do not even know why they are fighting and killing one another. It's like organized crime, . Once, we resisted Israel together, but now we call for the return of the Israeli army to Gaza."

Faiz Abbas and Muhammad Awwad:
Al-Sinara (Nazareth), May 18, 2007

=======

"Between one murder and another, between one kidnapping and the next... our leaders continue to sit in their seats and to speak of 'resistance,' 'liberation,' 'unity,' and 'return'... They are all liars. The weapons they wish to retain, as the weapons of resistance, are actually weapons of internecine terrorism and murder... You are murdering the cause, people and future... Oh murderers, you have ruined our world, castrated our nationalism, prostituted our resistance... You have turned our lives into hell. hell is preferable... Take your government, your militias, and your gangs and go to hell."

Al-Ayyam (PA), May 17, 2007

=======

"The whole world seems to be talking about the future of the Arabs of Jerusalem, but no one has bothered asking us. The international community and the Israeli Left seem to take it for granted that we want to live under Mr. Arafat's control. We don't. Most of us despise Mr. Arafat and the cronies around him, and we want to stay in Israel. At least here I can speak my mind freely without being dumped in prison, as well as having a chance to earn an honest day's wage."

The Daily Telegraph (London), Jan. 28, 2001.

====

"The hell of Israel is better than the paradise of Arafat. We know Israeli rule stinks, but sometimes we feel like Palestinian rule would be worse."

‘Abd as-Samiya Abu Subayh, quoted in The Washington Post, July 25, 2000

[Violet_Crumble]

77. Yeah, because women have so much of a say in things under occupation...

I'll forgo the dripping sarcasm icon....

It's not a case of either/or when it comes to women's rights. I'd much rather listen to what a Palestinian woman thinks about things, rather than outsiders who appear to support the continuation of the occupation...

[pelsar]

85. we hear them.......one was interviewed by israeli TV last week

they want both...womens rights and a Palestinians state.....so too do many of the women of gaza (but they've been shut down). But they are in the minority, no western democratic party has any real influence in the west bank nor in gaza. (Israeli arab women have it rough but at least they have the state and israeli culture backing them up)

i've been trying to figure out how to ask this (i'm rewriting this for the 5th time).

the PA appears to have rejected western democratic values. Hamas is waiting in wings in the west bank to repeat gaza....how does a progressive square that circle, promoting the creating of a non democratic state....and given the environment, the neighboring states, "western pressures" will have little affect if at all interms of pressuring them to accept western values once they have their state.

[Violet_Crumble]

91. It makes sense that they'd want an end to the occupation, not more of the same...

It comes across as just a bit paternalistic when outsiders try to claim otherwise, imo...

[Crunchy Frog]

96. C'mon Violet, get with it. It's the "white man's burden"

to perpetuate the occupation indefinitely in order to save the Palestinians from their own barbaric natures. All true progressives should be grateful for Israel's monumental self sacrifice in maintaining the occupation in order to help those poor benighted people.

[Violet_Crumble]

106. Yeah, I've noticed the White Man's Burden thing happening a lot...

It's pathetic and pretty bigoted...

[shira]

111. No one claims the IDF is there to preserve Palestinian freedoms...

You continue to deflect from Pelsar's question.

Why not cut the shit and try answering him honestly and thoroughly?

[Violet_Crumble]

135. There definately is an attitude that the IDF is there for the good of the Palestinians...

Y'know, what with them being a lesser culture and all. Israel knows what's best for them and that's occupation.

Which is why I was talking to Crunchy about the White Man's Burden. No need for you to get so nasty and rude, Shira!

[shira]

138. Again, no one claims the IDF occupies Palestinians to give Palestinians their basic rights...

The IDF is there to protect Israelis from another Intifada, suicide bombings, and rockets.

UNSCR 242 gives the IDF a legal basis for being there until land for peace is successfully negotiated.

[Violet_Crumble]

146. Again, try reading what u reply to instead of repeating the same thing

Ill try to make this as clear as possible for you. There most definately is an attitude amongst some 'supporters' of Israel that Israel needs to continue the occupation for the good of the Palestinians, who aren't capable or willing to be civilized. Not sure why you'd try to deny it as its an attitude you've displayed in this forum

[Name removed]

160. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

162. Self deleted

[shira]

163. No one here is arguing Israel needs to continue the occupation for the good of Palestinians.

Why not just ask participants here if any believe that?

If you think that's what some here believe, find the posts....

[Violet_Crumble]

164. What's not sinking in about what I've been posting?

I'll repeat it again. Read it more closely this time, because I honestly don't know how to make it any clearer and don't understand why you return repeating the same thing that you said before...

I'll try to make this as clear as possible for you. There most definately is an attitude amongst some 'supporters' of Israel that Israel needs to continue the occupation for the good of the Palestinians, who aren't capable or willing to be civilized. Not sure why you'd try to deny it as its an attitude you've displayed in this forum...

As yr struggling to understand what I'm saying, and have a regular habit of falsely claiming other posters here believe things they don't, I'm not surprised at all you would be blind to the attitude I'm referring to...

[pelsar]

109. of course they want an end to the occupation...but

Palestinian women under the PA have less and under the hamas have even less...but these are obvious, nor do i believe its reasonable, with so many trying to help the Palestinians to ignore their situation and basically tell them "its their problem to deal with".

Why 'sentence them to "fight alone?" they do need help from the outside, not from israel but from their supporters


http://www.stophonourkillings.com/?q=node/6721

this is the perspective that i believe.....written by a Palestinian female journalist:
Another victim of backwardness; another sacrifice made by the Palestinian people waiting to become an egalitarian society which respects basic human rights," she wrote. "We forget that before we can demand our rights from others, we must respect these rights amongst ourselves."

[Violet_Crumble]

131. How do you suggest help from the outside happen?

What do you believe can be done to help the fight for equality for women?

[pelsar]

141. the modest plan

it can't come from jewish israel directly....only as a secondary support group, the israeli arabs, who have a far better understanding of the culture and have a strong need for it to become westernize...as they too identify themselves as Palestinians should be involved, they will know when the PA is bullshittiing them. Womens groups already meet in israel, but they should be meeting in Ramalla, in Jenin....

there has to be help from the outside.....the UN teachers will have to defy the PA (hamas is lost at this point....) and teach about women's rights, civil rights, the college students that come to protest the wall should be having cladestine civil rights seminars during the evenings, but they too will have to defy their handlers. Just as some jewish kids get a free ride on birthright and join the Palestenian protest.

They will have to be brave, really brave, some will lose their lives......the PA won't take it easy, and the PA security is a different type then the IDF....but the Palestinian women are educated and know what they deserve and will appreciate the help.

Take all those resources spent fighting israel, turn it inside to help the Palestinians get their own civil rights,and soon they will find a more than willing partner with israel...war ended

[Violet_Crumble]

147. While I agree with some of what you say...

I very strongly disagree with the last bit of yr post. The resources used by the PA to 'fight' Israel is of a diplomatic nature. There's no reason at all that it should stop. The fight for women's rights should not be used as an excuse to not fight for the human rights of all Palestinians. The occupation isn't going to vanish if women gain equality. Women's rights isn't why Israel is occupying the West Bank

Are you sure there's no women's groups in the West Bank? I thought there were.

[pelsar]

152. The PA is not relevant.....

The PA is not relevant to change, they can do what they want in terms of israel......and they will fight any civil change....

the Palestinians journalist was right in that they can't demand civil rights from israel if they own govt, their own society rejects those very civil rights. She made it clear that they first have to change themselves, their own soceity....and that is a very big part of the conflict, women's rights are just a small part of the larger problem of lack of civil rights.

there are a few women's groups but they have very very very little influence, they have to go to israel to meet, hence there is no influence on the PA, nor is there any public protest. They are in fact invisible.

[Violet_Crumble]

153. Then who is relevant and what resources are you referring to?

And I disagree with what you say about women's rights being only a small part of a larger issue. I think women's rights are a big issue, especially somewhere like Palestine where women have the double whammy of being impacted by customs and traditions in their society, as well as being affected badly by the Occupation.

