|
|
Blog Feeds
Anti-Empire
The SakerA bird's eye view of the vineyard
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Human Rights in IrelandPromoting Human Rights in Ireland |
Middle East Roadmap Doomed But Not Because of Israel national |
miscellaneous |
news report
 Tuesday May 27, 2003 13:01 by Avi H.
 It is commonly misreported in the media that Israel is not committed fully to the road map out of spite. No so, it's just that we have been down this road before - the failed Oslo Accords. So what's new? Not a lot. On Sunday, the Sharon cabinet accepted in principle the road map — the first-ever Israeli governmental acceptance of a proposed Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. The Israelis and Palestinians now begin the first effort to reach a settlement since the collapse of the Oslo process nearly three years ago. The "Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" is an ambitious three-stage plan that calls for an end to terror attacks and a settlement freeze in the first stage, a Palestinian state with temporary borders in the second, and a final-status agreement by 2005. We've been down this road before. And as we commence this new process, it is vital to recall the most recent, failed effort to achieve a two-state solution, the Oslo Accords. What went wrong with Oslo? The Oslo Accords had four main principles and each failed: 1) Oslo called for a Palestinian leadership that denounced violence and showed fiscal and diplomatic responsibility. However, Arafat expanded the terror, extorted funding, and continued to deny Israel's legitimacy. 2) Oslo called for dismantling of all terror organisations, like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and the confiscation of illegal weapons. In fact, the leaders of these groups were actually empowered by release from Palestinian prisons, entry to official office, smuggling of illegal weapons (Karine A), and the funneling of arms to terror factions. 3) Oslo called for ending incitement to violence, and education of the Palestinian population for peace. In fact, the P.A. used their media and textbooks to deny Israel's legitimacy, incite for the killing of Jews, and call for "holy war." 4) Oslo presumed that violations would trigger the cessation of the process. Despite explicit Palestinian violations, Israel continued to pursue the Oslo vision, ceding additional land at Wye in 1998, and presenting a deal at Camp David in July 2000 that far exceeded previous offers. To understand the current road map, one must understand its testing ground, Oslo. --- ISRAEL'S CONCERNS --- Given the painful Oslo backdrop, Israel has raised 14 objections to the wording of the road map, objections Bush has pledged to address "fully and seriously"; the Israeli cabinet's endorsement of the road map on Sunday was contingent upon the full implementation of these concerns. This time around, the Israelis say, it must be different. The 14 objections (aside from the Palestinian refugee issue) may be grouped into four main sections, remarkably similar to those that caused Oslo's downfall: 1) The emerging of a new and reformed Palestinian government. Indeed, President Bush called on the Palestinian people to elect leaders "not compromised by terror" as a precondition for the road map. The inference was clear to all — Yasser Arafat must go. Enter Prime Minister Abu Mazen last month, and the road map was launched. Yet just last week, Abu Mazen himself stated to an Egyptian weekly: "Arafat is at the top of the [Palestinian] Authority. He's the man to whom we refer, regardless of the American or Israeli view of him... We do not do anything without his approval." 2) The full dismantling of terror organizations. Yet no arrests have been made, and no illegal weapons have been confiscated. Meanwile, suicide bombings and missile attacks on Israeli cities continue apace, and just last week the Israeli Navy captured a Gaza-bound fishing boat carrying explosives, instructions for assembly, and a Hizbullah terror expert. As recently as March, Abu Mazen legitimized the use of violence and terror: "The Intifada must continue. And it is the right of the Palestinian people to rise and to use all means at their disposal... all means even guns..." (A-Sharq Al Awsat, March 3, 2003) 3) The cessation of incitement against Israelis from official Palestinian sources. Yet lately, the PA has broadcast these "music videos": a) Actors portraying a fictitious torture of a Palestinian prisoner by an Israeli soldier; b) Actors portraying Israelis in Nazi-like activities, like IDF soldiers murdering an elderly Palestinian man by shooting him in the head, and a Palestinian mother and infant blown up by soldiers; c) Encouraging young children to throw stones at Israelis, while smashing Jewish symbols. 4) Full performance of each stage — monitored objectively — to serve as a condition for continuation. Is the road map's preconceived timeline realistic? According to the road map, May 2003 is the deadline for implementation of "Phase One": Ending terror and violence, normalizing Palestinian life, and building Palestinian institutions. Yet none of this has even begun. Does anyone seriously expect it all to be accomplished in the next three days? The endorsement of the road map on Sunday indicated that Ariel Sharon — generally vilified as a "hard-liner" — is now leading his country toward concessions for peace. Yet Sharon insists that this be predicated on a pragmatic, intelligent approach that avoids the four main problems that doomed Oslo. Remarkably, many media outlets nonetheless have found plenty of room for censuring Israel's endorsement of the road map. |
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (82 of 82)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82coz i haven't had the blinding flash of conversion yet.
Islamic extremists, who think if they kill people god will love them more, are the problem. They run the palestinians. For 35 years, they've run the palestinians.
Israel has different leaders every few years, some liberal some not. THey try different approaches. But dealing with islamic fundamentalists is extremely difficult.
If there's one nation that know's how to deal with Terrorism, and is qualified to speak on it, it's got to be the Irish.
Israel's tactics will not solve the problem of terrorism.
So stop lecturing us and start listening to us.
Israel has different leaders every few years, they all massacre the Palestinians. IDF pilots rain death down on civilians, IDF bulldoze houses with people still inside, IDF shoot down unarmed civilians, IDF murder journalists, IDF murder peace activists.
Israel illegally holds the Occupied Territories in defiance of numerous UN Resolutions.
Israel refuses Palestinians the right to return to the homes that they were ethnically cleansed from. Yet Jews who have no connection with Israel are automatically entitled to citizenship.
Yes, Israel has torn up the map to peace.
Not terrorism in general.
It only appears that in some specific current examples of conflicts where terrorism occurs that we can find "reasons", can point to things whihc we say "if only this or that were different there would be no reason for the terrorism".
Wrong way to look at the "cause". The cause of terrorism is an attitude that terrorism is a justified response to grievance. There will always be the aggrieved. To make my point clearer, allow me to describe a more general case.
We have parties A, B, and C. Both B and C feel aggrieved by A's actions but they want to change A's behavior in the oppostie sense AND they are both willing to use terrorism to pressure A to do so. NOW what do you suggest A do to avoid being the target? And let me anke it even more morally complex. Suppose group B is willing to use terrorism but group C is not. Should that influence A to choose B's interets over those of C (because settling the grievance is the only way to prevent terrorism)?
true reasons for failure...
United Nations "Partition Plan" to the Palestinians:
You are going to have 47% of the 100% which was originally yours.
"Oslo Agreement" to the Palestinians:
You are going to have 22% of the 100% which was originally yours.
Barak's "Generous Offer" to the Palestinians:
We are going to give you 80% of 22% of 100% of the land which was originally yours.
