NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5243 times:
I hope this thread stays 'on topic'!
We'd just established (to the satisfaction of most of us) that Israel doesn't need more space to accommodate its own population - which isn't growing significantly - but instead appears to want to establish more and more settlements in the West Bank with a view to cutting the Palestinians off from Jerusalem, and very probably driving them out altogether in the end......
[Edited 2012-12-04 18:44:15]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
TheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2346 posts, RR: 6 Reply 1, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5229 times:
The latest from Europe regarding Israels announcement.
Despite some initial sabre rattling at an EU meeting of foreign Mimisters, Israel wont walk away with a bloody nose, this time ?
"But the EU's leverage with the Israelis is limited and its aid to the Palestinians far outweighed by Washington's economic and military support for Israel."
...are not helping Israel in the long run. That should be obvious to anyone with a brain, but sadly the current Israeli government appears to be devoid of such people.
They are also the biggest indication that Israel is not interested in peace with the Palestinians, which the rest of the world should view accordingly.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 3, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5204 times:
"At a meeting in Brussels, ambassadors responsible for security issues discussed the possibility of all 27 EU states writing to Tel Aviv to express their displeasure or calling in Israeli ambassadors for consultations, as five EU countries have already done.
"No formal decisions were taken during the meeting and the issue will be discussed further on Friday, EU diplomats told Reuters. But it remains possible that language censoring Israel could be included in a statement to be issued by EU foreign ministers after a meeting on December 10 in Brussels, they said.
"We have agreed on a recommendation so it is not obligatory," one EU diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity."
It's quite incredible to me that the Europe guys appear to need at least another week to agree on a 'statement' that, on past experience, is only going to say nothing in particular anyway........
What do others think causes this oddly-submissive approach to anything to do with Israel? My own view is that it's a sort of habitual 'Holocaust cringe'.........
If so, that's a very odd attitude. Sadly, most of the people sent to concentration camps died in them before the war's end - and anyone who survived would be well over seventy now, even if they'd been very small children during the war. Literally 99%-plus of the people now living in Israel aren't likely ever to have had the slightest connection with the Holocaust.......
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
RussianJet From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6348 posts, RR: 23 Reply 4, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5190 times:
It's just all too sad. I have grown so weary of both sides just doing stupid things in the same vicious cycle of humility, that I just don't believe any positive outcome is achievable here. I used to hope against hope that one day someone would see the light and truly break the cycle of doom, but I just can't even imagine what that would be now.
All the 'statements' in the world and all the diplomats being summoned you can think of won't change a thing so long as people aren't prepared to view their neighbours as fully equal human beings in that neck of the woods. I guess all one can do is pray....
✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15999 posts, RR: 59 Reply 5, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5173 times:
I get the impression Israel is trying to encircle Jerusalem with Jewish settlements make Arab/Muslim access more difficult.
At any rate, if Israel had not been unilaterally attacked in 1967, then perhaps Israel would not have fought back and won that war, and along with it, some land to occupy.
The new settlements are a reminder to the Arab world that trying to invade Israel may result in lost land that Israel will "own" and settle. A lesson that has been in place in many conflicts for hundreds of years.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
"Israeli forces have demolished a mosque in the occupied West Bank village of al-Mufaqara, south of al-Khalil (Hebron), for the second time in two years.
"Witnesses say Israeli forces backed by bulldozers and heavy machinery attacked the village at dawn and forcibly evicted all who were inside the mosque preparing to perform morning prayers.
"Israeli forces did not even allow the locals to remove books and other objects from inside the mosque before demolishing it.
"Israel Radio said the mosque was built without a license. But al-Mafqara residents say such demolitions are part of a larger Israeli plan to expand Jewish settlements on occupied Palestinian territories.
"Al-Khalil's governor Kamel Hmaid condemned the demolition of the mosque as a "collective punishment."
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 7, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5171 times:
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 5): The new settlements are a reminder to the Arab world that trying to invade Israel may result in lost land that Israel will "own" and settle. A lesson that has been in place in many conflicts for hundreds of years.
True that with victory lies the spoils, but do you realize how much Israel could improve relations and get closer to long-sought after peace if they took a different stance?
The way both sides act at times leads many, including me, to conclude the only way there will be peace is with the extermination of one side. But with concessions from both sides and a deeper understanding, I can see peace. Easy for me to say, being half the world away, but no one said this peace would be easy...
yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15999 posts, RR: 59 Reply 8, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5154 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 7): True that with victory lies the spoils, but do you realize how much Israel could improve relations and get closer to long-sought after peace if they took a different stance?
Do you realize how much Gaza and Hesbollah could improve relations and get closer to long-sought peace if they would stop unilaterally attacking Israel every few years? Unless.....they don't want peace (which we all know to be true).
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 7): But with concessions from both sides and a deeper understanding, I can see peace.
Israel has conceded. time and time again. They voluntarily closed their settlements in the Gaza, thinking this would lead to peace. But no.....the Gazans became more violent.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
powerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 490 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5143 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 7): True that with victory lies the spoils,
Unless the winner is Jewish and the loser is Arab.
Quote: but do you realize how much Israel could improve relations and get closer to long-sought after peace if they took a different stance?
Possibly, but there is no guarantee. Israel gave back Gaza and looked what happened, they were rewarded with rocket attacks and terrorism. Why should they give back more land? Arabs deserve nothing from Israel, history has proved this. I believe its at a point now where Israel will not stop the expansion until all the land is theirs in the West Bank. Then there will be nothing to give back because of Arab greed in previous wars. I don't agree with the expansion but I understand the reasons behind why its happening and why it must happen. Israel must not give into Arab pressure, they'll give them an inch and the Arabs will want a mile.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19813 posts, RR: 56 Reply 10, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5143 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 7): The way both sides act at times leads many, including me, to conclude the only way there will be peace is with the extermination of one side. But with concessions from both sides and a deeper understanding, I can see peace.
What more does the West Bank need to do in order to convince you of their good intentions?
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
DarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1012 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5105 times:
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 5): The new settlements are a reminder to the Arab world that trying to invade Israel may result in lost land that Israel will "own" and settle. A lesson that has been in place in many conflicts for hundreds of years.
Not always. They did give back the Sinai.
Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13369 posts, RR: 64 Reply 12, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5083 times:
IMO, for the Israeli (Labour) governments during the 1967 and 1973 wars the occupied land was something to be used as leverage and bargaining chips during peace talks with the Arabs. The fullscale settlemen t policy came later under Begin´s Likud government.
In fact what the Israelis are doing with their settlements is the oldest form of colonialisation:
The Romans gave land in conquered territories to army veterans, who left the legions after 20 years of service and called this "Colonia". E.g. the name of the German city of Cologne (Köln) derives from the original Latin name "Colonia Aggrippina".
The Czarist Russians settled warrior-farmers in conquered territories, the Cossacks.
The aim in both cases was to change the demoscopy through settlements of loyal subjects and to have an armed class of loyal subjects there to quell any trouble. I´m quite sure that the Israeli settlers see themselves as warrior-farmers as well.
The big difference between the Israeli settlers and the Roman veterans and the Russian Cossacks mixed with the local population, engaging in mixed marrieages, ultimately deriving in a mixed society (e.g. the Roman-British society of appr. 500 A.D.).
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19813 posts, RR: 56 Reply 13, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5068 times:
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 8): They voluntarily closed their settlements in the Gaza, thinking this would lead to peace. But no.....the Gazans became more violent.
Quoting powerslide (Reply 9): Israel gave back Gaza and looked what happened, they were rewarded with rocket attacks and terrorism.
This thread is about the West Bank, not Gaza.
Quoting powerslide (Reply 9): I believe its at a point now where Israel will not stop the expansion until all the land is theirs in the West Bank.
If that really is their strategy, then the US should cease supplying them with military equipment. I have no problem helping Israel defend itself, but if they're going to be a country that aggressively annexes territory then they can do that on their own.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
The most hideous answer is always coming from Germany. Mrs. Merkel supports Israel no matter what. And I thought we were over the Holocaust tragedy and we could move on...
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 12): IMO, for the Israeli (Labour) governments during the 1967 and 1973 wars the occupied land was something to be used as leverage and bargaining chips during peace talks with the Arabs. The fullscale settlemen t policy came later under Begin´s Likud government.
Sadly, Israel took the wrong road then. The settlement activity we are discussing now began in the 1970ies.
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 8): Israel has conceded. time and time again. They voluntarily closed their settlements in the Gaza, thinking this would lead to peace. But no.....the Gazans became more violent.
No, the main reason for removing Gaza settlements was that they were too difficult to defend, and now they are counting on a wall surrounding Gaza and the "Iron Dome" projectile defense project. Gaza is one of the most densely populated regions of the world.
David
Even a letdown, if it is thoroughly and final, is a step forward.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 15, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5026 times:
Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 14): Mrs. Merkel supports Israel no matter what. And I thought we were over the Holocaust tragedy and we could move on...
Many thanks, flyingturtle - you've 'squared the circle.' Of course - my background is English/Australian; we were the 'good guys' in WW2. Britain 'saved' Europe in 1940, and, together with the Commonwealth, played a big part in beating the Nazis. And I'm old enough to have met German prisoners as a small kid (we had a prison camp in the village) and I KNOW that they were ordinary guys, 'good Joes,' not fanatical mass-murderers......... So I tend to think of the Holocaust as something that was organised by the German 'lunatic fringe,' the SS and the Gestapo and other 'super-committed' Nazi organisations - not by the ordinary people or even the ordinary soldiers.....
By contrast, Merkel wasn't born until 1954. So her knowledge of 1939/45 can only have been purely theoretical. My guess is that she'll have learned about it mainly from history teachers (in what was then East Germany, that's where she was brought up), and they'll have given her (and other Germans of her age) a very burdensome 'guilt complex' about the Holocaust; and implied that ALL Germans, and their descendants, bore, and still bear, the responsibility for it.
I suppose all this 'cuts both ways,' too. I remember a couple of Jewish fellow students who, like me, would only have been about six years old when WW2 ended, talking about the world (particularly the UN) 'compensating' the Jews for the Holocaust. And there was no doubt at all - I asked, I've never been noted for 'calling a spade an agricultural implement' - that they felt that they themselves should be compensated - even though they'd never left England up to that time (1958).........
Anyway - that looks to be the problem. The most powerful politician in mainland Europe, and many Jews (particularly those living in Israel), think that Europe, particularly Germany, still owes the Jews in general a debt that can never be repaid. But the Jews - particularly the Israeli ones - aren't averse to Europe at least trying to pay up....... and poor Frau Merkel apparently feels genuinely guilty too.......
Can't think of a solution to the problem, offhand. I'll give it some more thought and get back to you.....
[Edited 2012-12-05 05:22:27]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
In Germany, pupils get shoved tons and tons of WW2 history down their throats. It's nauseating, while we Swiss take a much different stance (in high school, we learn about the recession after WW1, the economic crisis, Hitler's rise to power, about the concentration camps, and the role of Switzerland in that war... there's not much told about the cruelties). We tend to underestimate the sufferings during WW2, while the German students get it explained to the least and smallest detail.
And yes, GDR school education also plays a role.
When the UN general assembly voted for a improved status of Palestine, what did Mrs. Merkel say? That Israel has the right to defend itself. No reflection whatsoever about what actually goes wrong in Israel. Israel already gets lots and lots of support from the U.S., so it really doesn't hurt if some other economic powerhouse (like Germany) choses a different role.
Supporting somebody also means stopping somebody when he's doing something... wrong.
As a side note, I really recommend the documentary film "Defamation" (Wikipedia article). It should be available on youtube.
David
Even a letdown, if it is thoroughly and final, is a step forward.
connies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3892 posts, RR: 13 Reply 17, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4981 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 2): They are also the biggest indication that Israel is not interested in peace with the Palestinians, which the rest of the world should view accordingly.