To be fair, women's groups here have very little influence as well. If the Mad Monk wins the next election, the rights we've gained are going to take a massive step back into the dark ages. Anyway, when it comes to women's groups in Palestine, I did some googling, and there's a whole lot of them. I could contact them all and ask if it's true that they have to go into Israel to meet, but I suspect I'd be wasting their time as I can't see anything online that suggests that they can't meet in the West Bank.


http://www.watcpal.org/english/display.asp?DocID=26

I did find this info about discrimination against Palestinian women. After reading it, it's clear that using women's rights as any sort of argument for the Occupation to continue just doesn't work...

'Palestinian women's organizations and official bodies, such as the prominent women's coalition, Palestinian Women's Affairs Technical Committee, have been very active in ensuring that women's issues are addressed in the new Palestinian entity. They have worked together to win the reversal of a few regulations and to ensure that newly drafted laws discussed by the Palestinian Legislative Council do not discriminate against women. Because of their collective work, the Palestinian Labor Law and Social Status Law are now mostly gender-sensitive. However, while women's organizations were more visible and outspoken in the relatively peaceful period that followed the Oslo Accord, they have been less visible and vocal during the second Intifada for a number of reasons, including the need to focus on day-to-day issues involved in life under occupation.

The freedom that Palestinian women's organizations enjoy depends heavily on the political situation in the area. When the situation is more stable, women's groups have more freedom to address the concerns and issues of women. Another factor that influences the level of freedom women's organizations enjoy is the nature of the issue they address. While women feel more empowered and able to address issues dealing with discrimination related to passports, citizenship rights, and raising the minimum age of marriage, they are more severely attacked by extremist Islamic groups when they try to tackle issues dealing with family and inheritance. For example, during the Model Parliament project in 1998, Islamic groups verbally attacked women's organizations and a few activists, claiming that they were sabotaging culture and tradition and introducing concepts contradictory to Islamic Shari'a.'

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=180

[pelsar]

154. i give more credibility to the journalist who lives and writes there

she writes for a major PA paper and made a very very clear statement:

she is claiming that they cannot demand rights from israel when they can't get those very rights from their society. I agree. It goes to creating a stable society.

There is a huge resource waiting to be used to push women's and other rights and that is the massive amount of volunteers and UN groups within the west bank...these will all dry up and leave when they get their state, and the PA state will claim "it none of their business"... leaving the women and others to be "on their own.' Its a waste of an opportunity of real change and a indirect way of changing the middle east...from the ground up.

I don't mean that women's rights are a small issue, (poor writing) just one of many civil rights issues, perhaps thats the most striking one, the one that is most sensitive and obvious, the one that garner the most help?

they can fight the occupation as much as they want.....i just think its a poor use of resources, it may be more "exciting" but its not doing to well the direct approach and i think there are better ways...

[Violet_Crumble]

155. If that's what she's claimed, she's got it wrong...

What's being talked about is two different sets of rights. One is human rights and self-determination for all Palestinians, which they don't currently have, and the other is equality for women. They don't have either under the Israeli occupation, so there's no reason why ending the occupation should be dependent on women's rights being brought up to a level that satisfies outsiders. The occupation by it's very nature adds to the difficulties faced by Palestinian women, and I noticed when I took a look at some groups online that they not only have a strong focus on rights for women, but also in opposing the occupation. As with the groups I read about, I don't think it's an either/or sort of thing where resources should be used to fight for only one thing....

Thanks for explaining what you were trying to say about women's rights, btw. It makes sense now :)

[pelsar]

167. i don't think you can claim she's got it wrong.....

she's lives it, writes it, and researches it ....
that gives her in my mind more credibility than historians and us outsiders

We forget that before we can demand our rights from others, we must respect these rights amongst ourselves.

she's writes a lot about the occupation and its effects....but she also recognizes that not all aspects of Palestinians society can be blamed on the occupation, and she is clearly stating that.
(isn't the occupation about demanding rights from israel? the right for self-determination?)
____________

I suspect she is very aware of the women's rights problems in gaza since hamas took over, and is aware that it can in fact happen in the west bank. One of her collegees, Jamal Zakout, during an interview
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/27/world/la-fg-gaza-feminist-qa-20100627

Q: Can you be a feminist in Gaza today?
A: We try. Things in Gaza now are not like before, when there were some openings to express different ideas and to have more freedom. Hamas controls everything, and they know everything that is going on.
_____________

no matter how much they may want the occupation to disappear and have their own state, i get the impression that its no longer so black and white for them. Oslo and gaza has shown that self-determination does not guarantee automatically a better society, it can lead to a worse one ....and it appears that it is a concern for them, and that should not be dismissed by outsiders.

[Violet_Crumble]

173. I can claim it, which is what I've done...

Just because someone's a feminist, it doesn't make that one particular individual correct, especially when there's other feminists who don't agree. There's things I don't agree on when it comes to one of the major feminist groups here. So who's right and who's wrong to someone who's argument is that the group here must be right because they live it, write it and research it? When it boils down to something where there are dissenting views within a group, whether something is correct or not really comes down to the strengths or weaknesses of the argument itself...

As I said, the fight for freedom and self-determination is about human rights for all Palestinians, and the fight for equality for women is about civil rights. They're two different sets of rights controlled by two different parties. There's no reasonable argument that can be put forward as to why full equality for women must be a prerequisite for Israel ending the occupation.

[pelsar]

189. of course you can claim it....

(wrong text on my part).... but i disagree with your separation.....

it appears that the lady and i disagree with you here:

There's no reasonable argument that can be put forward as to why full equality for women must be a prerequisite for Israel ending the occupation

the lady is basically saying if they don't respect themselves they cannot demand it from others, knowing full well what that means in terms of PA self govt. i would say she very much has a reasonable argument, especially since she has to live with the consequences

[Violet_Crumble]

193. And I did so because it's correct...

the lady is basically saying if they don't respect themselves they cannot demand it from others

They're not demanding respect from Israel. What they want is for the occupation to end and to be allowed to emerge as a viable and independent state. The emergence of a state and the ending of the occupation can't be withheld because 'supporters' of Israel are demanding that the future state prove before it even exists that it's a nirvana of progressive liberalism. When things came to a head and pressure was finally put on Indonesia to end its occupation of East Timor, not once did I see anyone trying to argue that East Timor shouldn't gain independence because what with it being a predominantly Catholic population, there was a strong chance abortion would be illegal, which is exactly how it came to pass. I'm pro-choice, so using the logic applied to the I/P issue, I should have been opposed to the ending of the occupation and the creation of a new state. I wasn't, though, because civil rights within a future state are on a different level than the lack of basic human rights afforded to all in occupied territory...

[vminfla]

190. A "nation" that will intentionally deny human rights and be a pariah state is unacceptable

Are women not allowed self-determination? Or is only Hamas entitled to self-determination in its attempt to destroy Israel?

[Violet_Crumble]

194. Really? Israel falls into that category, but I've yet to see you say it's unacceptable...

And last time I checked, there's no group of people anywhere in the world that are solely made up of women, so either yr mistaken or more likely don't understand the meaning of the term 'self-determination'. Self-determination is something that applies to a group of people who want their own state. For example, in the early 20th century, the attempts by Zionists to get the big powers of Britain, the USSR and the US to support their quest for their own state was them exercising their right to self-determination.

[King_David]

116. You are wrong

The progressive thing to do is to stand up for women , gay ,minority rights etc

You dont know this?

Progressives do not think women may choose to be beaten battered killed
or discriminated against.

Being pro Palistinian is NOT enough to make one progressive.despite
what some on THIS forum feel.
David Duke is NOT progressive.

[shira]

121. Nah, they'll just wait to stand up for women and gays once a Palestinian state is established....

...and once that happens, you can bet they'll advocate for women and gays like they do now for other mideast countries in existence.

Meaning they'll do absolutely nothing but tow the party line (Islamist anti-Liberal West) and call us bigots and racists for daring to question other cultures.

They know it - and that's why they're deflecting and throwing up all sorts of red herrings.

[Violet_Crumble]

133. Who's 'they'? Yr not making any sense at all...

Can you explain who 'they' are?