Sharon's "Peace Plan" to the Palestinians in 2,000:
We are going to give you 42% of 80% of 22% of 100% of the land which was originally yours, and this 42% will remain under continuous curfew.
"American Zionists" to the Palestinians:
According to our version of the Bible you are entitled to 0% of 42% of 80% of 22% of 100% of the land which was originally yours.
The “Road Map” to the Palestinians that Bush envisions:
§ If you stop your resistance to the occupation (which we call terrorism), and
§ your refugees give up their right of return to their ancestral homes, and
§ you agree to only elect officials acceptable to Bush and Sharon, and
§ you agree to lock up all your resistance fighters, and
§ you agree to drive your cars only on roads that Sharon assigns for your use, and
§ you do not object to the ‘wall’ that Sharon is building, and
§ you agree not to claim Jerusalem as your capital, and
§ you agree that your children’s school curriculum only includes courses and books approved by the Israeli government, and
§ you agree not to give birth to more than three children per family,
then Sharon might consider negotiating with you on the 42% of 80% of 22% of 100% of the land which was originally yours.
I both agree and disagree.
I agree with your statement that "The cause of terrorism is an attitude that terrorism is a justified response to grievance."
However I disagree with your other point that changing the reasons for the terrorists grievances will not stop terrorism.
(I am assuming all of the above is what you have been implying in your argument).
I believe BOTH will help stop terrorism, i.e:-
1. Changing the circumstances that are the source of the terrorists grievances and
2. Changing our attiutudes that terrorism is a justifed repsonse to grievance.
And the only way that No. 1 way will happen is through dialogue. Both Israel and Palestine should know this. And they should get around the table this afternoon for the sake of their people that they are supposed to be serving - and stay around that table, however long it takes, until everything is resolved and loss of life, pain, anguish and suffering is averted.
Extremely well put Salah.
Avi, it is entirely reasonable for Israel to have concerns. It is another thing entirely for them to use these concerns to neuter a process before they even begin negotiating.
It seems to me that Israel since 1948 has wrung a pretty good deal from the international community almost exclusively at the expense of the Palestinians.
In order for a meaningful and lasting peace to which all parties aspire there must therfore be negotiation without preconditions which would come at the expense of the Palestinians.
Given the 14 pre-conditions it would appear that Israel is not in fact in any way serious about the negotiations.
The Zionist "statesmen" ridicule the sacred oath which the Creator placed upon the Jews in the Diaspora. Our Torah, in Tractate Ksubos, folio 111, specifies that the Creator, blessed be He, swore the Jews not to occupy the Holy Land by force, even if it appears that they have the force to do so; and not rebel against the Nations. And the Creator warned that if His oath be desecrated, Jewish flesh would be "open property", like the animals in the forest!! These are words of our Torah; and these concepts have been cited in Maimonides' "Igeres Teimon", "Be'er HaGola", "Ahavas Yehonosson", and in "Toras Moshe" of the Chasam Sofer.
Dear all,
We are planning a day of action in Dublin on Thursday the 5th of June, to mark the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. We hope to be able to organize an entire day's activities, but we need some idea of how many of you are able to take part and when. Please reply to this mail or call the office (677 0253) if you are interested in participating or helping out, giving some indication of when you are available on the 5th (morning, lunchtime, afternoon, evening etc.).
We will be discussing this at the Dublin group meeting tomorrow, Wednesday the 28th, at 7.30pm in the IPSC office, Dame House, corner of Dame St. and Georges St. (ring the East Timor Campaign buzzer). Please come along if you can.
= about a twelfth.
You have to remember that the Palestinians have not been able to stop indiscriminately murdering Jews - not even for a week. That was tried a while back and they failed miserably at it. It seems to be a kind of addiction for them.
Remember also that more than one of the terrorist organisations (if that is the right word) that are totally out of control (e.g. Hamas and Hezbollah) have stated publically that their aim is to destroy Israel itself, not just gain a state for the Palestinians. This means that there is no concession that Israel can make to them that would make them stop killing us.
Now, here is the crunch part: the military operations, the IDF uses are designed not for schadenfreude but to prevent, break up, disrupt all terrorist activities and so doing to save Israeli lives. Given the level of onslaught aimed at us, they are extremely successful at this, especially as most attacks (99%) are thwarted. In fact, whenever we have relaxed our guard (by opening up borders, for example) the number of successful terrorist attacks has increased.
However, this is exactly what people like Abu Mazen are saying we should do; in effect: 'Stop protecting yourselves and we will not try to kill you any more.' This is a logical non-sequitur and has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted. It is the fundamental logical flaw at the heart of the publically stated Palestinian position.
You have to remember the IDF cant stop murdering Palestinians, not even for a week. In the 2 weeks leading up to the latest wave of suicide bombings, the IDF murdered 50 Palestinians.
Avi, you are very critical of the Palestinians abilities or the lack of them in containing their radicals.
You should have directed at least some if not the majority of it at the IDF who given the means at their disposal are even LESS CAPABLE of containing Islamic radicals.
Their lack of success given their overwhelming superiority is highly suspicious.
This failure could be attributable to the presence of Israeli security assets ala Stakeknife inside Islamic, Jihad etc. and/or the Israeli hawks not wanting to be deprived of a motivation for continued repression.
Well, the IDF is restrained by the political echelon in Israel from using anything even remotely approaching its full firepower. However, if you look at one of neighbouring countries, e.g. Syria, which is totally unhampered by awkward notions of democracy or humanitarian considerations, their way of dealing with such a problem is simply to set their artillery loose. This is what the Syrian government did when there was a rebellion in the city of Hom. It basically levelled it, killing between 20-30,000 people. It certainly solved their problem. We haven't done that, even though we are having rockets fired at us from the Gaza strip every week and terrorists are also doing other things daily from everywhere. We certainly have the power to do it, though. I mean, the terrorists are just nutters who hide behind the civilian population. It is easy to criticise us sitting in a comfy armchair in Ireland but it is a knotty problem to solve if you have scruples, which we - unlike the Syrians or Palestinian terrorists, for that matter, certainly do.
Sharon let out a freudian slip yesterday when he described the occupied territories as ...."occupied"! Fortunately his error was pointed out to him and he recalled that they occupied territories are disputed. Just like Iraq, I guess considering that 3 US soldiers have been killed and at least 9 wounded in combat over the last couple of days, never mind at least 2 killed in accidents. For Shaoron's comments, see:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030527/wl_mideast_afp/mideast_isarel_sharon_030527122255
Sharon illustrated his good intentions when he had a Palestinian house destroyed under the watchful eyes of several internationals and international media soon after he stated his acceptence of the roadmap to nowhere. Check out:
http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=50173&start=10
We then had a sixteen year old shot dead and a 7 and 9 year old kids seriously wounded, shot in the head.
An unarmed Palestinian teenager was shot dead and another captured after they crossed the border allegedly looking for work. An eleven year old was shot dead in an exchange of gunfire. Check it out:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=4&u=/ap/20030527/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians
Avi, you're too fucking soft on those Palestinians. I mean you lock 'em up under curfew, destroy their schools, infrastructure, livlihoods and dignity, kill their kids and what do ye get? Suicide bombers. The ungrateful so and so's.