Agreed, given the current government. Palestinians are relativelt well educated and have limited economic options. Ergo, a labour pool for Israeli business concerns.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 3): What do others think causes this oddly-submissive approach to anything to do with Israel? My own view is that it's a sort of habitual 'Holocaust cringe'.........
Also tend to agree. FWIW, I believe Baroque, now gone a year, would have agreed as well.
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4966 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 15): a very burdensome 'guilt complex' about the Holocaust; and implied that ALL Germans, and their descendants, bore, and still bear, the responsibility for it.
The "education" given to Germans in the former GDR was not a general "we are all guilty and have a terrible burden" to make amends for. The official position was that the antisemitism that led to the holocaust was the product of fascism, itself a product of capitalism. In contrast, in the East, the workers and peasants state had vanquished fascism, blah, blah. So there wasn't the same "coming to terms" with the past.
Mrs Merkel is a pragmatist and will not be supporting Israel out of any sense of guilt, however perverse. While she repeated the usual line about supporting Israel's right to defend itself, Germany abstained at the UN, a move that would have been inconceivable before. And while Mrs Merkel has not voiced any condemnation of the latest settlement announcement, others in her party have been more outspoken. Ruprecht Polenz, a member of Merkel's Christian Democrats and head of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Bundestag lower house said, "E1 is not just another settlement. E1 is of enormous strategic importance. E1 ... would cut off East Jerusalem once and for all from the West Bank, thereby making a two-state solution practically impossible."
Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert, issued a strong warning on Monday over the settlement plan, saying, "The Israeli government is sending out a negative message with this move. It is eroding trust in its willingness to negotiate, and the land for a future Palestinian state is disappearing further."
In the meantime, Israel is a major customer for German weaponry with Germany agreeing to supply a a sixth military submarine with German taxpayers willing to shoulder millions of euros of the cost. And Germany's Federal Security Committee agreed to the export of shoulder-fired anti-tank weapons and bunker-busting weapons to Israel . Merkel will not want to stand in the way of German industry making money, whatever her personal feelings of guilt, or a lack thereof, may be.
einsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2080 posts, RR: 6 Reply 19, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4950 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 6): A case of 'a picture speaking louder than words'..........
What's sad is that if the Palestinians ever demolished a synagogue it would be called terrorism.
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 8): Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 7):
But with concessions from both sides and a deeper understanding, I can see peace.
Israel has conceded. time and time again. They voluntarily closed their settlements in the Gaza, thinking this would lead to peace. But no.....the Gazans became more violent.
You are conveniently forgetting a little civil war that happened which ended up with Hamas driving out Fatah (the moderate wing of Palestinians...the one willing to sit down). You are generalizing.
As an example, if Rick Perry were driven out by Tea Party-ers and Texas ended up in the hands of a Tea Party governor, does it mean that all Texans are Tea Party-ers? And if the Union decided to pressure the Tea Party governor by closing all economic links of Texans and withholding aid, wouldn't Texans resent that from the Union? I sure would.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 15): and they'll have given her (and other Germans of her age) a very burdensome 'guilt complex' about the Holocaust; and implied that ALL Germans, and their descendants, bore, and still bear, the responsibility for it.
Eventually a German leader will stand up and say 'Suck it up'. What's done is done and what happened generations ago cannot be blamed on the current one. That's like Spaniards feeling guilty for the extermination of many Native Americans. They have the mark, but we can't hold modern Spaniards accountable for the mistakes others made centuries ago.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
flyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 1380 posts, RR: 9 Reply 20, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4895 times:
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 18): Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert, issued a strong warning on Monday over the settlement plan, saying, "The Israeli government is sending out a negative message with this move. It is eroding trust in its willingness to negotiate, and the land for a future Palestinian state is disappearing further."
As always - words but not deeds. And when it comes to Israel and Palestine, words are used on an inflationary scale.
As a small step, Switzerland has taken measures against Soda Club / Soda Stream because it manufactures some of its carbon dioxide cartridges in occupied territories, outside of the 1967 frontiers. Because Switzerland has a customs agreement with Israel, Soda Club has to pay $$$ more in custom fees...
David
Even a letdown, if it is thoroughly and final, is a step forward.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 21, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4882 times:
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 8): Do you realize how much Gaza and Hesbollah could improve relations and get closer to long-sought peace if they would stop unilaterally attacking Israel every few years? Unless.....they don't want peace (which we all know to be true).
And they'd be stuck with the status quo which is what Palestine doesn't want. Yes, I know the more extreme opinions (removing all Jews/Israelis) is obviously unacceptable, but the opposition of statehood (under Israel's conditions,) the occupation, the settlement building, the absence of many rights is exactly why they are rebelling. It's not as simple as "they're fighting because Israel is fighting because Palestine is fighting." I was in the same boat as you a few years ago. I thought that Palestine killing civilians is inexcusable and that Israel is "more right" in the conflict so I supported them, basically, blindly. But I realize now I can support the just actions of a side while condemning their mistakes.
That all being said, the intentional killing of civilians is unacceptable
Quoting powerslide (Reply 9): Unless the winner is Jewish and the loser is Arab.
What are you talking about? Why is it so wrong to condemn some of Israel's actions? I support their right to exist, and if they ever get invaded, I would hope the world community would help. But you are constantly equating ANY criticism of Israel to, basically, antisemitism and anti-Israel bias.
For the 10th time, do you think Israel's actions are perfect? If not, what is wrong with calling them out? That doesn't make one anti-Jewish or anti-Israel
Quoting Mir (Reply 10): What more does the West Bank need to do in order to convince you of their good intentions?
Not trying to kill civilians. If we are going to call out Israel's actions, we need to do the same for Palestine. I know the rocket attacks were in reaction to Israeli actions (which we rightfully will analyze and criticize if necessary) but let's not pretend Palestine has been a saint in this struggle, they have not
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13369 posts, RR: 64 Reply 22, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4881 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 21): Not trying to kill civilians. If we are going to call out Israel's actions, we need to do the same for Palestine. I know the rocket attacks were in reaction to Israeli actions (which we rightfully will analyze and criticize if necessary) but let's not pretend Palestine has been a saint in this struggle, they have not
AFAIK, the rocket attacks originate from radical Islamist elements of HAMAS in Gaza and not from the rather moderate FATAH government in the West Bank. Why does Israel punish the West bank government then?
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19813 posts, RR: 56 Reply 23, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4876 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 21): Not trying to kill civilians. If we are going to call out Israel's actions, we need to do the same for Palestine. I know the rocket attacks were in reaction to Israeli actions (which we rightfully will analyze and criticize if necessary) but let's not pretend Palestine has been a saint in this struggle, they have not
Again, this is about the West Bank, not Gaza. They are not the same place, they are not governed by the same people, and they are not the same in their position toward Israel. You cannot look at them through the same lens.
You can debate who is the aggressor in Gaza. You cannot debate who is the aggressor in the West Bank - it's Israel, end of story. Fatah has been quite reasonable in its position toward Israel for several years now, and its only reward is more of its land being annexed for settlements.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
victrola From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 443 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4871 times:
It is obvious by now that Israel has no intention of ever pulling out of the West Bank. Settlements are now so extensive that there is really no way to partition what is left. The 2 state solution is dead.
Now what does Israel intend to do with the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank? Should they expell them? Should they give them Israeli citizenship? Should they herd them into little Bantustans like in old South Africa? I see nobody asking these questions. If you have the land what the hell do you do with the inhabitants???
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 25, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4917 times:
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 22): AFAIK, the rocket attacks originate from radical Islamist elements of HAMAS in Gaza and not from the rather moderate FATAH government in the West Bank. Why does Israel punish the West bank government then?
I'll admit to being a bit ignorant on which Palestinians cause which attacks, but I'm very certain the ones in the West Bank bombed a lot of buses and night clubs until the wall went up
lewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3448 posts, RR: 5 Reply 26, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4921 times:
Quoting victrola (Reply 24): It is obvious by now that Israel has no intention of ever pulling out of the West Bank. Settlements are now so extensive that there is really no way to partition what is left. The 2 state solution is dead.
Not necessarily. The people who chose to settle in occupied land (and they were fully aware of that) can either choose to continue living there as citizens of a Palestinian state or pack and leave.
Quoting victrola (Reply 24): If you have the land what the hell do you do with the inhabitants???
It seems they are aiming for the so-called "self-deportation" option, slowly take over their land, tear down their buildings and hope that they get tired of being treated like crap and leave.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 27, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4946 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 23): Again, this is about the West Bank, not Gaza. They are not the same place, they are not governed by the same people, and they are not the same in their position toward Israel.
Geez sorry, can't catch a break from this stupid site. This is what I get from trying to stay neutral and see it from both sides. I'm no ME expert
connies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3892 posts, RR: 13 Reply 28, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4941 times:
Quoting victrola (Reply 24): It is obvious by now that Israel has no intention of ever pulling out of the West Bank. Settlements are now so extensive that there is really no way to partition what is left. The 2 state solution is dead.
Now what does Israel intend to do with the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank? Should they expell them? Should they give them Israeli citizenship? Should they herd them into little Bantustans like in old South Africa? I see nobody asking these questions. If you have the land what the hell do you do with the inhabitants???
Given the significant difference in birth rate between the two main ethnic groups, in a one-state situation Israel is hurtling towards an apartheid situation. In fact in many respects they may already be there. Looking back at the "old" South Africa, the West was pretty much firm in their opposition to the various white governments - Britain under Thatcher being an exception. Will the West summon the cojones to do the same again contra-Israel ?
Strong sanctions would effectively cripple Israel rather quickly, I think. Then we'd see if they were willing to eat dust, as the Palestinians, more and more, are being forced to.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19813 posts, RR: 56 Reply 29, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4916 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 25): I'll admit to being a bit ignorant on which Palestinians cause which attacks, but I'm very certain the ones in the West Bank bombed a lot of buses and night clubs until the wall went up
They certainly did, and if you had asked me then I would have said that they didn't have much right to complain about settlement expansion. But that's not the case anymore, and it's generally considered a good idea when you want to change someone's behavior to treat them differently after they change their behavior - otherwise what was the point of the change?
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 27): Geez sorry, can't catch a break from this stupid site. This is what I get from trying to stay neutral and see it from both sides.
I'm sorry if I came off a bit strong there, but it is frustrating when people lump Gaza and Hamas in with the West Bank and Fatah (and you're not the first to do it, see Reply 13). Trying to stay neutral is commendable, but it would be grossly incorrect to use the actions of Hamas in Gaza to justify Israeli action against Fatah in the West Bank.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Pu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, RR: 12 Reply 30, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4873 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 3):
What do others think causes this oddly-submissive approach to anything to do with Israel? My own view is that it's a sort of habitual 'Holocaust cringe'.......
Germany has committed itself to a perpetual broad support of Israel. Which is admirable.
Eastern Europe still very much respects America and especially wants American protections against Russia, thus their unified abstention on the observer state vote and a reluctance to challenge America's Israeli ally.
Meanwhile France and the Nordic states are arguably at this point hostile to Israel and unashamedly pro-Palestinian.
So with Germany and the east either neutral or pro-Israeli and the rest more Palestinian in leanings, Europe is divided and as is too often the case, generally impotent to act with any unified power on the matter.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19813 posts, RR: 56 Reply 32, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4845 times:
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 31): How about calling it as it is: Western Europe finally telling Israel when they're wrong?
Israel needs an intervention on the settlements. Those who come to interventions generally are there to be stern with the person receiving the intervention, but their intentions aren't hostile but rather supportive.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
n229nw From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 1854 posts, RR: 35 Reply 33, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4807 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 23): Again, this is about the West Bank, not Gaza. They are not the same place, they are not governed by the same people, and they are not the same in their position toward Israel. You cannot look at them through the same lens.
You can debate who is the aggressor in Gaza. You cannot debate who is the aggressor in the West Bank - it's Israel, end of story. Fatah has been quite reasonable in its position toward Israel for several years now, and its only reward is more of its land being annexed for settlements.