[Violet_Crumble]

149. Hey shira! You must have missed this one.

It's kind of amusing that you don't reply to the one post where I ask you a question but pop up everywhere else in threads where I'm talking to someone else

[shira]

161. 'They', as in the Palestinians' bestest most extreme LW buddies who care so much about them. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

165. What's that got to do with what I posted? Yr responses are incredibly random in their nature...

I might start randomly responding to people who reply to yr posts by talking about 'they' who are the Israelis bestest most extreme buddies who care about them so much and have no respect or concern for any Palestinian minority group and who get off on calling those of us who see Israelis and Palestinians as equals of being bigots blah blah blah.

[Violet_Crumble]

132. No, yr wrong...

See, the progressive thing to do is to stand up for women and gay and minority rights, and not to use them as an excuse to deny groups of people the same human rights as Israelis have.

You don't know this?

I'm pretty much aware that those on the Left don't approve of the abuse of women, so not sure where yr heading with that one...

I don't know of anyone in this forum who thinks that being pro-Palestinian is enough to make someone progressive...

[King_David]

134. Ha

That's precious .

[Violet_Crumble]

156. Ha Ha

Yes, I thought so!

[pennylane100]

49. I notice that you failed to comment on the harsh treatment

that the Palestinians endure under Israeli occupation. However, that is beside the point. I acknowledge that I have low expectations for freedom to flourish in a Palestinian state. But that is not a reason to keep them living under Israeli occupation.

Individual rights to not exist for them at the moment, Statehood would give them a better chance of gaining rights than under the present occupation where in Gaza they are blockaded in and in the West Bank where they are being overrun by illegal settlements. Either way their choices are few but it should be theirs to make.

You ask why would the progressive liberal world promote a state that has no intention of living up to western ideals. Sadly, that can now be said of this country's support of Israel where prominent religious leaders there speak openly about the need to build communities reserved only for Jews. There are many Jewish communities that severely restrict the rights of women and Israel Arabs usually are treated poorly.

Wile they can with some small justification say the occupation ensures the safety of their citizens they cannot justify it by saying that the Palestinians are not up to running their own country. Sink or swim, that is the Palestinian choice and the sooner both sides sit down and start acting responsibly, the better.

[pelsar]

59. I'm asking about the principle.....

I'm very aware of the israeli occupation and also i'm very aware that despite all the news it gets, its far less harsh then the hamas occupation of gaza, that the Palestinians had more freedom and civil rights under the israeli occupation pre intifda I than then do under the PA and the consequences of Arafats decisions...but that is not the point (i'm also aware of the value of nationalism and being governed by "one own" as a value and their need for it).

why would statehood under a dictatorship give them a better chance a rights? History does not bear this out....The Palestinians voted in Hamas in gaza out of their own free will..and look what that got them? Iran, had a little revolution in 79, and a religious dictator took charge, the attempt at changing that was a massive failure. Syrian? Libya? Egypt (is now under military dictatorship, with the MB making their move).

how is this "change" going to happen to a democracy?...

as far as the attempt to make israel out to be some kind of country that is soon to be some kind of theocratic dictatorship or a non liberal democratic country, don't go there, your confusing the freedom of speech with political policy. Liberal democracies let everybody have their say and sometimes let communities have their own subcultures to live within, be they arab, druze, jewish (many of which are anti liberal), But thats been there from the start just as israels courts further expand upon the civil rights of the citizens.

[rayofreason]

28. And Arabs will compensate Israel...

...for all of the property seized from Jews who were expelled from Arab countries, right?

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

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/jewref.html

[Violet_Crumble]

30. Do you agree that Palestinians should be compensated by Israel?

Just curious.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

40. I'm going to steer clear of the 'Arab wet dream' stuff...

It's just a bit on the off side, so I'll stick with what I asked you about, which was compensation...

Israel is responsible for compensating Palestinians whose homes it took after refusing to allow them to return. This was done to around 750,000 Palestinians just prior to the creation of Israel and during the 1948 war. Responsibility for any compensation to any Jews who were actually forced from their homes and not allowed to return would be with the country responsible, not the Palestinians who were expelled by Israel. Another reason why the two can't be tied together is that in some instances Jews weren't expelled but left willingly and didn't lose any property. It all depends on which country it was and when they moved to Israel....

[rayofreason]

63. And many Palestinians left willingly as well...

...told by Arab radio to get out of the way of the armies who would slaughter the Jews and then the Arabs to return home, and claim the Judenrein lands as well. Didn't work out as advertised.

Sorry, but I will not hold Israel to standard that is applied no where else in the world. Israel should not have to pay a dime for displaced Arabs unless there is a compensation for displaced Jews as part of the deal. The Arab world as a whole attacked Israel, and it is they who refused to resettle refugees, unlike what happened with the far vaster numbers displaced in WW2. Moreover, when is Poland (or more properly, Russia) going to pay for displaced Germans? When is Russia going to pay for displaced Poles or Finns? Germany started WW2 in Europe and paid dearly for it, including the loss of territory. Good object lesson there. Arabs tried to annihilate Israel and exterminate the Jews in the land of Israel and got a bloody nose for it and less territory than they would have had in the UN partition. Another good object lesson in my opinion. When you fuck up royally there are consequences. Unfortunately, Arab political culture is so screwed up that practically no one has learned the lesson. The overwhelming sentiment is still that Israel must be destroyed. This is only one of the many pathologies of modern Arab culture (gender apartheid being another biggie) that has reduced a people that once led the world in learning to a cultural and economic backwater that seems to lose relative ground each year, as documented in a report by Arab intellectuals.

http://www.economist.com/node/1213392

Those who would demand one-sided payments from Israel to the Palestinians along with other things, particularly the right to flood Israel with Arabs to turn it into another dysfunctional Arab state (but I repeat myself) that could slaughter the Jews at will, would like to reverse what happened on the battlefield. It is equivalent to demanding that that Germany be given Silesia, East Prussia (and the Baltic coast connecting it to Germany), and Alsace-Lorraine. WW1 and WW2 are to be a mulligan. Not going to happen.

Nothing will be settled in the Middle East in this generation, though politicians will go through the motions. The Palestinians will pretend to be negotiating in order to get EU and US subsidies while nursing their dreams of expelling or killing all the Jews. Israelis, many of who read Arabic and are well aware of the real goal as taught to children who must be taught in explicit terms to hate, will pretend to negotiate back for appearances sake, not that it will help them much in the court of world opinion.

What will unfreeze the situation will be the Arab collapse. I am extremely pessimistic about the future of Arab societies in the next couple of decades. The oil is running out, and the development of new fossil fuel sources (particularly in the Americas, where in 10 years the US will be self-sufficient and actually a major exporter of oil and gas, along with Canada and Brazil) will mean that they will lose what leverage they have. As birth rates in the Arab world crash, the demographic pyramid will invert and those societies won't be able to handle it. Without oil, they have nothing. There is not a single university in the Arab world that produces graduates who can compete on the world stage. So how will those societies survive? In some cases we won't have to wait decades for the chaos to come. Egypt will runs out of money before long and the world will not give them the 10s of billions needed to pay for corruption and buy food (in that order). So Egyptians will starve. The food riots will produce the need for a strongman, perhaps a theocracy as well, and it will only make the problem worse since what little aid goes in will dry up.

With all of this calamity there will be less ability for war with Israel, though the enthusiasm for same might rise as a means of distraction. But such a war would make the nakba look tame by comparison and precipitate an even greater Arab collapse. No, the war against Israel will end with the exhaustion of the Arab will to destroy it. Then there will be real peace.

[Violet_Crumble]

78. That Arab radio broadcasts thing wasn't true...

I know it's clung to by folk who like to equate Arabs with Nazis, but that claim has been well and truly debunked and it's been done in some detail in this forum in the past. If you can't track those old threads down, let me know and I'll go searching for you if yr interested...