Why don't you answer my previous questions? Here I'll post 'em again (for the fifthe time, no response to date):
Give us a break. Tell us about something relevant, like how far Israelis are prepared to go for peace. Would they stop building settlements? Would they remove all existing settlements on occupied territory? Would they leave a Palestine administration control all thw water under their land? Would they cede control of the currently occupied territories as contiginous entities instead of strips of land criss-crossed by Israeli highways as proposed in the "best deal ever" offered by Clinton and Barak? How about control of the borders wuth Jordan and Egypt, would Israel cede control of these?
Or what?
related link:
www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=48968&start=30
A slightly different view than Avi's stilted whitewashed propagandist version of the events that have shaped his precious israel:
http://indymedia.org.il/imc/webcast/56935.html
Then check out: www.jewsnotzionists.org
"We haven't done that, even though we are having rockets fired at us from the Gaza strip every week and terrorists are also doing other things daily from everywhere."
What you have done and are doing:
Humiliating (especially at checkpoints), torturing, murdering, stealing land from, exiling, bulldozing houses of, segregating "Wall"/zionist roads, destroying infrastructure, keeping people on curfew thus stopping them from going to school, work, buy essentials...
...And all on men, women, and children not to mention the sick.
How restrained are we the Zionists.
you have to do something better than just rant.
on the Palestinians is not down to us: it is the price they pay for making a pact with the devil, namely Islamic extremists bent on war and destruction. As I said before, we impose these measures because they are ways of protecting us from lethal terrorism. No one here has any answer to that, except to say that for some reason we should stop trying to protect ourselves.
If they could get their murderous rage under control, we wouldn't need to do these things, would we?
Avi, you are stealing their land using violence...
What do you expect them to do? Not resist? Give up?
Evil never wins. Not in Germany. Not in Palestine...
Why so shy, Avi? I have put these questions up on five different threads that you have been contributing to. I have yet to see an answer.
In his last post, Avi says:
"Closures and hardship on the Palestinians is not down to us..".
And there I was thinking that it was the Israeli Defence Forces that was imposing the "closures and hardships" (good that you at least acknowledge that you are wrecking their lives). Perhaps the IDF are an Arab conspiracy to make Israel look bad, is that it?
Almost, but not quite, actually "...it is the price they [Palestinians] pay for making a pact with the devil".
Ah well, that's alright then. Oh by the way, Avi, can we see the documentation of this pact?
There you go blowing off all the time about unsubstantiated allegations, how everyone is nasty to nice you (who assists in the murder of Palestinians according to yourself) and yet you refuse to respond to reasonable questions (as I have posed above) and come out with the shit above (they deserve it because they are evil).
What's the story?
They do. We say it's ours. So we have a dispute. But there are better ways to solve disputes than random suicide bombings. In any case, as I pointed out, Hamas and Hezbollah want to destroy Israel and push all the Jews into the sea, so there's not much room for manoeuvre there, is there? And they're way out of control.
Avi: "Who says it's their land?"
Yossarian: The peole who lived there before they were expelled over the last 80 or so years.
Avi: "We say it's ours."
Yossarian: I say it's mine. So what, it's not! The American indians have more claim to the north american continent than the jews have to Israel.
Avi: "And they're [Palestinians] way out of control."
Yossarian: Are the israeli's in control? If so, why were 3 kids shot dead over the last couple of days and more wounded (shot in head and legs). If Israel is in control then these may be understood as deliberate murders. If not then your arguement doesn't stand up. Which is it to be, Avi?
Oh, by the way, remember those questions... I was still kinda hoping you'd respond. Don't worry, if you don't get around to answering this time around, I'll stick 'em on the thread with your next bit of propoganda.
You don't understand what Avi is saying because you are considering only SUCCESSFUL attacks. Avi does not feel that the Israelis are attacking the Palestinians more than the Palestinians are attackign the Israelis for the simple reason that it's not true.
You are saying that the Israelis are killing more Palestinians than Palestinians are killing Israelis and think from that we should conclude that the Israelis are trying to kill Palesitinians more than the Palestinians are trying to kill Israelis.
But from Avi's point of view, that's not what is happening. Look, if an IDF team sets up a mortar and fires a couple rounds they will hit what they aim at. If the IDF soldiers fire their rifles AT a Palestinian, they will probably kill their man (or woman or teenager, etc.).
It's not that easy to hit a moving vehicle with a molotov coctail. It's not that easy to hit a moving person with a rifle unless you've practiced a lot. It's not easy to land your mortar bomb on target unless you've practiced, have a competent "spotter" to call corrections and a team whihc can quickly make them. It's not that easy to set off a road mine as the vehicle passes, not too soon and not too late (hand/eye delay and all that). It's not easy to hit the target with those rockets unless you are as willing to die as the kids they send on suicide bomb missions -- willing to stay with the launcher and make coreections as your spotter calls them while artillery counterfire is coming your way or the tanks are coming.
The point is, the Palestinians are TRYING to kill Israelis much more than the Israelis are trying to kill Palestinians. You describe the Israelis as having killed 50 Palestinians in the previous two weeks. Let's say I accept that count. Now how many do you think they TRIED to kill in those two weeks but missed. OK, in the same two weeks, how many "tries" do you think the Palestinians made? How many mortar bombes and rockets over the border? How many molotov coctails thrown, shots fired at passing cars, road mines set off?
Sorry if I am taking your meaning wrong, but isn't this like there is an upset person out there with a gun, they are screaming "I'm going to kill you!". They are firing at you. You have a gun, and unlike this person you know how to hit what you aim at. Do you REALLY feel you would be unjustified in firing back based upon the concept that beacuse the other person is a lousy shot, maybe they won't hit you no matter how many rounds you let them fire?
I notice that people on the left often breach one of the basic principles of natural justice when it comes to the Jews' claim to Israel: namely, they refuse to even hear their side of the argument. Why is that?
It's not our fault the Palestinians are totally inept at warfare.
Out of curiosity are you going to continue ignoring Salah's concise, well developed and excellent points by refusing to provide a response or challenge his arguments? Are you just happier to repost the exact same stock Avi post about restrained Israeli security forces fighting against mad Palestinian bombers?
Also, do you think it undermines your argument about restrained Israeli forces when on the day you make it the same forces a child and injured four others in the West Bank after they tried to destroy a tank with stones (It doesn't take an armchair General to know the threat to a tank from a stone is typically seen as quite low)
On the day when a well armed, well trained, well equipped and highly skilled professional Israeli soldier shoots a nine year old working class Palestinian in the head, do you not see a certain irony in lecturing us about how great the IDF is?
Out of curiosity are you going to continue ignoring Salah's concise, well developed and excellent points by refusing to provide a response or challenge his arguments? Are you just happier to repost the exact same stock Avi post about restrained Israeli security forces fighting against mad Palestinian bombers?