Hmmm, the two areas are not really separate, in that a "two-state" solution lumps them inherently together. As long as there is "Zionist" versus "Palestinian" nationalism, then the people on the West Bank and in Gaza will see themselves as brethren, and Israel will collectively punish them all, however wrong that policy is.
The problem, as I see it, is that the makers of and cheerleaders for Israeli policy have no problem conceptualized Gaza and the WB together when making excuses for resisting the UN vote, etc., but then the same people utterly fail to conceive of the fact that the Palestinianshave a corresponding right to group themselves together. Consider the common but ridiculous argument made here:
Quoting powerslide (Reply 9): Israel gave back Gaza and looked what happened, they were rewarded with rocket attacks and terrorism.
So, Israel "withdrew" form Gaza, but expected the Palestinians threre to thank them even though they were simultaneously and conspicuously expanding into the West Bank, which to many Gazans is simply moving over to a different part of their land, not actual withdrawal. That's one reason why many Gazans didn't see the withdrawal as a gift for which they should thank Israel. The second reason is that Israel continued to control the borders of and all resources (or lack thereof) in Gaza, which is inherently and ritually humiliating.
I'm not making excuses for Hamas. I think the Gazans were as idiotic to vote for Hamas as the Israelis to vote for Netanyahu. Neither recognizes the right of the other to have a state--both do not see the other ethnic group as legitimate people with rights. And neither will help their own people in the long run.
pellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1868 posts, RR: 8 Reply 34, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4745 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Thread starter): but instead appears to want to establish more and more settlements in the West Bank with a view to cutting the Palestinians off from Jerusalem, and very probably driving them out altogether in the end......
Israel has always gone the colonizers route since the inception of the State.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13369 posts, RR: 64 Reply 36, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4733 times:
Quoting damirc (Reply 35): I had high hopes for Netanyahu's visit to chancellor Merkel, but it seems (at least officially) Germany is not too miffed about it. Disappointed.
D.
The current Israeli government is very fast in using the Nazi card should any German official dare to critizise their politics and expansionalism. Unfortunately this rings a bell with many Americans, that Germany hasn´t really changed from 1933-1945 to today.
I know that there are many Jews (including Israelis and Americans) highly critical of the fascistoid political carried by the the current Israeli government, but the current Israeli government equates any critizism of their politics with anti-Judaism and this means for Germany to be declared to be the same as the Nazi regime.
BTW, Israel is not the only country doing this. During the civil war in former Yugoslavia, Milosevitch´s government equated any German interference as an attemnpt to subjugate the country like under the Nazis.
In Greece currently the German government is often equated with Hitler.
In many countries which suffered under the Nazis any German critizism is rejected with the words "Remember what your grandparents did to us. You better shut up!".
connies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3892 posts, RR: 13 Reply 37, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4720 times:
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 36): In many countries which suffered under the Nazis any German critizism is rejected with the words "Remember what your grandparents did to us. You better shut up!".
Not too many years ago the American comedian Bill Cosby toured a significant number of black(-oriented, anyway) prep schools, junior colleges, and high schools, to give a speech and offer counsel to (principally) black young men on accepting responsibility for their actions, studying hard, giving back to the community.
One of the themes that arose from that tour was Mr Cosby asking the young men "How long can you blame the white man for your situation ? When are you going to the right thing ?". Many in the black community were shocked, to be sure, but the point remains.
Political thugs like Bibi and Liberman should take a lesson from this - how long can Israelis criticize Germany when Israel itself is criticzed ? At some point the German people and/or government are basically going to say "P*ss off!" And that point may not be too far off.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13369 posts, RR: 64 Reply 38, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4708 times:
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 37): Political thugs like Bibi and Liberman should take a lesson from this - how long can Israelis criticize Germany when Israel itself is criticzed ? At some point the German people and/or government are basically going to say "P*ss off!" And that point may not be too far off.
The problem is that our own "Ewiggestrige",the minority of those who are stuck forever in yesterday, on the right will use any justified critizism concerning Israel to go "See! We told you! You can´t trust those Jews! Hitler was right!".
damirc From Slovenia, joined Feb 2004, 692 posts, RR: 7 Reply 39, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4691 times:
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 36): The current Israeli government is very fast in using the Nazi card should any German official dare to critizise their politics and expansionalism.
I understand the precariousness of the situation and the problem in expressing any dissenting view if it is expressed by Germany. I still remember how Norbert Blüm was treated for being critical. I have some hope that Mrs. Merkel made any comment in regards to the settlements though (even if unofficially).
What do you think, will there be peace in Israel and Palestine in our lifetimes? :/
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13369 posts, RR: 64 Reply 40, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4684 times:
Quoting damirc (Reply 39): What do you think, will there be peace in Israel and Palestine in our lifetimes? :/
Only if the ideologes get kicked out and sanity prevails on both sides. I wish there were more Israeli-Arab marriages. Family ties could solve a lot of the issues, but it seems that the ideologists on both sides go for "racial purity".
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 41, posted (6 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4617 times:
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 40): but it seems that the ideologists on both sides go for "racial purity".
And this is the sad thing about it. This approach affects citizens of Israel who are critical of the policy of settlements in the West Bank.
While Netanyahu was in Germany there was supposed to be a symposium of German and Israeli scientists taking place. One guest who had been invited to attend was Professor Rivka Feldhay, who was banned at the last minute. Rivka Feldhay is Professor of History of Science and Ideas at Tel-Aviv University. For many years she has been a member of the board of advisors of The Max Planck Institute for History of Science in Berlin. According to an official travelling with Netanyahu, Feldhay was prevented from attending because
Quote: the prime minister did not want to allow the participation of an Israeli "who tarnishes the name of Israeli soldiers and pilots".
Her crime? She had signed a petition in 2008 that supported Israeli soldiers who refused to serve in Palestinian territories, the official explained.
So the exercise of free speech that can be seen as critical of the government can result in being prevented from attending a scientific symposium that has nothing to do with the issue of Palestine. It's a fine democracy where you can be accused of being "an enemy of the State" simply for voicing a dissenting opinion and signing a petition.
connies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3892 posts, RR: 13 Reply 42, posted (6 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4611 times:
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 41): Quote:
the prime minister did not want to allow the participation of an Israeli "who tarnishes the name of Israeli soldiers and pilots".
Her crime? She had signed a petition in 2008 that supported Israeli soldiers who refused to serve in Palestinian territories, the official explained.
Shows you how small-minded that schmuck is.
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 41): So the exercise of free speech that can be seen as critical of the government can result in being prevented from attending a scientific symposium that has nothing to do with the issue of Palestine. It's a fine democracy where you can be accused of being "an enemy of the State" simply for voicing a dissenting opinion and signing a petition.
It's not just Israel. It's wherever neo-con ideology and cults of personality have taken hold. Here in Canada under Harpers gang, those in the scientific community who criticise the government suffer one of three fates:
- funding cut if in academe;
- shuffled off into a dark corner if a government employee; or
- fired.
This has effectively stifled criticism of government policy by the fisheries and oceans people, the environmental community, and so forth. Several Natonal Research Council establishments have been closed, esp. those dealing with cutting edge work. History has shown that business simply will not fund these efforts to the extent the government has - until Harper.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 43, posted (6 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 4597 times:
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 40): it seems that the ideologists on both sides go for "racial purity".
All the evidence points to the Israelis being the only people pursuing racist policies, MD11Engineer? In the 'old days' (i.e. before 1948) Palestine was a model of religious tolerance, with Muslims, Jews, and Christians (less than two million of them, at that time) all living together in relative peace and harmony (apart from Jewish terrorist organisations like the Stern Gang, who were already killing Arabs - and British soldiers).
Come to that, I see no evidence of the Palestinians pursuing racist policies even now? They have (reluctantly) agreed to a solution based on the 1967 borders. It is Israel that refuses to accept that solution; and the Jews are still driving out Palestinians, demolishing their homes, and building 'Jews only' settlements in their place. Not to mention periodically bombing defenceless civilians in Gaza.
The ONLY solution is for Israel to drop its state-run regime of racial and religious intolerance, and adopt the second and third of Roosevelt's Four Freedoms:-
"The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way -- everywhere in the world.
"The third is freedom from want -- which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants -- everywhere in the world."
There is only one way that can be achieved - by the United States 'stopping the money' and leaning very hard on the Jews to end their merciless persecution of the Palestinians. But it looks as if pigs will fly before that happens........
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 44, posted (6 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4567 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 43): and leaning very hard on the Jews
Depending on whose figures you accept and depending on the definitions used, there are about 13.5 million Jews of whom about 6 million live in Israel and the West Bank. About 5.5 million live in the US. Not all Jews, inside or outside Israel support either the State of Israel or the settlement policy. Some may oppose Zionism on religious grounds while supporting immigration to the "Land Of Israel".
Within Israel itself, as links to Haaretz provided in various threads show, there is opposition to and criticism of the Government's policy based on human rights and a recognition that Israel can not continue to exist in a permanent state of war.
We know that Israel is not interested in a Two State Solution. If the West is - and that is a big if - then it needs to prove it by doing more than mouthing platitudes. But any leaning hard needs to be upon the Government of Israel and not simply on "the Jews". However, as you say "it looks as if pigs will fly before that happens."
So you may wish to review and amend that last sentence lest you allow the apologists for the dispossession of Palestinians an opening to shrilly denounce you as "a you know what."
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 45, posted (6 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4560 times:
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 44): So you may wish to review and amend that last sentence
Thought a while before phrasing it that way, Quokkas. But it's a fact. Anyone of the Jewish faith can emigrate to Israel any time they like - 'expenses paid.' No-one professing any other religion enjoys that privilege. Non-Jews in Israel do not enjoy equal rights. And we all know that even the Palestinians in the West Bank are not safe - day by day, they are being unmercifully oppressed, and systematically driven out of their homes and turned into refugees.........by Jews.......
So there is no room for doubt that Israel is practising religious discrimination.......and the rest of the world, including the United States and the United Nations, is just 'letting it happen.' Israel's malignant and constant activities are nothing more than (or less than) religious discrimination and persecution on the grand scale. They are the Nazis of the 21st. Century - remember Hitler's Germany driving Poles and other Europeans out of their ancestral homes and giving the land to German farmers?
So I thought that, just for once, I'd 'tell it like it is.' Israel is an 'evil regime' in my book.....
[Edited 2012-12-06 21:59:50]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 46, posted (6 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4535 times:
But there is a world of difference between the actions and policies of a State and what individual people may or not choose to do. Not all Jews are Israelis and not all Israeli Jews - let alone all Jews - support the Government's position, even if the majority in Israel do. So to use labels like "the Jews" is inaccurate. Yes, the individuals who are seizing land are Jews but they do not enjoy the support of all Jews. They do usually have the support of the Government and the IDF but there have been instances where the Supreme Court (which is presumably comprised of Jews as well) has ruled against them.
It is also wrong to simply say that Israel is practicing religious discrimination. Discrimination there is but the identity of someone as being Jewish is not limited to professing a religion. Many of the founders of Zionism rejected religion as outdated, adopting semi-socialist positions. Zionism posited the Jews as a nation, not as followers of a religion. So non-religious Jews live in Israel as well. Being Jewish is being part of an ethnicity of which part is religion but is not limited to it.
On November 14, 1935, the Nazis issued the following definition of a Jew: Anyone with three Jewish grandparents; someone with two Jewish grandparents who belonged to the Jewish community on September 15, 1935, or joined thereafter; was married to a Jew or Jewess on September 15, 1935, or married one thereafter; was the offspring of a marriage or extramarital liaison with a Jew on or after September 15, 1935. Clearly in their proclamation and in other writings, the Nazis viewed Jews not simply as followers of a religion but as members of a race - they were non-Aryan, they were not German. No similar distinction was made for Catholics, Lutherans or even Communists, although the term Jewish-Bolshevik often appeared in propaganda for the same reason - it identified it as foreign, non-German. A Jew converting to Catholicism was still regarded as a Jew. So to the Nazis, just as it was to the Zionists, race or ethnicity was the defining feature.