[shira]

82. You're wrong again and have been corrected on this multiple times...

"The radio stations of the Arab regimes kept repeating to us: 'Get away from the battle lines. It's a matter of ten days or two weeks at the most, and we'll bring you back to Ein-Kerem (near Jerusalem).' And we said to ourselves, 'That's a very long time. What is this? Two weeks? That's a lot!' That's what we thought (then). And now 50 years have gone by."
PA TV (Fatah), July 7, 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuGqpFxogRg&feature=player_embedded


Even more here...
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=1102

[Violet_Crumble]

92. No, I'm not wrong, but I'm not surprised yr still peddling those lies...

Historians (as opposed to the zealoted extremists you prefer who thrive on the Palestinians = Nazis routine) have searched through archives of the time and found that there were no radio broadcasts. I know that really upsets you that there wasn't some orchestrated thing showing that most Palestinians were raving antisemites just itching to get into a bit of genocide, but I'm hoping you'll get past it eventually...

[shira]

95. In addition to the elderly Palestinian man on video who you ignored, here's the Economist...

"Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit…It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained…and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades." The Economist, October 2, 1948.

[Violet_Crumble]

99. Well, clearly some elderly man and the Economist trump professional historians!

That's sarcasm for the sarcasm-impaired. See, repeating the same crap again and again means yr just peddling the same old crap that's already been debunked. I'll repeat it even though you'll ignore it yet again. Historians haven't located these alleged radio broadcasts when they've searched through the old radio archives for them. They're a hoax.

And because I could have sworn that you've been corrected on that same false claim quite a few times before, I went back and searched and immediately discovered just one example of where you've been corrected. I'll repost the entire thing for the benefit of those reading who are interested in facts rather than the Palestinians = genocidal antisemitic monsters that some are keen to paint them as. (Kudos to Douglas Carpenter for posting the following information)



to quote former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami - and from page 43 of Scars of War Wounds of Peace: The Arab Israeli Tragedy

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Scars-War-Wounds-Peace-Israeli-Arab/dp/0195181581/sr=1-1/qid=1166681762/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books

" Benny Morris found no evidence to show 'that either the leaders of the Arab states or the Mufti ordered or directly encouraged the mass exodus'. Indeed Morris found evidence to the effect that the local Arab leadership and militia commanders discouraged flight, and the Arab radio stations issued calls to the Palestinians to stay put, and even to return to their homes if they had already left. True, there were more than a few cases where local Arab commanders ordered the evacuation of villages. But these seemed to gave been tactical decisions taken under very specific military conditions..."

This was already established since 1961 thanks to the scholarly work of Irish journalist Erskine Childers:

Examining every official Israeli statement about the Arab exodus, I was struck by the fact that no primary evidence of evacuation orders was ever produced. The charge, Israel claimed, was "documented"; but where were the documents? There had allegedly been Arab radio broadcasts ordering the evacuation; but no dates„ names of stations, or texts of messages were ever cited. In Israel in 1958, as a guest of the Foreign Office and therefore doubly hopeful of serious assistance, I asked to be shown the proofs, I was assured they existed, and was promised them. None had been offered when I left, but I was again assured. I asked to have the material sent on to me. I am still waiting.

...

Even Jewish broadcasts (in Hebrew) mentioned such Arab appeals to stay put. Zionist newspapers in Palestine reported the same: none so much as hinted at any Arab evacuation orders.

The fact is that Israel's official charges, which have vitally influenced the last ten years of Western thought about the refugees, are demonstrably and totally hollow. And from this alone, suspicion is justified. Why make such charges at all? On the face of it, this mass exodus might have been entirely the result of "normal" panic and wartime dislocation.

We need not even -touch upon Arab evidence that panic was quite deliberately incited. The evidence is there, on the Zionist record. For example, on March 27, four days before the big offensive against Arab centres by the official Zionist (Haganah) forces, the Irgun's radio unit broadcast in Arabic. Irgun, a terrorist organisation like the Stern Gang, was officially disowned by Ben Gurion and the Haganah. Yet just four days before the Haganah offensive Irgun warned "Arabs in urban agglomerations" that typhus, cholera and similar diseases would break out, "heavily" among. them "in April and May.

....There is one recorded instance of such an appeal. It is beyond dispute even by Arabs, that in Haifa the late gentle Mayor, Shabeitai Levi, with the tears streaming down his face, implored the city's Arabs to stay. But elsewhere in Haifa, Arthur Koestler wrote in his book that Haganah loudspeaker vans and the Haganah radio promised that city's Arabs escort to "Arab territory," and "hinted at terrible consequences if their warning were disregarded." There are many witnesses of this loudspeaker method elsewhere. In Jerusalem the Arabic warning from the vans was, "The road to Jericho is open! Fly from Jerusalem before you are all killed!" (Meyer Levin in Jerusalem Embattled). Bertha Vester, a Christian missionary, reported that another theme was, "Unless you leave your homes, the fate of Deir Yassin will be your fate." The Haganah radio station also broadcast, in Arabic, repeated news of Arabs fleeing "in terror and fear" from named places.

Still, however, we have plumbed this exodus only so far as panic is concerned. There are U.N. and Economist reports of forcible expulsion, which is something else. How much evidence is there for this? And were only the "unofficial" Irgun and Stern forces responsible? This is what Nathan Chofshi, one of the original Jewish pioneers in Palestine, wrote in an ashamed rebuttal of an American Zionist rabbi's charges of evacuation orders:

If Rabbi Kaplan really wanted to know what happened, we old Jewish settlers in Palestine who witnessed the fight could tell him how and in what manner we, Jews, forced the Arabs to leave cities and villages ... some of them were driven out by force of arms; others were made to leave by deceit, lying and false promises. It is enough to cite the cities of Jaffa, Lydda, Ramleh, Beersheba, Acre from among numberless others. (in `Jewish Newsletter,' New York, February 9, 1959).

http://www.users.cloud9.net/~recross/israel-watch/ErskinChilders.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=311586&mesg_id=311608

[shira]

107. Your sources somehow missed all this too....including Mahmoud Abbas admitting to it

Time's report of the battle for Haifa (May 3, 1948) was similar: "The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city....By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa."

"The Arab states succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity. They
did not recognize them as a unified people until the states of the world did so, and this is regret-
table."
-- Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), from the official journal of the PLO, Falastin el-Thawra ("What We Have
Learned and What We Should Do"), Beirut, March 1976.


"Abu Mazen Charges that the Arab States Are the Cause of the Palestinian Refugee Problem" (Wall
Street Journal; June 5, 2003):
Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) wrote an article in March 1976 in Falastin al-Thawra, the
official journal of the PLO in Beirut: "The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the
Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny, but instead they abandoned them, forced them to
emigrate and to leave their homeland, imposed upon them a political and ideological
blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in
Eastern Europe."


"The Arabs of Haifa fled in spite of the fact that the Jewish authorities guaranteed their safety and rights as citizens of Israel."
-- Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, New York Herald Tribune, June 30, 1949

In his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948-49, also admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave: Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.

In listing the reasons for the Arab failure in 1948, Khaled al-Azm (Syrian Prime Minister) notes that
"Since 1948, it is we who have demanded the return of the refugees, while it is we who made them
leave. We brought disaster upon a million Arab refugees by inviting them and bringing pressure on
them to leave. We have accustomed them to begging...we have participated in lowering their morale
and social level...Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson and throwing stones
upon men, women and children...all this in the service of political purposes..."
-- Khaled el-Azm, Syrian prime minister after the 1948 War, in his 1972 memoirs, published in 1973.


"The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade," said Habib Issa in the New York Lebanese paper, Al Hoda (June 8, 1951). "He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean....Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down."

Even Jordan's King Abdullah, writing in his memoirs, blamed Palestinian leaders for the refugee problem: The tragedy of the Palestinians was that most of their leaders had paralyzed them with false and unsubstantiated promises that they were not alone; that 80 million Arabs and 400 million Muslims would instantly and miraculously come to their rescue.

"The Arab states which had encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promise to help
these refugees."
-- The Jordanian daily newspaper Falastin, February 19, 1949.