Also, do you think it undermines your argument about restrained Israeli forces when on the day you make it the same forces kill a child and injured four others in the West Bank after they tried to destroy a tank with stones (It doesn't take an armchair General to know the threat to a tank from a stone is typically seen as quite low)
On the day when a well armed, well trained, well equipped and highly skilled professional Israeli soldier shoots a nine year old working class Palestinian in the head, do you not see a certain irony in lecturing us about how great the IDF is?
...including the views of zionist Jews', non-zionist Jews (don't forget them), Palestinians of all kinds (and there are many) and others whose world has been diminished by this conflict (including me!)...
My view is that the central question is: What is the fundamental root reason that zionist Jews claim the right to Palestinian land? Do they consider it to be bequethed to them by their God? Is this a valid claim? (BTW: The old lie about "a land without people" doesn't work anymore, Avi!).
I don't think that Palestinians fight and die because its fun, or because they are stupid, or because it pays well, or because of their genetics. I think they fight and die because they think that it is deeply wrong for outsiders to take the land that they have lived on and loved for thousands of years. Are they mistaken?
What do you think, Avi? Seriously. I'd like to know.
...I think that Avi does us all a good and important service by bringing up these points and by begining these discussions...
I for one genuinely appreciate it...
I have responded to all these points many times elsewhere. Suffice it say that this is a gross distortion of history. Actually, three Arabs states were already carved out of historic Palestine, so they don't have much to complain about. No-one wants the PLO anyway as they are just trouble, not even the Arab states mentioned.
Palestinian kids - you have to very careful about the reporting of these situations. It is easy to assume that there is no threat when there is, even from kids. Generally we are dealing with confused riot situations in which kids are manipulated and either themselves have lethal weapons of one sort or another or assist others who do. The answer is to keep kids away from soldiers. What are these kids doing out anyway? Why aren't they being kept at home?
Basically, the totally non-PC truth about all this is that the Palestinians are on a culturally and educationally much lower level of development than the Jews. So much so, that they do not seem to be capable of either genuine democracy or even coherent negotiation without violence. That is both their fault and their tragedy.
This is nothing to do with inherent ability: it is just a historical and social fact.
If you were really to look closely at the history of Israel, you would see many things, such as the fact that Jews have lived there continuously for thousands of years, there has been a Jewish majority in Jerusalem since 1830, (there were virtually no Arabs there then); most of Israel was swamp and desert; most Arabs traditionally didn't even live in towns, they were illiterate nomands and there weren't that many of them; they wandered in and out of what is now Israel, they didn't even identify as Palesinians, but only as belonging to a particular tribe. In fact, before 1970, even the Palestinians didn't call themselves Palestinians, they were just either nomadic Arabs or Arabs from other parts of the Middle East, who migrated to Israel because of the work the Jews, who were very industrious, provided. (Even now, the Palestinians don't have an independent economy - they need the Jews for jobs.) The original plan (of the British) was for Jews to get all of Israel west of the Jordan river ( and then some, in fact) while the Arabs were to get Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Sinai. Well, the Arabs got their bits but also want to thieve ours. They are very clever at re-inventing history, but you know it is all bs. In general, and I have travelled a lot in Arab countries one way or another, sometimes with a passport and sometimes without it at night in a helicopter, I have found that in Arabic culture there seems to be a general problem with even the concept of truth and accuracy: it is like everything is out of a fantastic tale in the Arabian nights, where you can just embroider reality at will and in the end, the embroidery becomes so elaborate, you end up being dazzled by it and believing it yourself, even though you have created a complete illusion. That, I am afraid, is the so-called Palestinian narrative.
So it was the British that bequeathed Palestinian land to zionist Jews, not God? Oh. I had thought it was God. At least everybody can agree that the British actually exist, although admittedly their moral authority is a little less...
Come on, Avi! Look around you! Do you REALLY believe that Israel was mostly swamp and desert (interesting combination!) before the zionists arrived? Do you really believe Arabs merely ‘wandered in and out’ of Palestine? Look at the centuries-old orchards and vineyards (if there are any left!). Look at the age of the Arab houses (if there are any left!). Look at the remains of the stone walls in the fields (I think the IDF has left those alone!). Palestine has been lived in and loved by its people (including it’s Jews) for many, many centuries. It is a rich and beautiful land! Antarctica was a land without people for a people without a land. Palestine was not. Honestly, Avi – who is clever at re-inventing history? Who is sophisticated about ‘framing’ debate and establishing physical and rhetorical ‘facts on the ground’? Who is the cynic here? Honestly.
Perhaps part of the problem is a certain lack of appreciation among Israelis for Arab culture? Palestinian culture (like Irish culture) values different things than Israeli culture (and British culture), but that does not mean that they have any less rights as human beings. When they had their own land they lived a simpler life than Israelis choose to live now – not a life of less value. Clearly there have been Jews in Palestine for thousands of years. There have also been Christians (and others), however that did not justify the crusades of the middle ages etc.
I believe that the central question remains: What is the basis of the claim that zionist European Jews have over Palestinian land?
So Palestinians didn't live in towns? Nonsense. Nomads were only a small proportion of the pre-1948 Arab population of Palestine, just as was the case in Syria and Lebanon.
They didn't call themselves Palestinians before 1970? The Palestinian Liberation Movement was established at the end of the 1950s.
Most of Israel was swamp and desert? Then why did the new state of Israel plant forests over the ruins of the Palestinian farming villages it destroyed in 1948 - 49?
The Israeli historian Avi Shlaim, in his excellent book "The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World", recounts a telling incident:
"After the Basel Congress [the First Zionist Congress of 1897] the rabbis of Vienna decided to explore Herzl's ideas and sent two representatives to Palestine. This fact-finding mission resulted in a cable from Palestine in which the two rabbis wrote 'The bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man'".
The rather amusing thing is that after coming out with this heap of what you must surely be aware is steaming ordure you then declare that Arabs have a "general problem with even the concept of truth and accuracy"!
As for Mike, well, if you are trying to create a parallel between Palestinian resistance to the occupation forces and Israeli murder of civilians in the occupied territories, you are barking up the wrong tree. Both in terms of international law and as a matter of basic morality, the Palestinians have a right to resist occupation. On the other hand, the well-documented wilful killing of civilians is a crime. If you don't believe that that's what's going on, and it's a long way from self-defence, have a look at the websites of organisations like the Palestinian Centre for Hman rights http://www.pchrgaza.org or B'Tselem http://www.btselem.org. Furthermore, the Israeli presence in the occupied territories, however else you might like to justify it, is hardly intended to prevent attacks on Israeli soldiers in the occupied territories. Basic logic should tell you that.