Sorry to go off on a tangent but I think it important to make a distinction between people who belong to a particular race/ religion/ social group and the Government of the State in which they reside.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 47, posted (6 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4526 times:
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 46): Yes, the individuals who are seizing land are Jews but they do not enjoy the support of all Jews. They do usually have the support of the Government and the IDF but there have been instances where the Supreme Court (which is presumably comprised of Jews as well) has ruled against them.
Of course you're right, as far is it goes, Quokkas - I served in Germany not all that long after WW2, and it was equally clear that not all Germans had supported the Nazis, either. But Hitler and his Nazi pals ran the government - if they'd 'stood up' and resisted in any way, they'd only have had two options; the Russian Front, or death.
I notice that the one word that doesn't appear in your post is 'Palestinians.' The 'Muslims' - plus a fair few Christians. I must admit, they're the people I think of first, in all these discussions. Because they're being mercilessly driven out.
How do you think the free world should set about giving THEM any sort of fair chance - starting from here?
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
First, accept the enhanced status at the UN without recriminations. I would go further and say that there is no real basis for objecting to full membership.The claim that Statehood can only come through a bilateral agreement is patently false, given the precedent of Israel.
Second, do not oppose the right of the Palestinian Authority to accede to the ICC and ICJ. In acceding to the jurisdiction of the Courts Palestine would be just as bound by its rulings as any other member state. And if Israel is genuinely a country based on law it will respect that. After all, if it is abiding by International Laws and Agreements surely the Courts will consider that favourably. Or is it a case of we abide by decisions when they suit and ignore them when they don't?
Third, demand a complete halt to the "settlement policy". This has been the sticking in all the efforts made by Fatah and the PA in the past. No amount of 'willingness to negotiate" has stopped the shrinkage of land sufficient to support a viable state. Maps showing areas of proposed settlements and security perimeters clearly indicate the intention to fragment, isolate and contain the Palestinian population. If the West is serious about a Two State Solution the proposals must be prevented from being carried out.
Finally, make future support for Israel conditional on its willingness to enter into serious negotiation with the Palestinians on a common border based on the 1967 line. To date the blind, unequivocal and open-cheque book support for Israel has allowed Israel to dictate the terms. If Israel wants to grand stand or just play games, pull the plug just as has been done in the past to the Palestinians.
But I have serious doubts about the West's intentions towards the people of Palestine. They have always been seen as expendable, a problem to be pushed aside in pursuit of other agendas. While the vote at the UN was welcome, it did not enjoy support from the West. Abstention can best be seen as an each-way bet, if we are being charitable. Australia's Foreign Minister summed it up best when he stated that a "no" vote would have harmed Australia's other interests in the region. It had little to do with a commitment to human rights or a sympathy for the plight of Palestinians.
flyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 1380 posts, RR: 9 Reply 49, posted (6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4469 times:
Quokkas, your posting is a blueprint for peace in the Middle East.
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 48): The claim that Statehood can only come through a bilateral agreement is patently false, given the precedent of Israel.
It is even more false, because:
...to be a state, you need:
- a defined territory
- a permanent population
- and a recognition as a state by other states.
142 states have diplomatic relations to Palestine, and 106 states have fully recognized Palestine as a state... so it goes. Any "statehood by bilateral agreement only" is utter BS.
In the same vein, Israel shouldn't care if it is recognized by Hamas or the Fatah. Like Palestine, it can say... well, we are recognized by other governments. We don't need recognition by Israel or any Israeli party.
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 48): Second, do not oppose the right of the Palestinian Authority to accede to the ICC and ICJ.
If Israel wants Palestine to do things peacefully, then the UN, ICC and the ICJ is the way to go. I remember a newspaper article about Israel protesting the ICJ ruling about the West Bank wall, using a bombed bus as a backdrop. The thinly veiled message is clear.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 50, posted (6 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4447 times:
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 48): Finally, make future support for Israel conditional on its willingness to enter into serious negotiation with the Palestinians on a common border based on the 1967 line. To date the blind, unequivocal and open-cheque book support for Israel has allowed Israel to dictate the terms. If Israel wants to grand stand or just play games, pull the plug just as has been done in the past to the Palestinians.
Couldn't agree more. It's abundantly clear that Israel intends eventually to seize and occupy every part of Palestine (literally everything from the Mediterranean to the Jordan) except the Gaza Strip. Over the next ten years or so, if things go on as they are, the West Bank Palestinians will have either to settle for being locked up in Gaza, or becoming dirt-poor second-class citizens in Jordan.
So the question is, who exactly is going to 'pull' said plug? There's only one place that has the financial and military power to stop Israel; and that is the United States. Which shows absolutely no sign that it is even considering intervention?
[Edited 2012-12-07 05:42:01]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5281 posts, RR: 4 Reply 51, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4402 times:
Alot of people must be thinking along the lines Palestinians = Arabs = Muslim = easily can be accomodated by Jordan who ruled them earlier, they think its a North-South korea like thing, which it isnt.
damirc From Slovenia, joined Feb 2004, 692 posts, RR: 7 Reply 52, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4382 times:
Quoting 777way (Reply 51): Alot of people must be thinking along the lines Palestinians = Arabs = Muslim = easily can be accomodated by Jordan who ruled them earlier, they think its a North-South korea like thing, which it isnt.
Yeh. Don't buy that line of reasoning either ... "the Arabs have 21 countries, why do they need a 22nd" ... well, seems we Slavs also have a bunch of countries, but hell would freeze over sooner than we folded it into one o (we, the southern Slavs tried it ... but everyone knows how that went ...).
These settlements really need to stop, but until there is political pressure for them from within Israel I don't see that happening. And from what I read the people of Israel are mostly in favor of these settlements.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 53, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4375 times:
Quoting 777way (Reply 51): Alot of people must be thinking along the lines Palestinians = Arabs = Muslim = easily can be accomodated by Jordan who ruled them earlier, they think its a North-South korea like thing, which it isnt.
I agree, but the posts you made about how outrageous it was that Arab/Muslim are seeking help from non-Arab/Muslim countries and a Muslim country shouldn't be afraid of other Muslim countries definitely feeds into the stereotype you just posted
777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5281 posts, RR: 4 Reply 54, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4346 times:
^ Not getting you, if you mean Palestinians should not be afraid of Jordan and merge with them, then read damirc's reply to my post with the example about Slav's and their countries. Palestininas are holding onto their own identity they are not Jordanian or Lebanese or Syrian despite sharing their faith and race with those.
And I stand by my religion based views that two Muslim states should not be enemies and definitely not seek outside help to fight each other, especially not from Israel, if tension is there resolve it through talks, I mean its meaningless to call themselevs Muslim if they are not following God's commands, thats what Islam is all about.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 55, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4339 times:
I was agreeing with you, just because two groups of people are the same skin color, ethnicity, and share the same religion, doesn't mean we should be lumped together. The US is not Canada's problem, Palestine is not Jordan's problem.
I was just finding it strange that you are against this kind of lumping together, yet you think Muslim countries should share a sort of special bond that rises above everything else. On one hand, Jordan shouldn't merge with Palestine just because they're Arab Muslims, but on the other, two Arab Muslim countries shouldn't fight because they're both Arab and Muslims. Personally, I don't think they should fight either, but not because they're both Arab and both Muslim, because they're both decent humans.
Maybe I'm comparing apples to oranges, but it seems the same to me.
ImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1243 posts, RR: 14 Reply 56, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4341 times:
The term "West Bank" that the media incessantly uses, was never a place known to history, and that for thousands of years, right up to the U.N.'s resolution in 1947, the land is Israel's Judea-Samaria and is still correctly known by those biblical names.
And, by the way, if there is a "West Bank" then where exactly is the "East Bank"? East Jerusalem? Just where are they?
And why are Jews referred to as "settlers" and Arabs as "villagers". Could it be the HUGE anti-semitic spin put out there for all and sundry?
The plain truth is that this has been the land of the Jewish people for over three thousand years and no amount of propaganda, spin and revisionist history can change that. It wasn't until 1967 that the term "Palestinian" had ever even been applied to the Arabs in the area.
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 57, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4340 times:
Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 56): The term "West Bank" that the media incessantly uses, was never a place known to history, and that for thousands of years, right up to the U.N.'s resolution in 1947, the land is Israel's Judea-Samaria and is still correctly known by those biblical names.
They probably didn't need a name for this area. Germany before WWII was Germany, but afterwards, there was, for the first time in history, an East Germany and West Germany.
Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 56): And why are Jews referred to as "settlers" and Arabs as "villagers". Could it be the HUGE anti-semitic spin put out there for all and sundry?
Because, well, after WWII, a large amount of Jews "settled" in the Palestinian "villages." I think you're reading too deep into this issue. Edit: and many of them continue to "settle" on Palestinian land
Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 56): The plain truth is that this has been the land of the Jewish people for over three thousand years and no amount of propaganda, spin and revisionist history can change that. It wasn't until 1967 that the term "Palestinian" had ever even been applied to the Arabs in the area.
Let's pack our bags, sir, and go back to Europe. We are living in Native American lands. Just because my ancestors lived in Poland centuries ago, am I just entitled to Polish land?
lewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3448 posts, RR: 5 Reply 58, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4339 times:
Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 56): The term "West Bank" that the media incessantly uses, was never a place known to history, and that for thousands of years, right up to the U.N.'s resolution in 1947, the land is Israel's Judea-Samaria and is still correctly known by those biblical names.
I can name you a lot of places that do not carry the historical name and were until recently known with their original historical names. I am not sure what you are trying to say here, it has already been pointed out that claiming land based on religious grounds or old religious scripture is unrealistic. Claiming land and moving people that have been living there for centuries is also unrealistic.
Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 56):
And, by the way, if there is a "West Bank" then where exactly is the "East Bank"? East Jerusalem? Just where are they?
I am pretty sure it comes from being on the west bank of the Jordan river. East bank would then be on the east side of the river, in Jordan.
Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 56): And why are Jews referred to as "settlers" and Arabs as "villagers"
Not all Jews living in Israel are considered settlers, settlers are the ones that decided to move to Israel just because they are allowed to based on their religious affiliations. The settlers are those who had always lived outside Israel and even the whole region. An American Jew who decides to move to Israel would be a settler. I think it is pretty clear from the definition of the word.
777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5281 posts, RR: 4 Reply 59, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4332 times:
DeltaMD90, Its very simple, Islam has said that since you are following this faith now you are borthers and share a bond that goes beyond race, nationality, tribe, colour thats why, but does not mean merge your countries because you are the same race and religion, you can form things along the lines of EU and even merge if you want to, but its not a mus do thing because you are the samet, and due to that brotherhood war between two Muslim countries be they Arab vs Arab or non-Arab vs non-Arab or Arab vs non-Arab is forbidden
victrola From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 443 posts, RR: 1 Reply 61, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4317 times:
Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 56): The plain truth is that this has been the land of the Jewish people for over three thousand years and no amount of propaganda, spin and revisionist history can change that. It wasn't until 1967 that the term "Palestinian" had ever even been applied to the Arabs in the area.
The plain truith is that this land has had a majority Arab population for over 1000 years. If Israel wants to keep this land what do you suggest they do with the Arabs who have been living there for centuries? A so called Jewish State with a huge minority or maybe eventually majority Arab population is not going to work. I have yet to hear a coherent answer from a defender of Israeli policies to this question.
777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5281 posts, RR: 4 Reply 62, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4316 times:
Thats the third time you have asked, hopefully there will be an answer, but I think its evident they evntually want them to move in with Jordan, shrewd as always.
victrola From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 443 posts, RR: 1 Reply 64, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4300 times:
Quoting 777way (Reply 62): Thats the third time you have asked, hopefully there will be an answer, but I think its evident they evntually want them to move in with Jordan, shrewd as always
I doubt any of them want to face this issue. There are really only 4 alternatives:
1) Give them Israeli citizenship with all the rights that go with that.