"The 15th May, 1948, arrived ... On that day the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead."
-- The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, October 12, 1963

"Arabs still living in Israel recall being urged to evacuate Haifa by Arab military commanders who wanted to bomb the city."
-- Newsweek, January 20, 1963

"The Arab Exodus …was not caused by the actual battle, but by the exaggerated description spread
by the Arab leaders to incite them to fight the Jews. …For the flight and fall of the other villages it is
our leaders who are responsible because of their dissemination of rumors exaggerating Jewish
crimes and describing them as atrocities in order to inflame the Arabs ... By spreading rumors of
Jewish atrocities, killings of women and children etc., they instilled fear and terror in the hearts of the
Arabs in Palestine, until they fled leaving their homes and properties to the enemy."
-- The Jordanian daily newspaper Al Urdun, April 9, 1953.

[Violet_Crumble]

108. They're not *my* sources. They're reputable historians...

And it's no good you completely ignoring what they say and continuing to peddle the same crap that's long been debunked. It's clear you won't read a single word of what was said to you in the other thread or in this one, so I'll aim this at those reading who actually are interested in something other than portraying Palestinians as Nazi-loving monsters...


A normal person interested in a rational discussion would start their reply with something along the lines of 'I see that there hasn't been any records found of radio broadcasts. My argument for this would be...' and they'd go from there. They wouldn't just go to some site somewhere (I notice you don't even supply a link) and copy and paste more of the same that's already been well and truly debunked....

[shira]

110. They're not reputable on this. They've been debunked by all the evidence proving them wrong...

Your claim that the quotes cited above were debunked long ago is nothing short of ludicrous.

The sources you cite don't even mention the quotes from the London Economist, Time, the Syrian and Jordanian leadership, or Mahmoud Abbas.

Those reputable sources simply ignore them as you do.

[Violet_Crumble]

130. For fuck's sake. Try reading what was posted...

And try providing a link to where you got all those snippets from. Then you can show me where the record of the broadcast exists in the archives that Benny Morris searched through. I won't hold my breath waiting for any of it...

[shira]

139. You've been corrected so you shouldn't keep posting the same bullshit over and over again. NT

[Violet_Crumble]

148. Put down the mirror and step slowly away from it

It gets really silly when it gets to the point that yr calling the work of reputable and professional historians bullshit and thinking that qualifies as correcting someone. If you were to try correcting the information supplied, I'd suggest you start with explaining how those who found no record of such broadcasts in the archives they searched through managed to miss them. And could you also supply a link to the site you got the stuff you posted earlier?

[shira]

159. Here's a source proving you're wrong...

http://www.standwithus.com/pdfs/flyers/biglies06.pdf

[Violet_Crumble]

166. No, it doesn't. It's peddling stuff that's been debunked and that propaganda site is ignoring...

I really wish you'd take some of that massive investment you put into trying to spread an image of Palestinians as genocidal maniacs and put it into reading the information posted that debunked it. It's no good just posting the same stuff that's been debunked by professional historians like Morris and pretending it was never debunked. I imagine this is a similar experience that I'd have if I wasted my time going back to debating anti-abortion zealots or 9/11 conspiracy theorists who both blindly cling to their TrUtH and ignore anything that might disturb their preconceived stances, which of course are those of people who apparently never change their views and are offended when others do...

If you'd read the link that was provided for you, you'd have noticed that it referred to the very same Economist article that yr touting as being proof.

'Why? The answer, I believe, lies in the third of the three issues Israel argues-in the cause itself of the mass exodus. The very fact that cause is argued by both sides is significant. Israel claims that the Arabs left because they were ordered to, and deliberately incited into panic, by their own leaders who wanted the field cleared for the 1948 war. It is also argued that there would today be no Arab refugees if the Arab States had not attacked the new Jewish State on May 15, 1948 (though 800,000 had already fled before that date). The Arabs charge that their people were evicted at bayonet-point and by panic deliberately incited by the Zionists.

Examining every official Israeli statement about the Arab exodus, I was struck by the fact that no primary evidence of evacuation orders was ever produced. The charge, Israel claimed, was "documented"; but where were the documents? There had allegedly been Arab radio broadcasts ordering the evacuation; but no dates„ names of stations, or texts of messages were ever cited. In Israel in 1958, as a guest of the Foreign Office and therefore doubly hopeful of serious assistance, I asked to be shown the proofs, I was assured they existed, and was promised them. None had been offered when I left, but I was again assured. I asked to have the material sent on to me. I am still waiting.

While in Israel, however, I met Dr. Leo Kohn, professor of political science at Hebrew University and an ambassador-rank adviser to the Israeli Foreign Office. He had written one of the first official pamphlets on the Arab refugees. I asked him for concrete evidence of the Arab evacuation orders. Agitatedly, Dr. Kohn replied: "Evidence? Evidence? What more could you want than this?" and he took up his own pamphlet. "Look at this `Economist' report," and he pointed to a quotation. "You will surely not suggest that the `Economist' is a Zionist journal?"

The quotation is one of about five that appear in every Israeli speech and pamphlet, and are in turn used by every sympathetic analysis. It seemed very impressive: it referred to the exodus from Haifa, and to an Arab broadcast order as one major reason for that exodus.

I decided to turn up the relevant (October 2) 1948 issue of the 'Economist.' The passage that as literally, gone around the world was certainly there, but I had already noticed one curious word in it. This was a description of the massacre at Deir Yassin as an "incident." No impartial observer of Palestine in 1948 calls what happened at this avowedly nonbelligerent, unarmed Arab village in April, 1948, an "incident"-any more than Lidice is called an "incident." Over 250 old men, women and children were deliberately butchered, stripped and mutilated or thrown into a well, by men of the Zionist Irgun Zvai Leumi.

Seen in its place in the full `Economist' article, it was at once clear that Dr. Kohn's quotation was a second-hand account, inserted as that of an eye-witness at Haifa, by the journal's own correspondent who had not been in that city at the time. And in the rest of the same article, written by the Economist correspondent himself, but never quoted by Israel, the second great wave of refugees were described as "all destitute, as the Jewish troops gave them an hour, in which to quit, but simultaneously requisitioned all transport."'

http://www.users.cloud9.net/~recross/israel-watch/ErskinChilders.html

[shira]

168. None of those quotes have been debunked, including the London Economist...

Your source WRT the London Economist quote did nothing to debunk that quote. In that link I cited for you, you'll find an Arab leader admitting it was a mistake to exaggerate Israel's crimes (like Deir Yassin). So much for the debunking...

In fact, a TIME magazine article written just months prior to that (again see the link) tells the same story. Your source doesn't even mention that.

Moreover, your sources do not attempt to refute all others quoted like Mahmoud Abbas and the former leaders of Syria and Jordan. They cannot debunk that which they simply ignore.

[Violet_Crumble]

174. The claims about Arab radio broadcasts have been debunked....

There's no records at all of those broadcasts having existed. You want to take the word of partisan propaganda sites like you've been linking to over professional historians, then no-one can stop you from doing so. But don't demand that others embrace such blind disregard for evidence...

[sabbat hunter]

169. What about the fact

that Benny Morris does say that some of the Palestinians left due to orders from Arab leaders to leave their villages?


This is according to wikipedia from his book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (2004)

[Violet_Crumble]

175. That's a very different thing than what's being claimed...

The claim of Israel and its 'supporters' in the US is that Arab leaders broadcast radio calls for Palestinians to leave their homes temporarily so they could drive the Jess into the sea and commit genocide (insert Evil Laugh here) and then return. What actually happened was that in some cases local leaders did issue evacuation orders because to stay could have meant being killed. The latter is a normal thing to happen in conflict, and not the cynical and bigoted thing the former claim is....

[Shaktimaan]

170. V...

this isn't really conclusive proof. It's just that one statement by Benny Morris that everyone's seen and knows about along with a journalist who called into question the accuracy of an Economist article supporting instances of Arab evacuation orders by saying:

I decided to turn up the relevant (October 2) 1948 issue of the 'Economist.' The passage that as literally, gone around the world was certainly there, but I had already noticed one curious word in it. This was a description of the massacre at Deir Yassin as an "incident." No impartial observer of Palestine in 1948 calls what happened at this avowedly nonbelligerent, unarmed Arab village in April, 1948, an "incident"-any more than Lidice is called an "incident." Over 250 old men, women and children were deliberately butchered, stripped and mutilated or thrown into a well, by men of the Zionist Irgun Zvai Leumi.