You are quite correct to point to the cultural dimension of the conflict between the Arabs and the Jews. In many ways, this is also a conflict between the old world and the new and operates on many levels. However, that is a different issue in the sense that traditionally the Arabs didn't have the same concept of territory as the Jews. Traditionally, it is quite true to say that most of them lived in tents, not houses, although British travellers referred to the few who lived in towns in the 19th as 'street Arabs'. Those same travellers also testified to how deserted the whole country was, how everything had gone to rack and ruin, how there was perfect silence in the countryside and you could walk from Jaffa to Jerusalem without seeing anyone. Also, many Jews are not Europeans: we took refuge all over the world - there are all skin colours among Jews. Many of the most ardent Zionists are from Africa, Iran or Arab countries. Jews have a very good claim to Israel. Jews actually come from Judea - that's why they're called Jews. Arabs on the other hand are the real imperialists, wanting to conquer every minority in the Middle East and beyond. They have created an empire from the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf, even though they are native to Arabia only. There are many other nationalities within Israel who live there freely who hate the Arabs because of their chauvinism. (e.g. Samaritans, Assyrians, Armenians, Druze). It's the Arabs who are trying to ethnically cleanse us by force, not the other way round.
You should try being a Jew for a few days and see how often you get badly treated by people just because you are a Jew. Even now. Even after the Holocaust. It's not very nice being a Jew. So many people irrationally hate us - everywhere. I speak from experience.
Why, when we were murdered - 6 million of us - in the greatest crime in history, do we still have to justify living in our own country?
The Jewish people have given far, far more to the world than their proportion of the population requires, and so the world is a far, far better place because Jews are in it (in science, art, business, etc). They have made this disproportionate contribution to our species despite centuries of persecution by the ignorant among us... however one should never, ever confuse Judaism and zionism - especially the zionism that is currently practiced in the modern state of Israel...The evil of anti-semitism does not justify the disregard of Palistinian life, dignity and property...
I think the point about the cultural dimension of the conflict is a good one – there is clearly an old world/new world tension at work here, and it does not help the situation because it works against understanding the others point of view...
I also agree that there are zionists from many places, however I think that you will agree that zionism is almost entirely a European affair – look at the skin color of the Knesset for example. Perhaps this colonial aspect of zionism doesn’t help matters either, because it reeks of racism (against non-European Jews as well as against Arabs).
I would no more base a land claim on the observations of 19th century British ‘travelers’ than I would on the observations of 21st century American soldiers in Iraq, because both of these people have absolutely no idea about the land and culture that is right before them. Of course population density was less in the 19th century – it was largely an agricultural society then – however that is not a moral argument. I can walk through large areas of the American mid-west without seeing anybody, but I can’t use that fact to claim that land as my own.
But you have touched on a response to the central question, Avi: It is true that the Jewish diasporia originated from the mediterranean middle east thousands of years ago. Do you consider this as the primary claim on the land?
The claim is a composite one with many elements. It would take a long time to unravel them all. The point about the British is to show that it was not historically as the current PLO would have you all believe. There is clearly a central conflict at work here, but it is better to look at all the disparate elements rather than simply adopt the facile view that the Jews are European colonizers who displaced the 'natives'. It is a lot more complex than that, although such a narrative obviously resonates with the left. In fact, it is the Arabs who are racist towards the Jews and not the other way round. It is the Arabs who have tried to destroy the Jews many times and not the other way round, and so on and so forth. However, in fact, this is the main problem with the Jewish argument: not that they do not have a claim - they have an excellent claim - it is that their claim is a complex one, whereas the Palestinian one is simple to grasp, however relatively unmerited it may be. Genetically, however, many Jews, if not most Jews, even European ones, can be traced back to ancestors in Israel, if you must know. This is proved by DNA testing.
But actually, I think the British had the right idea. They saw two peoples who couldn't live together, both had competing claims with relative merits to each, so they divided up Palestine. The Arabs got their bit and the Jews were to get their bit. Only the Arabs weren't content with that and wanted our bit too. We are not talking absolutes here. But even so, where else do the Jews go if not Israel?
If the jews are of all skin colours, how did they all come from Judea?
"It's not very nice being a Jew" is a shameful thing for a Jew to say. Surely you don't mean this. Perhaps you meant "It's not very easy being a Jew"?
The pragmatic solution to the conflict is simple: Israel lives securely within it's pre-1967 borders (ie guaranteed by the U.S.) and pays a few tens of billions of dollars to the Palestinians in compensation for the Palestinians giving up their right of return. The Palestinians live securely in all of the West Bank and Gaza and use the money to kick-start their country. Done. Easy. Simple. Except for the ideological fanatics on both sides. We almost had it with Oslo...
Read UN Security Council resolution 242. Its all there...
(The zionist claim to Palestinian land is too complex to articulate? That's a new one!)
When I say not very nice, I mean not very pleasant, of course - don't misunderstand me. As for solutions, we can work out plenty of solutions when we have someone reasonable to talk to. So far, we haven't had anyone on the Palestinian side. The moment we can get some Palestinian leader who can negotiate realistically rather than resort to violence every time he doesn't get what he wants, then we can make progress. However, we can't go on forever without an interlocutor. Failing one, we will just build a big high wall to keep the Palestinians from coming over and murdering us - which we are already doing in fact. It's their choice, actually.
However, the main thread of the claim is that Jews originate from Israel/Judea and that they have lived there continuously since ancient times. The attachment to that land and the notion of exile has also been a central part of Jewish culture since time immemorial. The fact that Jews have different skin colours through living in exile and occasionally intermarrying with others in no way alters their origins, as demonstrated by DNA tests. However, I also believe that the claim also relates to the fact that they were the most wronged in history by so many and that if anyone deserves to live in peace unmolested in their own country, they do.
There is a one-word response to the suggestion that Israelis are reasonable about seeking a solution...
SETTLEMENTS
Come on, Avi! Isn't it obvious? The conflict has not been solved because Israel needs time to slowly, insidiously, cynically create 'facts on the ground' in the occupied territories (to use Sharon's term!). Run out the clock until it's "too late"! This is the plan of a sociopathic state that is not open discussing a solution. The conflict is not about Israeli security - its about Israeli "Lebensraum".
This doesn't bode well. Look at what happened to the last state that pursued "Lebensraum" as a national objective...
So the claim of zionists on Palestinian land is two-fold:
1. Jews originated there thousands of years ago
2. Jews have been persecuted
Do I understand this correctly, Avi?
as I mentioned. Also, the territory is disputed. As long as the Palestinians do not reach an agreement with us about it, we can do what we like. This is perfectly lawful, even when you look at 242. If they want to sign an agreement, then that's another matter, but they have chosen not to - so far, preferring to try to annihilate us instead.
Palmiro, WHY do you choose to take what I said that way?
Of course the Palestinians have a right to resist. I'm not objecting to that in the least. But the right to resist (to choose to fight for your freedom) does NOT confer some special right against being killed; does not change the resister's death from death in battle to "murder".
These "peoples" are fighting a "war", something our species does on a more or regular basis. You may even have a preference for the victory of one side or the other; none of my business how you choose. You can even go fight for one side or the other. But THAT (choice of yours) does NOT make the fighters of the other side "murderers".