2) Construct some type of apartheid system like in the old South Africa. (We all know how that turned out)
3) Expulsion of the population.
4) Extermination.
Pu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, RR: 12 Reply 65, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4304 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 45): including the United States and the United Nations, is just 'letting it happen
I usually reject the complaint sometimes heard from Americans that the whole world damns them when they DO meddle in countries overseas and also damns them when they DON'T meddle with countries overseas, BUT,
America is not to blame here. America has its interests just like Iran has their interests and the greater Muslim world has their interests and the EU has their interests....and everyone is sending money to their favourite proxy in this conflict.
Obama is no rubber stamp for Israel ... but he is admirable for upholding the commitment to Israel's security made by previous adminstrations and implicit in America's 1947 vote supporting Israel's creation.
Frankly, I don't blame Americans who side with Israel for doing so; besides the remaining monarchies in the region America has bought off, the whole neighbourhood is a flaming mess with no impressive history of responsible and liberal self government ....I trust the Israelis with all their faults to maintain the Judeo-Christian heritage sites and keep them freely available a lot more than I trust the pissed off Palestinians to protect the incalculably valuable history of Palestine/Israel/Judea.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19813 posts, RR: 56 Reply 66, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4300 times:
Quoting Pu (Reply 65): he is admirable for upholding the commitment to Israel's security made by previous adminstrations and implicit in America's 1947 vote supporting Israel's creation.
And he's right to uphold the commitment to Israel's security, so long as Israel is committed to being a peaceful democratic country. Unfortunately, continued settlement expansion undermines that.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 67, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4292 times:
Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 56): The plain truth is that this has been the land of the Jewish people for over three thousand years and no amount of propaganda, spin and revisionist history can change that. It wasn't until 1967 that the term "Palestinian" had ever even been applied to the Arabs in the area.
On the contrary, ImperialEagle, the term (initially 'Philistine') appears in the very first Book of the Bible, Genesis. The Philistines are believed to have been skilled ship-handlers who originated from Greece or Crete. The Israelites didn't arrive until the next Book, Exodus - which records how the nomadic 'Children of Israel' attacked the Philistines.
"The Philistines are first mentioned in Gen 10:14. Apparently they came from Caphtor, or Crete, very early in Bible times (Deu 2:23; Jer 47:4; Amo 9:7). The land of Canaan received its other name -- Philistia, or Palestine -- from them (Psa 60:8; 87:4; Isa 14:29).
"The Philistines ousted other peoples and settled initially on the Maritime Plain north of Gaza -- a very fertile and desirable area. They seem to have lived in the region around Gerar and Beersheba as early as the time of Abraham (Gen 21:32,34; 26:1).
"After the Exodus, the tribes of Israel were directed by God to journey to Canaan by a route that bypassed the coast of the Philistines (Exo 13:17,18), presumably because they were too strong for Israel at that time. When the Israelites began to settle the Land, the tribe of Judah captured Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron (Jdg 1:18), three of the five main Philistine cities; the other two were Gath and Ashdod. But a bit later, because of its idolatries, Israel was handed over into the hands of the Philistines (Jdg 10:6,7). It was delivered from them (Jdg 10:11,12), but soon fell under their dominion again, and remained so, off and on, through the times of Samson (Jdg 14-16), Eli (1Sa 4-6), Samuel, and Saul (1Sa 10:5: 12:9; 13:19-21; 14:52). After Saul's army was defeated, and he and his sons slain by the Philistines (1Sa 28:4; 29:11; 31:1-13), king David overcame and repelled them on several occasions (2Sa 3:18; 5:17-25; 8:1; 19:9; 21:15-22; 23:9-17)."
So it really is the other way round. On the available evidence, the 'Palestinians' were there first; the 'Israelites' arrived much later (from Egypt), and attacked them, and tried to drive them out.
And the process is still going on......
[Edited 2012-12-07 16:36:28]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
ImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1243 posts, RR: 14 Reply 68, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4257 times:
So? Which bastardization of the original text is this one? The Old Testament as re-written by the Greeks and then re-written by the Romans and then re-written by the Anglicans or ?? Your "available evidence" is highly questionable.
No single term is so determinative of Western public perception of right and wrong in the Arab-Israeli conflict as is reference to Palestinian Arabs as "the Palestinians". It hasn't been that long ago that "Palestinians" used to mean primarily Palestine's Jews.
Palestine's Arabs not only deny the historicity of the Jewish people's historical connection to Israel, but claim that they are the aboriginal inhabitants of the land. When the P.A. Prime Minister Salam Fayyad told CNN "the Palestinian people inhabited the land since the dawn of history", and Fatah Revolutionary Council member Dmitri Dilani added that "the Palestinian people are decended from the Caananite tribe of the Jebusites that inhabited the ancient site of Jerusalem as early as 3200 BCE they were espousing "revisionist history".
So, where were these "Palestinian Jebusites" when Jewish Jerusalemites were defending Judah and it's Jerusalem capital against the Assyrian and Babylonian empires; when Maccabees were wresting Jerusalem and the land back from Alexander's Seleucid successors; when Jewish soldiers of the Jewish kingdon of Judaea were defending Jerusalem from the Roman Empire in 63 and 37 BCE and 66-70 and 132-135 CE?
Palestinian Arabs weren't there at that time. Foreign Arabs conquered Palestine from it's Byzantine rulers in the year 638. Today's Palestinian Arabs are mostly decended from Arab and other Muslim immigrants who arrived long thereafter.
The U.N. General Assembly's 1947 partitian resolution repeatedly refferred to the "Jewish state" or the "Arab state" never using the term "Palestinian" instead of "Arab", but the mainstream media has anachronistically replaced "Arab" with "Palestinian". This is a mainstream media historical revisionist "smoking gun", a demonstrable misstatement no less than the mainstream media's misstatement of the Road Map as calling upon the P.A. to "reign in militants" when the document uses forms of terror over and over again AND the mainstream media's mathematically and monstrously wrong misstatement for years of "millions of Palestinian refugees and their decendants."
Like it or not there is another side to this coin and I don't mind one bit putting it out in front. You guys can be haters all you want. You won't stop me from defending the other side of this argument.
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
By all means discuss and bring evidence and analysis. This is always welcome. Defend as much as you wish. This is a public forum and everyone is free to express their views.
Years ago I knew a man, now sadly deceased, who was born in Palestine. He was the son of Zionist immigrants who became quite successful. However, as he grew up he noticed the different treatment afforded to people. At school he wrote an essay in which he asked, "Why are there no Arabs in the class?" His teacher called him a Communist - a child labelled a Communist? Later he became involved with the Zionist movement but began to have doubts about their program. He interjected at one their public meetings. Two of the stewards came and held him and turned his finger back until it broke. It was a warning. He was seventeen years old.
Later, as the campaign of bombings and murdering British soldiers was underway, two militant Zionists visited him at home and beat him up for his opposition to their actions. He later left Palestine (in 1946 it was still called that) and settled in the UK. He never acquired UK citizenship and always referred to himself as a Palestinian Jew. He remained opposed to Zionism until he died.
Today he would no doubt be called a "self-hating Jew". So if you are not Jewish and you are critical of Israel you are by definition "antisemitic". If you are Jewish and oppose Zionism you are a "self-hating Jew". Either way, in your view, "haters".
Good, sound and rational arguments, I am sure.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 70, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4237 times:
Why are we living in the past, by the way? Look at the problems, now
Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 68): Like it or not there is another side to this coin and I don't mind one bit putting it out in front. You guys can be haters all you want. You won't stop me from defending the other side of this argument.
You could start by actually responding to our arguments instead of ignoring us and calling us haters. If you read these topics, you'll see that I often defend Israel and have gotten chewed out for it. I've got no "side," I want both parties to be held accountable for their wrongs.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 71, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4230 times:
Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 68): So? Which bastardization of the original text is this one?
I merely provided evidence that - according to the Old Testament - the Philistines (i.e. Palestinians) established themselves in the land from Gaza to Beersheba about thirty centuries ago. And that the Israelites arrived much later, and took a lot of the land by force, destroying a lot of Palestinian cities in the process. Look up the references the writer provided in the OT - the evidence is clear.
In any case, I - and, I expect, most other people on here - just plain don't believe in the idea of a 'Jewish' state, or a 'Muslim' one either. The only workable longterm basis for setting up any sort of workable state, in my book, is a democracy that ensures freedom of religion, equality before the law, and equal opportunity.
The whole idea of a 'Jewish state,' therefore - or a 'Muslim' or a 'Christian' one for that matter - is anathema to most of us. And, equally, history shows that theocracies just plain don't work. So I sincerely hope that the Israeli theocracy is consigned to history as soon as possible, and Israel adopts a policy of freedom of religion.
And that, further, Israel brings in a sensible policy on immigration. The whole place - Israel AND Palestine - is so darned small that it simply can't go on letting in more and more people. That 'overcrowding,' in my opinion, is one of the primary causes of all the conflict.
[Edited 2012-12-07 23:16:04]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22870 posts, RR: 87 Reply 72, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4225 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 71): In any case, I - and, I expect, most other people on here - just plain don't believe in the idea of a 'Jewish' state, or a 'Muslim' one either. The only workable longterm basis for setting up any sort of workable state, in my book, is a democracy that ensures freedom of religion, equality before the law, and equal opportunity.
I have no problem with a theocracy. I don't like it and I wouldn't want to live in one, but if people do that's their business. There are Islamic states now.
It was always the intention post Ottoman Empire, as in Sykes-Picot and later in the Balfour Declaration, that Palestine become a Jewish state, with one important proviso:
""His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
To reiterate: It being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...
What neither Sykes/Picot nor Balfour reckoned with was Hitler and the Holocaust, which caused considerable immigration from Europe, particularly Eastern Europe, of many surviving Jews.
Not even some members of the Stern Gang, heavily pro-Zionist, were in favour of that.
EDKA From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 293 posts, RR: 1 Reply 73, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4213 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 45): So I thought that, just for once, I'd 'tell it like it is.
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 69): Today he would no doubt be called a "self-hating Jew". So if you are not Jewish and you are critical of Israel you are by definition "antisemitic". If you are Jewish and oppose Zionism you are a "self-hating Jew". Either way, in your view, "haters".
Good, sound and rational arguments, I am sure.
I think you know the difference, but in case you dont, let me explain to you. As a jewish person, i know antisemitism when i see it. And i have quite thick skin. Plenty of people (including Jews) critise Israel. I dont have a problem with that. I am very critical of certain Israeli policies (settlements as an example).
Saying that, there a level of antisemitism on this board from certain people - there is no point in denying it?? As non Jewish person (i assume), you may not think it is or may not even care. Thats fine. But there is a reason why i personally called certain people here antisemitic and not others (equally critical of Israel).
ImperialEagle is right, and if we want to "tell it as it is", then the issue of Palestinians identity (or lack of it) need to be mentioned. That does not mean in any way that i do not support Palestinian state next to Israel, but it needs to be said that Palestinian identity is a product of early 20th century (does that coincide with anything that you and others have been criticizing ?). There were NEVER claims or aspirations of the local people in Palestine to establish a state before state of Israel was established.
pellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1868 posts, RR: 8 Reply 74, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4212 times:
Quoting EDKA (Reply 73): but it needs to be said that Palestinian identity is a product of early 20th century (does that coincide with anything that you and others have been criticizing ?). There were NEVER claims or aspirations of the local people in Palestine to establish a state before state of Israel was established.