If the Economist article is suspect because it refers to Deir Yassin as an "incident" then Childers' work should probably be ignored by virtue of the fact that she is printing outright falsehoods about Deir Yassin herself; as opposed to merely using an offensive/disturbing word to describe it. Is referring to it as an "incident" really worse than lying about the amount of people killed, who died and how it occurred?

I don't really know if any Arab leaders called for the Palestinians to leave. Benny Morris couldn't find any proof of it, we all know that. But a single man's research pointing to a lack of evidence is not proof that it didn't occur. Particularly considering how the King of Jordan is quoted otherwise.

You have made it out to seem that a majority of evidence exists that has debunked these claims but your argument rests on the research of a single reputable historian who has seemingly not debunked anything. He merely failed to prove it definitively happened.

[Violet_Crumble]

176. S...

Well, when a claim is widely circulated, and it could be easily proven by tracking down the broadcasts that supposedly happened, I'd expect to see that happen. It's never happened, and while Benny Morris is 'a single man', he's a professional historian with the training and access to all sorts of archives that us 'single folk' wouldn't be able to.

Referring to the Deir Yassin massacre as merely an 'incident' is as wrong as referring to the Hebron massacre as an 'incident'...

[Shaktimaan]

178. well, technically they both WERE incidents.

It's just a really insensitive word to use.

Well, when a claim is widely circulated, and it could be easily proven by tracking down the broadcasts that supposedly happened, I'd expect to see that happen. It's never happened, and while Benny Morris is 'a single man', he's a professional historian with the training and access to all sorts of archives that us 'single folk' wouldn't be able to.

I actually have no idea what goes into tracking down broadcasts like those or even if every broadcast in Palestine in the 40s was taped and archived. I'm not refuting anything, I am admitting that I have no idea.

That said, my point was that Benny Morris' inability to find any physical evidence (as fine a historian as he is), is not the same thing as debunking or disproving their occurance. It is merely a failure to verify them.

It was verified that Arab leaders told many villages to evacuate though, right? Just without the "pushing Jews into the sea" bit. And also that Arab leaders greatly exaggerated the massacre at Deir Yassan with made up rapes and such in the hopes of infuriating local Arab civilians into fighting, right?

Since we can't verify the broadcasts let's nail down whatever we can verify.

[holdencaufield]

48. I'm curious

What compensation did India receive for giving up a third of their country to create Pakistan and Bangladesh? They were partitioned -- in precisely the same way as 1947 Palestine into areas for a Jewish State and an Arab State. There is no difference -- the partition left half a million Hindus and Muslims dead -- but eventually led to two independent states.

If Jordan and Egypt hadn't stolen the Palestinian partitions for themselves and left the inhabitants to wallow, there wouldn't be an occupation today.

[Violet_Crumble]

51. Jordan and Egypt stole?

If Jordan and Egypt hadn't stolen the Palestinian partitions for themselves and left the inhabitants to wallow, there wouldn't be an occupation today.

So seeing you describe occupation by Arab countries as stealing, what do you call it when Israel does it? Humanitarian appropriation? ;)

You do realise that Israel took some of the territory earmarked for the Arab state for itself, don't you?

[holdencaufield]

54. Your point?

"You do realise that Israel took some of the territory earmarked for the Arab state for itself, don't you?"

And Jordan, Syria and Egypt took some of the land earmarked for a Jewish state for themselves.

[Violet_Crumble]

79. Let me spell it out for you...

When Arab countries did something, you label it in a negative way. I haven't yet seen you once refer to Israel taking territory as 'stealing'...

And Jordan, Syria and Egypt took some of the land earmarked for a Jewish state for themselves.

Israel gained far, far more territory than the Partition Plan had earmarked for it, so I'm not sure what yr point is.

[aranthus]

70. Well, yes.

Whether you believe it or not, Israel at least has a claim that the Palestinians attacked them. If the Palestinians were the aggressors, then Israel had a legitimate claim to the territory taken in the war. Egypt and Jordan had no such claim. They invaded Palestine under false pretenses: ostensibly to help the Palestinians, but in reality to take what they could for themselves. In Jordan's case, the intent was to prevent a Palestinian state. Egypt and Jordan never had any kind of legitimate claim to Gaza or the West Bank. It was an utter theft of land and also of Palestinians' emergent sovereignty.

[Violet_Crumble]

80. Jordan colluded with Israel so Israel's not at all squeaky clean...

If someone's going to try claiming other states 'steal', but it's legitimate when Israel does it, they'd have to pretend that Israel didn't collude with Jordan to carve up the territory allocated to the Arab state between themselves...

[aranthus]

89. Proposed collusion, not actual collusion.

Obviously, there were meetings between the Jordanians and Israeli leaders before the war. But any collusion between Israel and Jordan was premised on Jordan not attacking the Jews. Once the Jordanians made their intentions clear, any proposed agreements were over. So there wasn't any actual collusion. To the contrary, the two sides fought some of the bloodiest and bitterest pitched battles of the war at Latrun and in Jerusalem.

[Violet_Crumble]

93. And that excuses Israel? It doesn't make a difference...

If some involved 'stole', then the same goes for Israel, who was in no way squeaky clean and innocent...

[aranthus]

94. Of course it makes a difference.

The circumstances were completely different. Jordan deserves blame for actually stealing Palestinian land. Israel didn't steal. Even if they they may have intended to collude with Jordan in the theft of Palestinian land at one time, when push came to shove they didn't collude.

[Violet_Crumble]

100. No, it doesn't make a difference. If one stole they both stole...

Just like Jordan they took land that was earmarked for the Arab state. And there's no 'may have' about the collusion. It happened, and they certainly did collude with Jordan...

[aranthus]

101. But the circumstance of the takings were different.

That's what makes the difference, as I already explained. The Palestinians attacked the Jews, which means that the Jews took land as part of their self defense, which is not stealing. Jordan came in and took what it could, which is very clearly stealing. And as far as collusion, just what was the actual collusion? Jordan attacked Israel; Israel fought back.

[Violet_Crumble]

104. No, they weren't. If one stole, they both stole...

There was no 'self-defence' at all involved in taking territory that was earmarked for the Arab state, just the same as the ethnic cleansing wasn't 'self-defence' either. Israel took what it could, which is what the Zionist leadership had talked about and intended to do.

You don't know about the collusion between Israel and Jordan to carve up the Arab state between themselves? You can try and grab a copy of the book about it by Avi Shlaim if yr interested...

http://www.amazon.com/Collusion-Across-Jordan-Partition-Palestine/dp/0231068387/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320648595&sr=1-1

[aranthus]

114. So we understand where we differ.

You think that either the Palestinians did not attack the Jews, or that it makes no difference. I think that the Palestinians did attack the Jews, and that it makes a difference. I think we've exhausted the subject.

[pennylane100]

56. I am not familiar with the methods of compensation

with the partition of these two countries. They were however approved by the world body of that time, just as the partition of Israel was approved by the UN. I have no doubt that many people were not treated fairly when it happened. The other similarity is that both these countries are fighting over disputed land on the border.

As I understand it, Israel took much more land than was allocated by the UN. Is it only stealing when Jordon and Egypt do it, or did Israel also steal Palestinian land.

[holdencaufield]

58. 1948

When Israel established Independence in 1948, she did so along the borders of the partition plan approved by the UN in 1947. The next day, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia invaded Israel with the intention of taking every piece of it for themselves (leaving not an inch for a Palestinians State).

When the war was over and the cease fire lines were drawn -- Israel ended up with more territory in the north and south, but lost access to East Jerusalem and the Golan (originally part of the Jewish partition).

The "International Zone" in Jerusalem that was supposed to leave everyone access to historic sights became Jordanian Territory.

Four Wars of invasion and 30 years of guerrilla warfare by proxy groups of regional countries have left the borders where they are today. The partition plan is no more valid today than the boundaries of the Louisiana Purchase. If there is to be a Palestinian State -- it needs to be negotiated in good faith.

[Shaktimaan]

179. sort of.