I was objecting to the general treatment of this conflict representing that all the attacking was coming from the Israelis. And LOOK at what you just said, pretending that the attacks are just on Israeli soldiers who are occupying or presumably the "settlers". I bet you even believe that. Might I make a humble suggestion? Find an Isreli site of the "immediate news" sort -- like a radio feed that minute by minute announces things like "traffic slowdown because of fire at location X". In other words, "routine" news. THAT will give you a better idea of what is going on because you also will get all the reports of "rocket hits in town Y, no casualties" or "mortar bomb hits near Z, two people slightly hurt by flying glass", "traffic divert on highway W because somebody firing at passing cars, one minor injury", etc. etc. (and BTW, such sites do seem to cover all the Palestinians being killed, houses bulldozed, etc.).
You'll then see how many attacks PER DAY. Like I was pointing out, these are not usually very effective attacks. Though I did see that one rocket managed to hit a school today, no kids seriously hurt, one hysterical child transported by ambulance (there are usually about a half dozen rockets and/or mortar bombs every day -- mostly hitting nothing because NOBODY hits the traget with the first round from a mortar tube except by blind luck -- unless you have "registered" the target).
Is there anywhere on the web that you could point me to where I can find an explanation of this complex claim that zionists have on Palestinian land? I’m curious and I like to think that I’m capable of handling the complexity...:-)
Disputed? Of course its disputed! If I steal your house at gunpoint you’d dispute that too! (please see my earlier reference to sophistication in ‘framing’ arguments and creating rhetorical ‘facts on the ground’). And if you fought back and I called you a terrorist because of it then you’d be really pissed!!!!
Settlements are lawful under 242? I don’t think so, Avi. I also don’t think they are lawful under the Geneva Conventions (but please correct me if I am wrong - In fact I was wondering how Sharon’s admission of occupation would affect Israel’s official stance on the Geneva Convention issue). And don’t place too much worth on the self-interested laws of the occupier - Kristallnacht was lawful too. Do you believe that the settlement program is anything other than a blatant Lebensraum policy? How is it consistent with a sincere search for a resolution to the conflict? Doesn’t it hurt Israeli security far, far more than it helps it? I think that it does.
I wouldn't know what is on the web, but 242 makes no mention of borders except to say that the parties to the conflict (i.e. the 1967 war) will withdraw to secure borders. Moreover, it doesn't mention the Palestinians at all. The land was held by Jordan in fact, and Jordan renounced its claim to it forever in return for peace with Israel, which they got.
Is the full, complex claim of zionists on Palestinian land a special secret? Or is it just too hard for most of us to understand? Or too rarely discussed to be of interest to anyone other than specialist scholars?
Look – I have clearly been a bit tongue-in-cheek about this claim, however surely you can see (as you have admitted) that Israel’s case (especially for the occupied territories) does not look good from an objective (i.e. non-zionist) perspective. With this in mind, surely a solution along the lines of resolution 242 makes a lot of sense? With the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 the Jews got a homeland – it would be a shame for them to lose it or to lose their own moral dignity over mere land greed. All this Likudnik talk of ‘population transfer’ and ‘final solutions’ is as much a grave threat to Jews as it is to Palestinians – perhaps more so...
BTW, I have heard that there are many non-ethnic Jews in Israel – mostly Russians, etc who convert for economic reasons. Is this true? If Palestinians in refugee camps converted to Judaism could they return to their homes? Doesn’t this situation appear even slightly ridiculous to you, Avi?
Immoral, ridiculous situations don’t last. They just don’t. Israel has become bad for the Jews...
BTW, the key line from UN Security Council resolution 242 (the same kind of resolution that Iraq was punished for ignoring) is the clear, unambiguous requirement for “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”. This is clear. Picking over vague language fantasies to argue otherwise is just silly.
the resolution speaks about withdrawal from territories occupied, not from all territories occupied. Israel withdrew from some but not from others, perfectly inkeeping with the resolution.
Some Russians came into Israel claiming to be Jews, but that is of no significance, as they were let in in the genuine belief that they are Jews. Many Jews, basically those who escape persecution in emergency situations, have few papers with which to prove their origins.
I elaborated some of the strands to the Jewish claim to Israel for you. Although the case is complex, that doesn't mean it is weak.
We are still fighting for our life: many Arab states are still at war with us. We have had to fight for survival so many times. It is not a large country - only 9 miles wide at its narrowest.
Supposing we allow a Palestinian state in what you call the West Bank, it becomes radicalised (which is what the population is now), imports weapons by the truck and train load and then tries to destroy us again, with the help of the armies of Arab states. All of which has happened before. What then?
Mike, read your own comments. Perhaps I misread it, but it sounded like you were referring specifically to attacks on Israeli soldiers rather than to e.g. suicide bombings, which are, of course, a completely different scenario.
I quote, "It's not that easy to hit a moving vehicle with a molotov coctail. It's not that easy to hit a moving person with a rifle unless you've practiced a lot. It's not easy to land your mortar bomb on target unless you've practiced, have a competent "spotter" to call corrections and a team whihc can quickly make them. It's not that easy to set off a road mine as the vehicle passes, not too soon and not too late (hand/eye delay and all that). "
All these sound like the considerations that would be apply to acts of legitimate resistance to the Israeli occupation forces in the occupied territories, not to bombing civilians in Israel.
Avi - Look at your arguments. Would you accept that kind of reasoning in any other aspect of your life except nationalist politics? Seriously. would you?
You argue against a Palestinian state on the West bank and Gaza on the basis of security? Israel with it's joined-at-the-hip alliance with the U.S., with it's nuclear weapons mounted on submarines, with it's intelligence satellites and helicopter gunships and multi-billion/yr military budget is afraid of Arafat and his gang? Of Lebanon? Of Syria? This is not serious. It isn't. Israel has been fully and completely secure for 30 years. It is far more secure than Hong Kong under British rule. The old "but we're only 9 miles across" argument is gone too, Avi...
It's not about security, Avi, its about lebensraum. Israel is actually deliberately sacrificing its own security for lebensraum...
Admit it, Avi. You know its the truth...
You know as well as I that those big weapons are no use against terrorism. I don't call it secure when we are bombed all over the place and they are shooting rockets at us.
If there ever were a Palestinian state, it would have to be a neutral, totally defanged one. If they attack us, we would probably win but at what cost? I don't particularly feel like having to fight a war on Israeli territory, thank you very much, if I can avoid it.
are very insecure. The only reason we are still in being is the brilliance of our military.
Oh. We're talking about terrorism?
-fighting for our life
-Arab states are still at war with us
-fight for survival
-only 9 miles wide at its narrowest.
-imports weapons by the truck and train load
-tries to destroy us
-help of the armies of Arab states
Hmmmm. How did I miss that?
Israel's claim to need the West Bank and Gaza in order to protect itself against Arab armies (because nuclear weapons, etc. aren't enough) is obviously not serious (your answer implies that).