??? Israeli identity was a product of the mid 20th century, for there was no Israel. Just because a territory of the world was unincorporated and not solidified as a state does not mean that it is free for takeover without criticism or being lambasted. In fact, there are several documented stories of Palestinians forced out of their homes during the founding of the State of Israel, during the apartheid which Israel introduced, and during the building of settlements, and during the building of the separation wall.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22870 posts, RR: 87 Reply 75, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4205 times:
Quoting EDKA (Reply 73): There were NEVER claims or aspirations of the local people in Palestine to establish a state before state of Israel was established.
There was never any need or, during the Ottoman Empire, any possibility. But there were non-Jewish people native to the land whose families had lived there for millennia. I could claim Palestine (British Mandate of) as my homeland - I was born there.
It cuts both ways. After the Romans and the Diaspora, there wasn't much (any?) Jewish movement back "there" for about eighteen hundred years.
When the Jews were expelled from England in the 13th century they didn't go back "there", they went to Europe.
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 76, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4203 times:
Quoting EDKA (Reply 73): There were NEVER claims or aspirations of the local people in Palestine to establish a state before state of Israel was established.
Professor Haim Gerber might disagree with that view. He has suggested that nascent Arab nationalism can be traced back to the 17th Century, though he does posit it as social awareness rather than political identity. Prior to the first world war people who lived in Palestine generally viewed themselves as Ottoman subjects and there had been appeals to the Sultan to halt Jewish immigration. While at this stage these appeals did not constitute a desire for an independent state they did reflect the view that the locals were slowly being crowded out. Initially notables in Palestine were aligned to the movement for an Arab State in Syria but after an agreement by Faisal with Weizmann to facilitate the formation of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine they broke with him. They began to agitate for Palestine to become a separate state and demanded an elected assembly.
So while it is true that Palestinian nationalism in the modern sense is a product of the twentieth century it is false to suggest that the people did not have an identifiable link with the country or that there were NEVER (your emphasis) efforts to achieve Palestinian self-determination before 1948.
As to the question of whether I care about the presence of antisemitism, the answer is that I am opposed to all forms of discrimination whether it be based on race, ethnicity, the profession of religious belief or not, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, family status, age and disability. So I am equally opposed to antisemitism. My above posts indicate that, particularly post #46.
That said, I repeat my belief that Netanyahu and Likud are not interested in a Two State Solution. If in some people's eyes that makes me a hater, so be it. Call me what you like, as long as it's not late for lunch.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 77, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4206 times:
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 76): I repeat my belief that Netanyahu and Likud are not interested in a Two State Solution. If in some people's eyes that makes me a hater, so be it.
Seconded. I view Israel's attitudes - and behaviour - in exactly the same light as I saw apartheid in South Africa. That eventually ended - let's hope that Zionism ends soon too.......
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
ImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1243 posts, RR: 14 Reply 78, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4157 times:
The Holocaust was not the cause of Israel's creation.
The Jewish people have lived in the land of Israel continuously for over three thousand years, sovereign twice in ancient times and surviving foreign rule during the centuries between the crushing of Judea by Rome in the year 135CE until modern Israel's attainment of independence in 1948, when it became the land's next native state after Judea.
This historical connection to Palestine and the Jewish people's right to reconstitute their Jewish National Home in that land has been recognized by international conferences and documents that PRECEEDED the Holocaust.
Israel was not "created" at all. It comprises the natural evolution into statehood of the Jewish people's homeland presence.
Israels enemies include Holocaust deniers and doubters who question why Palestinians should "suffer" "even if" a calamity befell the European Jews. They claim that any recompense due to the Jews should be provided in the place where the presumed injustice was perpetrated; all the while they spew forth propaganda rather than accurate or newsworthy statements.
The response to the Holocaust-denial canard is not to recite the evidence documenting that the Holocaust happened.
Incontrovertibly, the Holocaust happened. The Germans documented everything quite well. The response is to make clear that Israel was not created "because of the Holocaust" to cite the historical records such as the Balfour Declaration, The San Remo Conference and the League of Nations Palestine Mandate.
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 76): Netanyahu and Likud are not interested in a Two State Solution
The "Roadmap for Peace" a performance based "roadmap" to a Permenant solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, was a plan formulated in 2003 by a "quartet" of international entities: the United States, the European Union, Russia and the U.N. to resolve the conflict after the Oslo Accords failed. It was first outlined in a speech by then Persident George W. Bush on June 24th, 2002, in which he stated "The Road Map represents a starting point toward the vision of achieving the vision of TWO STATES, a secure State of Israel and a VIABLE, PEACEFUL and DEMOCRATIC Palestine. It is the framework for progress towards lasting peace and security in the Middle East".
Interestingly, media references to the "Road Map" frequently cite ONLY Israel's obligations, and when Palestinian obligations are mentioned they are often couched as "to reign in militants". While forms of "terror" appear ten times in the Road Map, forms of the words "militants" never appear even once. The usual double-standard.
Now, the Road Map has THREE Phases.
The PALESTINIAN's obligations outlined in Phase One include:
Palestinian Leadership issues unequivocal statement reiterating Israel's right to exist in PEACE and SECURITY and calling for an IMMEDIATE and UNCONDITIONAL ceasefire to END ARMED ACTIVITY and ALL ACTS of VIOLENCE against Israeli's ANYWHERE.
Palestinians declare an unequivocal end to VIOLENCE and TERRORISM and take VISABLE efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt and restrain INDIVIDUALS and GROUPS conducting and planning VIOLENT ATTACKS on Israeli's ANYWHERE.
Rebuilt and refocused Palestinian Authority security apparatus begins SUSTAINED, TARGETED and EFFECTIVE operations aimed at confronting ALL THOSE ENGAGED in TERROR, and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and belowstructure. This includes commencing CONFISCATION of ILLEGAL WEAPONS and consolodation of SECURITY AUTHORITY, FREE of ASSOCIATION with TERROR and corruption.
Arab States CUT OFF public and private funding and ALL OTHER FORMS of support for groups supporting and engaging in violence and terror.
So, with that historical precedent already established, fast-forward to May of 2011 when Netanyahu spoke to the U.S. Congress and said "the conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian State (and Jordan, which was formed from 75% of the land from the Palestine Mandate and has a population which is 70% or so, Palestinian Arab) but rather the existence of the tiny State of Israel (about 6 million Jews) surrounded by about 22 Arab-Muslim nations of about 350 million people."
Netanyahu went on to describe the incessant incitement against Israel and Jews perpetrated in Judea/Sumaria and Gaza by the Palestinian Authority AND Hamas and their fanciful requirement that the decendents of Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war that THEY initiated, be allowed to "return" to their "homes" inside Israel proper:
"My friends, this must come to an end. President Abbas must do what I have done. I have said "I will accept a Palestinian State". So he goes on to say "it is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say "I will ACCEPT A JEWISH STATE". "Those six words will change history".
Several days after Netanyahu's speech Abbas replied "With regard to Palestinian recognition of a Jewish State, or whatever, this has NEVER been an issue.Throughout the negotiations between Israel and us, from 1993 until a year ago we never heard the words "Jewish State". Our response is to go to the U.N. and call yourselves whatever you like. We are not the party to address and we REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE A JEWISH STATE."
Then Abbas reiterated his statements on August 28th, 2011 on the eve of the September U.N. Statehood bid, as he criticized demands made by the International Quartet I mentioned earlier here, and told them to "back-off" and "don't order us to RECOGNIZE a JEWISH STATE. WE WON"T ACCEPT AND Irtysh-Avia (Kazakhstan)">IT."
So the way I see it is that the Arab Nations have repeatedly and persistently rejected peace with Israel and a Western "Palestine" Arab state of their own when it was proposed by the Peel Commission in 1937, when it was offered ny the U.N. in 1947 (when the Jews accepted their offer and the Arabs rejected it and instead launched a war against a "fledgling" Jewish State by FIVE invading Arab armies, and when it was offered to Palestinian Authority President Yassar Arafat by President Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak at the Camp David Conference of 2000.
Arafat's response was a non-response. DUH!
He walked away and shortly thereafter he initiated the deadly "Second Intifada".
So before you guys point the finger at Netanyahu and paint him as some sort of a "war monger" you need to look back on what events have proceeded his decisions------that is, if you can even bring yourselves to see the other side of the equation through all that hatred of the Jewish people. Netanyahu will do whatever it takes to defend the citizens of Israel. That is what he has been elected to do. Good for him.
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
einsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2080 posts, RR: 6 Reply 79, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4148 times:
Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 78): Netanyahu went on to describe the incessant incitement against Israel and Jews perpetrated in Judea/Sumaria and Gaza by the Palestinian Authority AND Hamas and their fanciful requirement that the decendents of Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war that THEY initiated, be allowed to "return" to their "homes" inside Israel proper:
"My friends, this must come to an end. President Abbas must do what I have done. I have said "I will accept a Palestinian State". So he goes on to say "it is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say "I will ACCEPT A JEWISH STATE". "Those six words will change history".
It's one thing to recognize a Jewish state (a state whose majority practices Judaism); it's another to recognize the Israeli state (recognize Israelis). I'm pretty sure Netanyahu would be in the same stance if Abbas demanded that Israel recognize an Islamic state.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
I wouldn't accept a Jewish state either - that would be a statement that that land belongs exclusively to the Jewish people, when that's not the case. I'd accept the existence of the state of Israel, but even that would be dependent on what the particular borders were. If they're going to include all the settlements that are being built, then forget it.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22870 posts, RR: 87 Reply 82, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4121 times:
Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 78): The Holocaust was not the cause of Israel's creation.
I know that - re-read what I said.
Both Sykes-Picot and the Balfour Declaration and the intention that "there" become a Jewish state were before the Holocaust - Balfour in 1926.
The Sykes-Picot map (1916) shows post-Ottoman ME divided into British and French territories and influence with the the area called Palestine, including the West Bank, under joint British/French control (an "International Condominium") eventually to become that Jewish state (Balfour):
TE Shaw (Lawrence of Arabia) refers approvingly to this concept in his first ME travels even before WW1, when he had no knowledge of Sykes-Picot.
What none of them could foresee was the immigration from Germany and Eastern Europe caused by Hitler's policies and many Jews already there (native to the land) were eventually disturbed by this influx of "foreigners."
EDKA From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 293 posts, RR: 1 Reply 83, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4121 times:
Quoting pellegrine (Reply 74): Israeli identity was a product of the mid 20th century, for there was no Israel. Just because a territory of the world was unincorporated and not solidified as a state does not mean that it is free for takeover without criticism or being lambasted. In fact, there are several documented stories of Palestinians forced out of their homes during the founding of the State of Israel, during the apartheid which Israel introduced, and during the building of settlements, and during the building of the separation wall.
you are correct on all of these, my point was jews sought to establish a state as a "nation", the Palestinians never has such aspirations. they never talked about state of palestine when west bank was occupied by Jordan and Gaza by Egypt. why is that?
dont get me wrong, i do support two state solution, and as i said before, i believe it is in Israel's best interest to settle this with Palestinians.
ImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1243 posts, RR: 14 Reply 85, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4092 times:
And in today's Wall Street Journal yet another article about the Palestinian Arabs rallying around the new Hamas terrorist leadership who again refuses to recognize the right of Israel to exist. A real peacemaker this guy is.
Just which legitimate Islamic countries does Israel not recognize?
Quoting EDKA (Reply 83): they never talked about state of palestine when west bank was occupied by Jordan and Gaza by Egypt. why is that?
Because the Arab nations had not yet realized what a powerful weapon they had to use against Israel------the Palestinian Arabs who were for the most part illiterate and theoretically at least, wouldn't realize they were being used as human "pawns" in the much bigger game of trying to destroy the Jewish people. It worked out well for the former King of Jordan who massacred them by the thousands and ran them out of his country back in 1970, but, oh yeah, no one wants to "recall" that historic tidbit. Where was all the condemnation from all the Arab bretheren after the King did that? "Black September" has been swept under-the-rug because it just doesn't fit today's revisionist history. Yes, the Arab nations quickly realized that all those displaced Arabs from the land of the Trans-Jordan could quickly be made into the "poor homeless Palestinians". Especially after the loss of their 1967 campaign against Israel, and the Palestinian Arabs are still being used as (willing) pawns. And by the way, the old saying about "to the victor goes the spoils" doesn't say except for the Jews.