As I understand it, Israel took much more land than was allocated by the UN. Is it only stealing when Jordon and Egypt do it, or did Israel also steal Palestinian land.

Jordan and Egypt were existing states with confirmed borders. Israel and Palestine were states-to-be with unconfirmed borders that were yet to be negotiated. When Palestine rejected the UN plan and started the civil war "negotiations" were decided via military means. In the end, the cease fire designated the green line as a "cease fire line" and NOT a border. Additionally, the UN officially still considers Jerusalem (both east and west), to be UN property, confirmed by the fact that only three nations will allow their embassies to be stationed there. (Everyone else is in tel aviv.) So until an official peace treaty nails it all down, the exact border, status of Jerusalem, etc. is all unofficial.

That said, Israel had/has the right to settle anywhere within the borders of Palestine excluding Transjordan (now Jordan) as stipulated in the Balfour Agreement. So yeah, Israel (and/or Palestine) did have the right to settle there while Egypt and Jordan did not. It wasn't stealing because none of it was Palestinian OR Israeli land yet. Technically, it's still not until a treaty is brokered.

[Malikshah]

36. Kuperwassner and Lipner...nothing like haveing the Israeli version of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld

to discuss Foreign Affairs.

Pulling out the canard of rejectionism.... what next, pull out an Abba Eban doll and do a ventriloquist act?

How does one get from "a national home for the Jewish people" to "the Jewish state?" Answer: Keep throwing it against the wall and hope it finally sticks...

[aranthus]

66. So what?

Does that justify Israeli control over the Palestinians forever? Even if it did, could Israel ever afford to do that? I don't think so. Israel still has a choice. Make the deal it can make or maintain the status quo. Most Israelis recognize that the current situation is unsustainable and not to their benefit. Netanyahu wants to maintain Israeli dominance over the West Bank, but the cost of that is too high. Israel is going to have to find another way.

[LeftishBrit]

67. That's ONE of the problems. The other one is Israeli rejectionism (nt)

[aranthus]

68. Not sure what you mean.

Israeli rejection of a Palestinian state? I don't know if I would say that's a general Israeli belief. Among the settlers and the Likud, sure, but that isn't the majority of Israelis.

[LeftishBrit]

71. Fair point, but Likud and the settler-supported parties form a significant part of the government

For that matter, not all the Palestinians are rejectionist; but Hamas most definitely is.

As I remember, polls suggest that a majority, but not an overwhelming one, of both groups support a two-state solution. But there are significant groups in both governments that oppose it, in words and/or in practice.

Of course, on a different point: 64% of Brits voted in 2010 against having a Tory government, but we do have a mostly-Tory government. Not directly relevant to I/P, but it does show that even in democracies, the influence of certain political groupings within government can differ from the predominant attitudes in the general population. And Israel's extreme form of proportional representation ends up distorting political representation in government, just as the opposite extreme of complete lack of proportional representation does in the UK.

[aranthus]

72. Actually, your example is entirely relevant.

Netanyahu got the PM job with a minority of the vote. I wonder what Peres thinks today of his decision to allow Netanyahu to form a government instead of Livni, who received the majority vote. Do you think he might be having any regrets?

As far as not all Palestinians being rejectionist, of course that's true, and I have never intended to oversimplify Palestinian politics. However, I do think that there is a broader rejectionist streak among Palestinians than there is among Israelis.

[LeftishBrit]

74. I think that Peres probably has quite a few regrets; but I don't know whether under the system he

could have acted differently.

With regard to the UK, I suspect that Clegg regrets taking his party into coalition with Cameron - especially as the LibDems seem to be going down the tube electorally as a result - but would probably never admit it.

We did have a chance to change the voting system by referendum, but unfortunately it was rejected - probably largely because the idea became associated with the LibDems and their unpopularity.

[shira]

69. Clumsy attempt at evenhandedness. Barak and Olmert made serious offers in 2000, 2008.

It's wrong to ignore that and only focus on Netanyahu, as if Israeli rejectionism is truly problematic. Netanyahu froze settlements for 10 months and has practically been begging the PA to come to the table for negotiations. At the very least, Netanyahu should be given the benefit of the doubt until his bluff is called.

[sabbat hunter]

83. my two cents and a history lesson

Yes there was never an independent country called Palestine, but there was a province called Palestina/Syria Palestina by various rulers since Rome changed the name of the province from Judea.
After Britain took control via the League of Nations, there was a Mandate of Palestine, part of which was split off to become Jordan ruled by the Hashamites.
The rest was promised in part or whole to become the Jewish homeland by Britain, depending on who was in power in Britain.

So yes there can be Palestinian people, even though there was never an independent Palestine. Just like there are Kurds, even though there is no independent Kurdistan.

Now the borders of Palestine were supposed to be far different that what is now the Green Line. Big chunks of what is now Israel was supposed to become Palestine, and Jerusalem was supposed to be an international city, ruled by the UN.
The War of Independence changed those lines, and as a result Jordan took control of Jerusalem, the west bank (the largest portion of what was supposed to be Palestine), Egypt took over Gaza.

Now since Jerusalem was supposed to be an international city ruled by the UN, that is what technically should happen to that city. But the UN long ago abrogated that right by not fighting against Jordan to free the city.
So while I believe that most of the West Bank should become Palestine (along the approximate green line with certain land adjustments as per UN resolution 242 to allow Israel to have safe and defensible borders) I see no reason why Jerusalem (mainly the old city) should go to a future Palestine, as it was never under any plan supposed to be a part of that country.

I even think that Israel should pull out of most of the west bank (except for Jerusalem) and tell the Palestinians, here is your country, rule it as you wish, but if we are attacked, we will defend ourselves.

I do not think that Abbas, like Arafat before him, has the will to negotiate a final settlement with Israel.

As for the RoR of Palestinians forced from Israel by Israeli troops during the War of independence, they should be compensated monetarily, as should any Jews forced from Arab countries after Israel declared its independence. (and btw the number of Palestinians that left Israel by force, on their own or by the wishes of invading Arab armies is split about evenly according to Benny Morris)

Finally, does anyone here believe that if the nascent Israel was defeated by the invading Arab armies, there would be an independent Palestine today, or would the whole land have been split by Egypt, Jordan and Syria?

[pelsar]

84. the weak spot in your plan and everyone....

who believes the west bank should be turned into a Palestenain state "tomorrow'...

is this statement: "but if we are attacked, we will defend ourselves."
try turning that in to actual permissible actions using modern military equipment today as well as todays politics and you will find that has very little meaning.

That very statement was used when israel pulled out of gaza, if you recall even the most limited attempts to stop the 6,000+ kassams was met with citicism as israel somehow couldn't manage to perfectly hit the launched kassam while just "scaring" the alleged shooters away......

in the end israeli invaded to stop them and of course the pitch against israel rose even higher as israel dared to actually enter gaza and with its imperfect military and military equipment ...

ask yourself, just yourself, since most people here won't answer, what does that actually mean that israel after leaving the west bank can defend itself?

how? against kassams, mortars? the sniper fire?

just for fun, use the posters here as your gauge, what could israel do that would get their support ? (they also claim that after a withdrawal israel can 'defend itself"

[sabbat hunter]

86. Abbas and the PA

want to have an independent state. But are unwilling to negotiate for it. However the PA has been quite good about not having any attacks from the WB in to Israel proper via snipers, Kassams, etc.

Some will never support Israel defending itself against Kassam attacks, calling the rockets 'harmless' as the land in open fields. Some will always blast Israel for defending itself against those type attacks, because Israel is clearly at this point the stronger nation militarily.

I think that Israel has a right to defend itself against those attacks, even as those attacks will seem like an overwhelming response to Kassams. Israel cannot (nor can any independent nation) allow itself to be pinpricked to death.

I ask them instead what would they have Israel do, if Israel is out of the west bank and is then attacked? Should it just stand there and take it?


on another political board, I am blasted by a couple of people as being 'a far left winger' with my plan for a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank.