Israel's claim to need the West Bank and Gaza in order to protect itself against terrorism is also not serious, because it is the occupation that is causing the terrorism. The lack of terrorism in the mid-90's under Oslo showed that.
Israel really needs the West Bank and Gaza so that it can have more lebensraum - and it is willing to sacrifice its security (ie to endure terrorism) in order to gain that lebensraum. This is a strategy that is decades-long, and it is evil to its core...
made the claims you impute to me, so there is no point arguing about them. As I stated already, Hamas and Hezbollah want to destroy us completely, and it's nothing about Gaza or the West Bank or anywhere else. They are funded by Iran and Saudi. The PLO also probably still wants to destroy us completely.
You keep trying to argue from a position of your own making. There is a Jewish territorial claim to the lands the Palestinians also claim but it is not the simplistic thing you make it out to be. I also never mentioned the German word you did, so there is no point imputing that to me, either. You should reread my previous posts in this thread, because they contain the answers to all of the objections you raise. This is now tiresome.
You are wrong about that: the current wave of terrorism started with Oslo - i.e. once Arafat and his crowd were invited back in from Tunis, by the idiots in the Israeli labour party. There never was a terror-free time with him here.
You keep twisting my words: with a Palestinian state, we are no longer talking about terrorism. We are talking about state to state warfare. If Palestine were to import half of the Iranian army onto its land, we would have a fine mess to clear up. We have been there before, done that: we have been attacked by multiple Arab armies simultaneously. It's not much fun.
Anyway, I am going off for a coffee now.
Of course you never mentioned "the German word" - it's a little too close to home for comfort. I have yet to hear you claim that Israel's policy on settlements is *not* based on lebensraum.
State to state warfare between Israel/U.S. and an independent Palestine? This is a threat to Israel sufficient to justify it's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza? Really? That is silly at best and paranoid at worst.
Face it. It's not about security. Its about lebensraum. Keep slowly, gradually, insidously building and expanding those settlements year after year after year and eventually you have a larger country. It's a good plan, except for the 3.5 million Palestinians who aren't going anywhere. What are you going to do with them? Kill them? Sterilize them by force? Expell them?
There are no good answers - just evil ones...
to use a Nazi term in relation to Israel, that's my view of that term. If you lived here and you had partaken in all the trials and tribulations we have been through just to survive, you might have well a different idea. As it is, you seem to have a fixed opinion based on hatred. I am trying to tell you honestly about our experience but you are not listening.
'I have yet to hear you claim that Israel's policy on settlements is *not* based on lebensraum.' Rubbish - I never claimed that. I never even mentioned the word. You have just imagined it and imputed it to me - quite wrongly.
<< A guide to Zionist Avispeak. The only dispute here folks is whether the Israelis understand plain English. Given their record to date it is obvious that they don't.
The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East.
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every state in the area can live in security.
Emphasizing further that all member states in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter.
1.Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
1.Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories of recent conflict.
<< Israelis have used the absence of the word all as a pretext for occupation, colonisation and ethnic cleansing since 1967.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,838915,00.html
"Clever pro-Israeli lawyers observe that the word "all" does not appear in the text before the words "territories occupied"; and that therefore the resolution leaves it open to Israeli forces to withdraw only from "some", not all, of the occupied territories. So I was very glad to read an article in last month's International and Comparative Law Quarterly by the London solicitor John McHugo. He meticulously and comprehensively demolishes what he calls "the rightwing interpretation" of the resolution. He cites as an example a notice in a park that "dogs must be kept on a lead", and asks whether this could be taken to mean "some dogs must be kept on a lead", or whether it means what it says - "all dogs must be kept on a lead". He interprets 242 in the context of its preamble that emphasises the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". After an analysis of the contributions to the UN debate on the resolution, including my father's, he concludes that the resolution meant what it said: that Israeli forces should be withdrawn from the territories they occupied in the six-day war: the West Bank of Jordan, the Golan heights and a large part of Jerusalem."
2.Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.
<< Jordan complied with the above paragraph by renouncing their claims to the territory. Their renouncement of claims did/does not confer the right on the Israeli state under paragraph 1. to sieze the land/lands/portions of by Anschluss.
2.Affirms further the necessity for:
1.Guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area.
2.Achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem.
<< This claim is also outstanding and refers to previous resolutions demanding that refugees be allowed to return to their lands siezed by the Israelis in 1948.
3.Guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every state in the area through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones.
<< The PLO and most other parties in the middle east have recognised Israels right to exist. Israel has not bestowed this courtesy on the Palestinians.
3.Requests the Secretary General to designate a special representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts within the state concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution.'
Palmiro --- NO! I was not referring to attacks on the IDF "occupying force" though there are plenty of those. I specifically asked you NOT to take my word for it but check out for yourself the volume and nature and locations of attacks. But your mind is made up about what is going on.
LOOK -- if the attacks WERE being made just on the IDF "occupying" forces and the "settlers" the political situation within Israel would be far different. There would be plenty of support for a solution ending the "occupation", removing the "settlements", and allowing the Palestinians their own state. BUT (big but) THAT doesn't serve the interests of SOME within the Palestinian community who have no interest in a solution along those lines. THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO "SIDES" IN CONFLICT (more than two on both the Israeli side and the Palestinian side).
For this reason, there is a large number of attacks made in Israel every day. International news (or here on IMC) only covers things like SUCCESSFUL suicide bombings. Those don't average even one a week and so it looks like the Israelis are doing most of the "attacking". Likewise with the reports we see in places like this no reason is presented explaining WHY the IDF forces have hit this place or that -- again making it look "random" or for no good reason or from your description, just in response to "local" resistance.
I am asking you to look at sources which would give you a better description. Say headlines like "10:05 -- rocket fired from A at B, no casualties" .... "10:12 --- rocket fired from A at B, minor casualties from flying glass" ... "10:22 --- rocket fired from A at B, no casualties" ....."10:31 --- IDF tank force invades village B, fighting reported, two Palestinians killed and one IDF soldier slightly wounded."
Let me ask you something. Would you consider it BETTER if the IDF force didn't go in but instead called in an artillery "serenade" on a rocket launcher or mortar position which has been set up in a highly populated village?
And have you considered that those so siting the "tube" might be doing so PRECISELY to draw the counterattack on that village. In other words, to make it difficult that there should be any solution. Keep in mind that those firing the rockets and mortar bombs are being very clear that they have no intention of stopping (THEIR "war" doesn't end with an end of the "occupation" -- or more precisely, they mean something very different by the term "occupation" -- that ANY continued existence of Israel constitutes "occupation".
Avi - read your own sentence. Let me state it more plainly:
1. You did not (again - did not) use the word lebensraum.
2. I did (again - I did, not you, me)..
3. I believe this word precisely captures the intent of Israel's settlement program.
4. It is not intended as an insult. It is intended as a way of seeing the truth.
5. You have not denied that Israel's settlement program is driven by the desire for lebensraum.
Face it - settlements are not about security. they are about lebensraum. This is clear, obvious, simple and plain. If you disagree - i.e. if you think that the settlements have some other purpose, such as security - then please explain this.