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
damirc From Slovenia, joined Feb 2004, 692 posts, RR: 7 Reply 86, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4080 times:
Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 85): And in today's Wall Street Journal yet another article about the Palestinian Arabs rallying around the new Hamas terrorist leadership who again refuses to recognize the right of Israel to exist. A real peacemaker this guy is.
Yup, noticed this also. Fatah should really exercise some caution and not deal with his sort.
Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 85): It worked out well for the former King of Jordan who massacred them by the thousands and ran them out of his country back in 1970, but, oh yeah, no one wants to "recall" that historic tidbit. Where was all the condemnation from all the Arab bretheren after the King did that?
Erm. You do realize that these people were actually Palestinian refugees who were there not by their own will though, so drawing any parallels to Israel kinda won't work? (and yes, they were kicked out since Black September was terrorising the populace and had let's say differing ideas of how to lead Jordan as opposed to the King).
Still. I don't see a parallel here. They were refugees there, guests if you so wish. They're home in Palestine however.
And sorry for responding, but let's return to the topic before we get this thread locked again ^^
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5918 posts, RR: 8 Reply 88, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4039 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 3): What do others think causes this oddly-submissive approach to anything to do with Israel? My own view is that it's a sort of habitual 'Holocaust cringe'.........
If so, that's a very odd attitude. Sadly, most of the people sent to concentration camps died in them before the war's end - and anyone who survived would be well over seventy now, even if they'd been very small children during the war.
Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 14): And I thought we were over the Holocaust tragedy and we could move on...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but was Ethnic Cleasning not a re-incarnation of all the evils which gave us the Holocaust and this occured in Europe in the 90's, I think when you talk about the issue it is a mindset and not whether there are any Nazi or Internment Camp survivors still walking this earth.
Quoting Pu (Reply 84): But what happens to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank?
If you agree that a negotiation is the only way that peace will be attained between the two parties and land must be returned and bordes set and realinged, why exactly do you believe that settlements are not on the table?
To be simple, what would happen to them is what we have already seen when Israel has closed smaller settlements, part of the agreement is that Israel will either pay for the demolition or the removal of the debris as the settlement buildings are all dismantled, this has already happened on the West Bank and in Gaza.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 89, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4024 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 88): Correct me if I'm wrong, but was Ethnic Cleasning not a re-incarnation of all the evils which gave us the Holocaust and this occured in Europe in the 90's
In 1948, par13del, it was the Palestinians who got 'ethnically cleansed':-
"Outside the gate the soldiers stopped us and ordered everyone to throw all valuables onto a blanket. One young man and his wife of six weeks, friends of our family, stood near me. He refused to give up his money. Almost casually, the soldier pulled up his rifle and shot the man. He fell, bleeding and dying while his bride screamed and cried...
---------------
"The heat felt worse than ever, and the lack of water began to take its toll. Many of us — staggered and fell by the wayside, either dead or dying in the scorching heat.
"Scores of pregnant women miscarried, their babies left for jackals to eat.
"I can still see one infant beside the road, sucking the breast of its dead mother.
"The wife of my father’s cousin, Yacoub, became so thirsty she could go on no longer. She slumped to the ground and died. Not being able to carry her, we wrapped her in cloth and, after saying a prayer, left her body beside a tree...
"Some people were so thirsty and desperate that they drank their own urine."
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5918 posts, RR: 8 Reply 90, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4018 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 89): In 1948, par13del, it was the Palestinians who got 'ethnically cleansed':-
So back to your original point posted below, you seem to think that the Europeans today who are wary of doing ethinc cleansing or re-visiting the holocaust are somehow oddly submissive, either they are supporting the practise currently or are looking to prevent it from happening again, since the 90's are current my point is that it is not about whether survivors of the past events are still walking among us, but a mindset which must be dealt with not regarded as a weakness.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 3): What do others think causes this oddly-submissive approach to anything to do with Israel? My own view is that it's a sort of habitual 'Holocaust cringe'.........
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 91, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4015 times:
Quoting EDKA (Reply 83): the Palestinians never has such aspirations.
Again, this is a mistaken belief. Did or did not a delegation of Palestinians visit the British Colonial Secretary Lord Passfield in London on the 1st of May and again on the 6th of May 1930 and demand a parliament "elected by the people in proportion to their numbers, irrespective of race or creed"? Of course Passfield made a circumlocutory reply, muttered about obligations under the Mandate but basically said no although he subsequently wrote a White paper that proposed to limit Jewish immigration and was critical of the Histadrut (General Federation of Labour) and the Jewish Agency, which both promoted Jewish employment of only Jewish labour, arguing the policy was damaging to the economic development of the Arab population.
But as delightful as this trip down memory lane is, it really doesn't answer the question, "Where to from here? "
Comments by Khaled Meshaal, such as the following don't appear to offer much.
"Palestine is ours, from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concession on an inch of the land...We will never recognise the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation and therefore there is no legitimacy for Israel, no matter how long it will take." The media that I have had time to read haven't published the entire speech, so I don't know if any references were made to any borders or any willingness to negotiate. But while some who attended the celebrations in Gaza welcomed Palestine's enhanced recognition they object to Hamas claiming the mantle of success:
Quote: But Ibraheem Lutfy, 32, resented Hamas's claim of victory in the recent conflict. "It's not Hamas only that was resisting – all the factions were there," he said. "But Hamas wants to own the victory as if it was the only one resisting." He was not impressed by Meshaal's presence: "I never felt he did something special to me."
Will the settlements continue and do those who raise the red herring of holocaust denial want a Two State Solution? Throwing accusation and counter-accusation doesn't lead to progress. What is it that you want? If Israel is to include all of the West Bank/ Judea and Samaria will it be a democratic state in which everyone enjoys full and equal citizenship, irrespective of race or creed? A state in which non-Jews will have a second-tier status (otherwise how can it remain a Jewish State if Jews were to become a minority?) or do you wish to see the remaining non-Israeli Arab population driven out?
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 92, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4012 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 90): you seem to think that the Europeans today who are wary of doing ethinc cleansing or re-visiting the holocaust are somehow oddly submissive
par13del, back in Post 3, I was reporting that after a few days of 'huffing and puffing' about Israel's latest settlement plans, the EU had decided to do nothing at all to stop those plans being implemented. The USA and the UN took the same decision soon afterwards.
No other country in the world would get away with anything like that without, at the least, fierce and continuing international condemnation. And, in the case of Israel, the USA, the UK, and the EU are in a position to stop its constantly-expanding illegal occupation of more and more Palestinian land in its tracks, at any time, just by 'stopping the money.'
As I said, I can't think of anything that would cause the Great Powers to allow Israel such licence except some kind of misplaced (and nowadays totally out-dated) 'Holocaust guilt.'
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
EDKA From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 293 posts, RR: 1 Reply 93, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3973 times:
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 91): But as delightful as this trip down memory lane is, it really doesn't answer the question, "Where to from here? "
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 91): Will the settlements continue and do those who raise the red herring of holocaust denial want a Two State Solution? Throwing accusation and counter-accusation doesn't lead to progress. What is it that you want? If Israel is to include all of the West Bank/ Judea and Samaria will it be a democratic state in which everyone enjoys full and equal citizenship, irrespective of race or creed? A state in which non-Jews will have a second-tier status (otherwise how can it remain a Jewish State if Jews were to become a minority?) or do you wish to see the remaining non-Israeli Arab population driven out?
Not sure if these were questions directed to me personally?
I don't know Quokkas. It takes strong leaders to make things work, especially in that part of the world. Israel had one such leader (Rabin) who could pull this off, and he paid for peace process with his life. Palestinians had a leader in Arafat who seemed to be on the right track in his later years only to make HUGE error of judgement (or maybe that was his intention all along - we will never know) just when it counts. Abbas just does not have it...
What i see, since 2000, is that both parties are drifting further and further apart, the Palestinians are getting split and more radicalized, and Israeli left has almost disappeared and right wingers have taken over. So overall, not a great outlook.
Personally, i think Israel, despite the right wing government, can be pushed/persuaded to get back to Camp David 2000 terms. I think that would cause some internal unrest, but its possible.
I do not think that Palestinians would be interested in such deal today just like they weren't in 2000 - and back them Hamas didn't control Gaza! Fatah is loosing ground to Hamas in the WB too and Hamas does not seem to want to give up its terrorist stance. Add increasing Iranian influence in Gaza (another wrong choice), increasing Salafist and AlQaeda elements in Gaza and Sinai...You cant make peace with people who want to destroy you. And while Hamas represents Palestinians in Gaza, this is the case.
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 94, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3958 times:
Quoting EDKA (Reply 93): Not sure if these were questions directed to me personally?
No, in general but more specifically to some other posters who hurl accusations in an almost Pavlovian manner and some, in other threads, who have advocated "bombing them all back into the middle ages."
Quoting EDKA (Reply 93): I honestly, do not see a way forward right now...
Sadly, neither do I. In the long run it might be best to sit down with Abbas to strengthen his position, thereby undercutting support for Hamas. But if those directly involved can't come up with a solution, what hope is there?
The speech by Khaled Meshaal doesn't give much hope and there does appear to be a hardening of position, standing in stark contrast to televised interviews where he said that Hamas accepted a Palestinian state within the pre-1967 lines.
The link to Iran is problematic but I think that is a case of taking what you can from wherever, rather than Hamas simply being a tool of Iran. We have seen Khaled Meshaal refused to back Assad during the current civil war in Syria and moved his headquarters from Damascus to Qatar. He subsequently announced his support for the Syrian opposition, possibly leaving the door open to a future compact with whoever emerges the victor. That suggests an alliance based on expedience rather that any real commitment to Iran's world view as the breech with Assad would not have gone unnoticed in Tehran.
But I can understand that from an Israeli point of view that would hardly matter - a threat is a threat wherever it comes from or whoever is funding it.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 95, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3953 times:
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 94): there does appear to be a hardening of position, standing in stark contrast to televised interviews where he said that Hamas accepted a Palestinian state within the pre-1967 lines.
Surely his 'hardening' - and that of all other Palestinians - is because Israel's settlement policy (building Israeli homes all over the West Bank on an increasing scale) proves that they have no intention whatever of sticking to any agreed borders (except maybe the Jordan)?
[Edited 2012-12-09 04:20:57]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5918 posts, RR: 8 Reply 96, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3944 times:
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 94): In the long run it might be best to sit down with Abbas to strengthen his position,
So the Palestinian people will follow a Western puppet to the negotiation table to decide their future as a nation, that is the quickest way to empower all the other more radical groups.
The major influence the West has in the region is on Israel, so unilateral separation is the only way to ensure that the politicis on the other side is not adversely affected. The only other issue is which western nations are willing to put their troops on the 1967 borders to protect Israel after they withdraw from the West Bank without an agreement with the Palestinians, after all, this is something everyone believes that the US and the West can do, so who is willing to step up to the plate?
Quite possibly, unless the previous softening of position was purely for tactical purposes. Either way, the official position in the Charters of both Likud and Hamas is not to cede an inch. The Hamas Charter states they want to establish an Islamic State on the pre-1948 Mandate borders. Likud's Charter makes it clear that there will be no Palestinian State west of the River Jordan. That suggests that when Netanyahu talks of 'defensible borders' he means the River Jordan in the East and Golan Heights in the north. Perhaps Israel would not want Gaza back but I may be wrong.
Note that while there may be a hardening of position of all Palestinians, neither Fatah nor Abbas is calling for an armed response or advocating fighting to reclaim Jerusalem, let alone Tel Aviv and Haifa. In a barb towards Abbas, Khaled Meshaal mentioned they would reclaim Safed, birthplace of Palestinian president, on which Abbas had hinted he was prepared to compromise. Secondly, the position of Fatah has been that of the State being secular and not Islamic.