[pelsar]

87. the trouble is....

abbas and the PA are supported by the IDF.......when we leave (of which i am all for), i have no idea how stable they are and i really have no idea how we can really defend ourselves...it takes about 5 seconds to launch a mortar from a backyard with a 100% possibility of causing terror in the neighboring israeli city.....

it will be repeats of gaza and jenin


on another political board, I am blasted by a couple of people as being 'a far left winger' with my plan for a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank.
sounds like the israelforum

[sabbat hunter]

88. It isn't an israeli forum

It is a weatherboard that has a political side.

and hasn't Jenin been thoroughly debunked by now?

[pelsar]

97. jenin lives on...

for those who are interested, yes, but as a point of propaganda....these things never die.

[azurnoir]

98. True enough ProIsrael posters bring it up here with a bit frequency n/t

[pelsar]

103. Jenin was one of the few moments of clarity....

it was amazing to watch how so many jumped on the band wagon of how israel was "massacring Palestinians...(you too?). Eventually after the blood libel was spread far and wide, there a few"corrections."


when similar blood libels are spread blaming the IDF for "newer massacres (gaza/lebanon/flotilla), there will be some that remember jenin and question the "latest IDF massacres"...just how much is factual vs false

not all, but there will be those that prefer to wait for the facts and learn about the environment before jumping to conclusions....its for them that it should be mentioned

so yes, it should be brought up again and again and again as a reminder just how easy it is to use the "left" in demonizing israel and how gullible they can be.

[azurnoir]

136. Clarity? well it became clear that Israel by means of disallowing any independent

investigation of Jenin and issuing conflicting reports of its own, then crying foul at the results could create a kerfuffle of its own and provide fodder for years to come (its been almost ten now) for those who wish to play Israel as victim

[shira]

140. FFS, the UN admitted there was no massacre there. n/t

[azurnoir]

142. well that is what Israel claims isn't it?

however-

On July 31, the UN issued a report indicating that at that time 52 Palestinians had been killed and that it was possible that as many as half of them were civilians.<107> The UN criticized the Palestinians and the Israelis for having exposed civilians to danger. The Israeli Foreign Ministry indicated that the report "repudiates malicious lies."<108> Daniel Taub, a senior Foreign Ministry official, said "There was no massacre, and statements by the Palestinian leadership talking about hundreds of civilians that were killed were nothing more than atrocity propaganda".<109>

The Palestinians disagreed. Erekat said that an "Israeli massacre in Jenin's refugee camp clearly happened" and that "crimes against humanity also took place".<66> Palestinian Planning Minister, Nabil Shaath, said: "I know it does not satisfy everybody ... but still it identifies what happens in Jenin as a war crime against humanity and that is very important".<110> Annan denounced Israel's refusal to admit the UN investigators into the camp but said "I would hope that both parties will draw the right lessons from this tragic episode and take steps to end the cycle of violence which is killing innocent civilians on both sides".<66> He added that "While some of the facts may be in dispute, I think it is clear that the Palestinian population have suffered and are suffering the humanitarian consequences which are very severe".

This page was last modified on 26 October 2011 at 01:19.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenin#Battle_aftermath

[shira]

143. No massacre reported by the BBC and USA Today, among many others...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2165272.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-08-01-unreport-jenin_x.htm

[azurnoir]

144. you are apparently unable to differentiate between what a newspaper headline says

after Israel's claims were made and what is actually said in the UN report which does not actually say that?

[pelsar]

151. if your going to use a source....use the relevant parts

like this:
Subsequent investigations and reports by the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Time Magazine, and the BBC all concluded there was no massacre of civilians, with estimated death tolls of 46–55 people among reports by the IDF, the Jenin office of the United Nations, and the Jenin Hospital.<77> A team of four Palestinian-appointed investigators reporting to Fatah numbered total casualties of 56,<65> as disclosed by Kadoura Mousa Kadoura, the director of Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement for the northern West Bank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenin

you probably believed all of those reports of "massacres" of hundreds being killed, mass graves, etc....you probably still do

that is the essence of a good demonization...it lives on way beyond point where the facts come out and show that it was factually wrong.

Which is why jenin should be kept "up front', it also clarifies those who simply adhere to the "party

[shira]

157. After the investigation, you'll notice the UN didn't use the word "massacre" to describe it. NT

[vminfla]

158. Prior to 1967 when you called someone Palestinian, you assumed they were Jewish

So yes there can be Palestinian people, even though there was never an independent Palestine

The Romans intentionally renamed Judea to Palestine after the name of Judea's enemy, the Philistines. Since then, whenever you called someone a palestinian, you meant someone of Jewish descent. It was not until after 1967 did palestinian refer to someone of arab descent. In fact, the word palestine is not even arabic and the first few arabs could not even pronounce falastin correctly.

[bemildred]

113. Yeah, right, the settlements have nothing to do with it.

You want to buy a bridge?
:rofl:

[shira]

118. There were no settlements prior to '67 so why didn't the Palestnians make peace then?

Prior to '67, the PLO was calling for all Israel within the green line as their own, renouncing all claims to Gaza or the W.Bank.

It's about not accepting Israel as a Jewish State that has a right to be there.

It's not about them wanting their own state free of occupation and settlements.

If it were, they could have had that in 2000 and 2008.

[bemildred]

119. If you want to pretend that the settlements are irrelevant to peace, be my guest. nt

[vminfla]

120. You failed to answer his question: Why is it OK for Arabs to occupy Arabs?

The settlements represent approximate 1.1% of disputed territories, hardly significant.

[bemildred]

123. So what? Anybody can ask loaded, irrelevant questions.

That does not compel anyone else to respond.

[vminfla]

127. Agreed, Israeli settlements are irrelevant and those attacking them use emotionally charged words

like "occupation" and, for the truly beknighted, "ethnic cleansing jews".

[Violet_Crumble]

177. So I take it from that post that you support the settlements?

Seeing as how anyone speaking out against them has been labelled as 'attacking them' using 'emotionally charged words' like occupation.

I'd be interested to hear what yr views are on the conflict. Do you support a two-state resolution to the conflict where Israel's border with that of an equally independent and viable Palestinian state is approximately along the Green Line with mutually agreed to land swaps? Or do you think the West Bank is or should be part of Israel?

[shira]

122. They are irrelevant as they'd be a thing of the past had the PA cut a deal in 2000 or 2008

Deals which you agree they rightly rejected.

It's difficult understanderstanding how folks like yourself are against settlements and occupation. Like the PA in 2000 and 2008, you guys were also against those peace deals that would have ended both the occupation and settlements. Makes me believe you're all for settlements and occupation when that should have ended more than a decade ago.

[bemildred]

125. I would agree that if they were a thing of the past, then they would be irrelevant.

Since they are not, they certainly are very relevant.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

150. lol

[bemildred]

185. Zionism is the problem

It's hard to imagine now, but in 1944, six years after Kristallnacht, Lessing J. Rosenwald, president of the American Council for Judaism, felt comfortable equating the Zionist ideal of Jewish statehood with "the concept of a racial state -- the Hitlerian concept." For most of the last century, a principled opposition to Zionism was a mainstream stance within American Judaism.

Even after the foundation of Israel, anti-Zionism was not a particularly heretical position. Assimilated Reform Jews like Rosenwald believed that Judaism should remain a matter of religious rather than political allegiance; the ultra-Orthodox saw Jewish statehood as an impious attempt to "push the hand of God"; and Marxist Jews -- my grandparents among them -- tended to see Zionism, and all nationalisms, as a distraction from the more essential struggle between classes.

To be Jewish, I was raised to believe, meant understanding oneself as a member of a tribe that over and over had been cast out, mistreated, slaughtered. Millenniums of oppression that preceded it did not entitle us to a homeland or a right to self-defense that superseded anyone else's. If they offered us anything exceptional, it was a perspective on oppression and an obligation born of the prophetic tradition: to act on behalf of the oppressed and to cry out at the oppressor.

For the last several decades, though, it has been all but impossible to cry out against the Israeli state without being smeared as an anti-Semite, or worse. To question not just Israel's actions, but the Zionist tenets on which the state is founded, has for too long been regarded an almost unspeakable blasphemy.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ehrenreich15-2009mar15,0,6684861.story

[vminfla]

191. Kick

Because apparantly that is a thing here.