I refuse to be 'sensitive' about telling the truth.
as part of the OVNI 2003 festival @ the CCCB Barcelona some few hundred people saw at the opening night videos of checkpoints between Palestinian territories and Israel.
Made in 1998 one of the videos shown last night in between commercials from contemporary US TV for military recruitment was one in particular that lots of people ought see.
from the Palestinian Culture centre.
check out the links.
see http://www.liceus.com/cgi-bin/ac/age/2687.asp
for the programme.
OVNI means UFO by the way.
but neither mean aliens.
.-¿what do "aliens" mean?
Observatori de Vídeo No Identificat/ CCCB
C/ Montalegre, 5
08001- Barcelona
Telf.: (00 34) 93 306 41 00
[email protected]
www.desorg.org
Para más información dirigiros al Servicio de Prensa de OVNI. CCCB. Montalegre, 5 08001 Barcelona.
It shows that you have no understanding for the holocaust, nor any awareness or respect for Jewish culture or sensitivities. I have already explained in some detail my views, however you have just ignored them.
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/46537_comment.php#49598
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/49305_comment.php#49583
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/?keyword=Jews&author=Joe+1&category=&medium=&year=&month=&day=&comments=yes&display=&limit=100&sort=
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/02/33947_comment.php#49585
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/45042_comment.php#49593
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/46537_comment.php#49598
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/index.php?keyword=ISRAEL&comments=yes&display=&year=&month=&day=&medium=&category=&sort=&limit=100
Strangely Avi, you are one of the people who robustly defended US/K policy towards Iraq.
This is very strange given how Iraq was treated for its invasion of Kuwait, especially when one sees how the treatment meeted out to Iraq contrasts with the largesse received by Israel.
To refresh your memory Avi:
Iraq had a similar territorial claim to Kuwait going back thousands of years
>> Israel/Jews claim the same rights over Palestine
They invaded Kuwait and attempted to annex it
>> West-bank siezed during 1967 war by Israel
They brutally repressed the population who rose up against them as a guerilla movement if one believes the US/K account of goings on in 1990/1991
>> From Palestinians point-of-view they are resisting invasion in the same way the Kuwaitis did
The UN passed a resolution allowing the liberation of Kuwait by a coalition
>> UN passed resolution 242 calling for Israeli withdrawl from west bank. This and all other previous/subsequent resolutions have been ignored by Israel.
Iraq ignored the ultimatum to leave Kuwait and were ejected by force
>> Israel suffers no consequences as a result of violation of a litany of UN resolutions
Iraq subjected to 12 years of sanctions for various violations including the development of WMD
>> Israel continues to develop and deploy WMD including ICBMs with complete impunity
I could continue but from the above it is clear that the state of Israel is treated as a special case by the entire world, and hence has no right to portray itself as a victim of anything.
The Palestinians are the only victims in this sorry situation of Israels making. It is not possible for the Israelis to justify their behaviour in this context as it was impossible for the Iraqis.
Given the gross violations of human rights and UN resolutions by the state of Israel it is entirely right and proper that the Palestinians defend themselves by whatever means, as the Kuwaitis did, given that nobody else in the world seems to care.
Also Mike,
nickle-and-diming the number of failed attacks is spurious and a smokescreen for Israels continued brutal repression.
I'm sure if we totted up all of the bullets fired by the IDF which missed their targets that Israel is three times more guilty in terms of number of attacks as is reflected in the three times higher death-toll among Palestinians.
Get out of the west-bank and look after your own borders. The troops freed up from brutalising Palestinians will provide you with more than adequate security when applied to guarding your own borders.
because Iraq's dictator just wanted Kuwait's oil and gold reserves, because Iraq was nearly bankrupt.
1). That there are parallels in terms of Israels territorial claims to those of Iraq which stretch back thousands of years
2). Israel is in violation of UN resolutions
3). Israel suffers no consequences as a result of violation of a litany of UN resolutions
4). Israel commits human rights violations including murder and ethnic cleansing on a daily basis in the occupied territories.
5). An oppressed people have the right to defend themselves including taking up arms
6). Israel has nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and intercontinental weapons systems to deliver them
7). Israel doesn't care about world opinion or international justice and plays its get-out-of-jail-free card whenever it doesn't get its own way or comes under pressure
Israel just wants an ethnically cleansed Palestine's land and water, and Israel is nearly bankrupt as can be seen from the cripling level of defence and settler activity and associated job cuts and social discontent including massive strikes.
showing so much ignorance. To compare Israel with Iraq is so stupid, it is even't worth commenting on beyond that.
Avi, you neednt bother being disingenuous / dismissive / ranting as we are NOT COMPARING TWO COUNTRIES, we are comparing their ACTIONS and the worlds REACTIONS to them ... get it?
The similarity in terms of actions of the two countries and the dissimilarity in terms of their relative treatments is obvious.
If you are so intelligent and the rest of us are obviously not perhaps you should share the benefits of your enormous intellect with us by explaining HOW Israel differe in respect of the aforementioned points?
If you cannot or will not provide answers, or resort to ranting and name-calling then we will draw the obvious conclusion that you do not have a moral or intellectual leg to stand on!
We are waiting to be convinced!
Kokomero, Avi just doesn't bother answering questions he doesn't like. See if he answers this:
How far Israelis are prepared to go for peace. Would they stop building settlements? Would they remove all existing settlements on occupied territory? Would they leave a Palestine administration control all thw water under their land? Would they cede control of the currently occupied territories as contiginous entities instead of strips of land criss-crossed by Israeli highways as proposed in the "best deal ever" offered by Clinton and Barak? How about control of the borders wuth Jordan and Egypt, would Israel cede control of these?
Or what?
Yossarian, the more I think about the fate of Palestine the more I am convinced that it does not depend on Israel. The key to their fate is how they are regarded by the international community. To date they have been ignored at best and at worst held in contempt. This while their interests are supposedly protected by a string of UN resolutions.
Israel on the other hand is rewarded with funding, access to markets and even R&D grants from Europe under the 4th and 5th frameworks for her contempt for and violation of UN resolutions and international law.
These violations include the daily violence and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian civilians, but also the killing of numerous observers, journalists and a large number (250) of UN peacekeepers!
Add to this the development and deployment of WMD and delivery systems, terrorism and assassination at home and abroad via their MOSSAD death squads and you wonder how the world appears completely blind to these transgressions.
Israels main market is Europe and you can be sure that she would suffer the same fate as Cuba economically if a similar embargo, which from the above is more than justified, were put in place.
However, Europe and the world prefer to do nothing or worse still support the Israeli agenda!?
At this point it is obvious that Europe is prepared to sell out the Palestinians yet again so I would agree with the title, and ONLY the title of Avis post, that the process will fail but not principally because of Israel, it will fail because Europe especially will not use her muscle to push the Israelis towards a solution.