While such speech may be useful in stirring the masses, it is not likely to inspire confidence in the other side. Would it not be better to bring both sides to the table (in public so that there can be no secret deals and later disputes over what was said) and give it a chance. So far all we have is various parties saying, "I told you so."
You really think Israel needs defending militarily by the US or anyone else? The Palestinians do not have a single naval vessel let alone German built submarines, not a single Sopwith Camel let alone the latest and most advanced equipment jet fighter bomber. Sure, they have some very inaccurate missiles but nothing to compare with what the IDF has.
Neither Egypt or Jordan are likely to provide major weapons systems to Palestine and Syria's regime is barely hanging on. The Gulf States might supply money for education and health but are unlikely to provide military aid. Verbal support from that area is mainly to counter Iranian influence and not so much out of love for Palestine or hatred of Israel.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5918 posts, RR: 8 Reply 98, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3927 times:
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 97): You really think Israel needs defending militarily by the US or anyone else?
You really think Israel needs the USA and European money and arms to defeat the Palestinians?
If they don't what exactly is this leverage that people keep talking about.
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 99, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3921 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 98): You really think Israel needs the USA and European money
That doesn't look like disappearing any time soon. In the meantime there is no where near the same amount of money or arms pouring into the West Bank to allow the PA to defend it, let alone attack anyone else. Israel is unlikely to pull out unilaterally and the Palestinians are in no position to launch a full-scale attack on Israel so I really don't understand your point.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5918 posts, RR: 8 Reply 100, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3917 times:
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 99): Israel is unlikely to pull out unilaterally and the Palestinians are in no position to launch a full-scale attack on Israel so I really don't understand your point.
As mentioned above, the west can only force Israel to pull out unilaterally, they cannot force the Palesitinians to accept any deals.
ImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1243 posts, RR: 14 Reply 101, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3905 times:
And so, it all boils down to a famous old quote;
"When the Arabs put down their guns there will be peace in the Middle East.
When the Jews put down their guns----there will be no Jews!"
The Palestinians are certainly not interested in peace.
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5281 posts, RR: 4 Reply 102, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3909 times:
^ You know very well Israel is here to stay and if an established Palestinian state creates issues for it, they have the whole international community to answer to, even we Muslims will not support their shannigans, so stop the dramatics.
I fully support existence of Israel and what Hamas wants with an Islamic state dating to 1948 lands is stupid, they can FO!. however I also wonder if Israel will not use antics to provoke them in many ways post-peace, simply by paying immoral people in Palestineor their own implanted agents to send some rockets accross to Israel to show the world see we told you so they dont want peace.
For Gulf Arabs Palestine might be a keep Iran away issue, but for others its a genuine humanitarian concern, of injustice done, more so for Muslims.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5918 posts, RR: 8 Reply 103, posted (6 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3897 times:
Quoting 777way (Reply 102): they have the whole international community to answer to,
There are persons in Cambodia, the former Yugoslavia, Africa and other places who have had all manner of things done to them that are abhorrent to the international community who actually did very little to prevent and or restore, so let's put the international community in its proper context, while at the same time noting that we do not want the USA to be the world policeman.
Palestinians are getting a raw deal today and the international community is.........., if Israel were to get overrun tomorrow I am certain that there will be as much weaping and nashing of teeth but we will find a way to justify our lack of action in preventing the disaster.
Until the folks in the region realize that their answers and resolutions have to come from them, this conflict will continue, as I mentioned earlier, who was really behind the Camp David accords, POTUS or the leaders from the region?
We cannot create these leaders, the people on the ground have that responsibility.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 104, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3877 times:
"When the Arabs put down their guns there will be peace in the Middle East.
When the Jews put down their guns----there will be no Jews!"
And when my aunt grows balls, she'll be my uncle
You know, there are more than 2 options for the Middle East. If the "Arabs" put down their guns, they'd still have less rights than Israelis and would have to put up with settlement building, something your "famous old quotation" left out
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 105, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3871 times:
"Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, making his first ever visit to the Gaza Strip, vowed on Saturday never to recognize Israel and said his Islamist group would never abandon its claim to all Israeli territory."
Kinda goes against what most of us (including me) have been saying, that with better treatment of the Palestinians and the end to settlement building, most of Israel's problems will go away
connies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3892 posts, RR: 13 Reply 106, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3855 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 105): "Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, making his first ever visit to the Gaza Strip, vowed on Saturday never to recognize Israel and said his Islamist group would never abandon its claim to all Israeli territory."
Kinda goes against what most of us (including me) have been saying, that with better treatment of the Palestinians and the end to settlement building, most of Israel's problems will go away
Playing to a huge emotional tidal wave. He's been the "absent hero" for so long. He comes back, he has to say something to show he's the strong one. So he talks big.
Meshaal has said in the past that a Palestinian along the 1967 borders would be acceptable. I think he'll come back to that when things are a little calmer. Since Israel & Palestine are contiguous for a large part of their borders, recognition of the 1967 border as "legitimate" is a form of de facto recognition of Israel with the face-saver of not actually having to recognize Israel.
As well, Hamas has previously indicated a willingness to sign a 20 year armistice with Israel. To directly sign a document with Israel would seem (IMHO) to give tacit recognition to them. I think such an agreement, far from perfect, would be very good for both sides. Israel would have a modicum of confidence that their southern boundary would be more or less quiescent for a generation, and Gazans, assuming the port was open, would be able to focus on building their economy and infrastructure like a more or less normal society.
Pu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, RR: 12 Reply 107, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3818 times:
Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 101):
"When the Arabs put down their guns there will be peace in the Middle East.
When the Jews put down their guns----there will be no Jews!"
It looks to me then it is incumbent on "the Jews" to figure out how to get "the Arabs" to put down their guns, since "the Arabs" getting "the Jews" to put down their guns leads to disaster (allegedly).
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5918 posts, RR: 8 Reply 108, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3809 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 104): If the "Arabs" put down their guns, they'd still have less rights than Israelis and would have to put up with settlement building, something your "famous old quotation" left out
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 105):
"Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, making his first ever visit to the Gaza Strip, vowed on Saturday never to recognize Israel and said his Islamist group would never abandon its claim to all Israeli territory."
I put both quotes together because in my mind they are the same.
If we take the first one on settlements, why would we believe that they would be exempt from negotiations which result in the Arabs putting down their guns?
The second one falls in the same category, if Hamas does not want to be a part of a negotiated settlement the Palestinians will have to deal with them, note that earlier in the thread persons are making a distinction between Hamas and Fatah, so does that still apply or does Hamas speak for all Palestinians?
777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5281 posts, RR: 4 Reply 109, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3797 times:
Maybe there should be an East Palestine established by Fatah in West Bank and disown Hamas, with East Jeusalem attached no issues involed, Gaza cut off can remain as is until Hamas are ousted by ther people then they can merge and become one.
Quoting par13del (Reply 103): There are persons in Cambodia, the former Yugoslavia, Africa and other places who have had all manner of things done to them that are abhorrent to the international community who actually did very little to prevent and or restore, so let's put the international community in its proper context
But they voted Palestine in as an observer STATE, ending their strugglight for recognition status at the UN.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 110, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3771 times:
Quoting 777way (Reply 109): Maybe there should be an East Palestine established by Fatah in West Bank and disown Hamas, with East Jeusalem attached no issues involed, Gaza cut off can remain as is until Hamas are ousted by ther people then they can merge and become one.
That is actually a pretty good idea, I think. Is it important that Gaza and the West Bank are one country? Has there been any talk of the more peaceful West Bank becoming its own state before Gaza becomes a state/joins the West Bank?
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19813 posts, RR: 56 Reply 111, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3762 times:
Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 101): "When the Arabs put down their guns there will be peace in the Middle East.
Except that Israel's actions in the West Bank are sending the message that when the Palestinians put down their guns their land will still be taken for settlements just like it was before. Not exactly a message of peace.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 110): Is it important that Gaza and the West Bank are one country?
I'm sure there's a sort of feeling of unity between those in the West Bank and those in Gaza that trying for two separate countries would undermine.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 112, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3752 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 111): Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 110):
Is it important that Gaza and the West Bank are one country?
I'm sure there's a sort of feeling of unity between those in the West Bank and those in Gaza that trying for two separate countries would undermine.
DeltaMD90, of course it's 'important.' The two places have been 'one country' since before the time of Christ; most people in Gaza have family links with people in Jerusalem and the West Bank, and vice versa.
However, at present, Israel does not even allow road access between the two areas. And, in addition, it makes strenuous efforts, including a naval blockade, to make sure that Gaza has virtually no contact with the outside world.
I find it richly ironic that Israel, which shamelessly 'trades on' memories of the holocaust, has virtually turned Gaza into a vast concentration camp. And that, given that its proposed settlements are obviously aimed at cutting East Jerusalem off from the West Bank, it is now actively working to do the same sort of thing to much of the rest of Palestine.
[Edited 2012-12-09 16:37:17]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5281 posts, RR: 4 Reply 113, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3734 times:
But its not being suggested Gaza go its own way, it will continue to remain an occupied Palestinian territoy that needs to be freed, forget east Palestine West bank can be Palestine, it will be like Azerbaijan and that territoy occupied by Armenia.
ImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1243 posts, RR: 14 Reply 114, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3723 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 112): I find it richly ironic that Israel, which shamelessly 'trades on' memories of the holocaust, has virtually turned Gaza into a vast concentration camp. And that, given that its proposed settlements are obviously aimed at cutting East Jerusalem off from the West Bank, it is now actively working to do the same sort of thing to much of the rest of Palestine.
Wow. I'm not used to you of all people grasping for straws, as it were. Now, the twenty-something year old would not have surprised me. You remember how it was I'm sure. When you knew everything and yet knew nothing? I remember.
The Arabs nations have put the Palestinian Arabs of Gaza in the fix they are in. They have the money and the power to help them out if they so choose. They could have built schools and hospitals----schools in particular, because education would have provided a way out long ago, well, for the males anyway, but, no it doesn't fit their agenda.
The Arab nations and all their petro-dollar funded economies would rather the Palestinian Arabs continue to be their pawns in a nasty political game against Israel. And, the Palestinian Arabs continue to go along with the game. These same Arab countries could, if they really cared, step in and help out the Syrians but, I guess that doesn't fit their agenda either.
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22870 posts, RR: 87 Reply 115, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3716 times:
Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 114): I'm not used to you of all people grasping for straws, as it were. Now, the twenty-something year old would not have surprised me. You remember how it was I'm sure. When you knew everything and yet knew nothing? I remember.
And I remember that Mr. Netanyahu is and has been for many years, a strong advocate of what he calls "the Jordanian Option" by which all the Palestinians should be all evicted from their land and homes and moved to Jordan.
ImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1243 posts, RR: 14 Reply 116, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3712 times:
Well, it would send a lot of the old ones back where they came from----including the terrorists------bound to thrill the current King as well as they did his Father.
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22870 posts, RR: 87 Reply 117, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3704 times:
Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 116): Well, it would send a lot of the old ones back where they came from----including the terrorists------bound to thrill the current King as well as they did his Father.
I have no idea what you mean by "old ones" - to my knowledge no huge numbers of Jordanians have moved to the West Bank and Gaza (why would anyone want to live there?), although some may have.
Shall I take it you are in favour of the Jordanian Option - sending an entire population of people from their ancestral lands to another country where they have never lived?
There's an interesting German word for that - lebensraum.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19813 posts, RR: 56 Reply 118, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3697 times:
Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 114): The Arab nations and all their petro-dollar funded economies would rather the Palestinian Arabs continue to be their pawns in a nasty political game against Israel.
And why should that be held against the Palestinians?
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 119, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3688 times:
Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 114): The Arabs nations have put the Palestinian Arabs of Gaza in the fix they are in.
Again with this racist line of thinking, just because the Palestinians are Arab Muslims means it's the duty of the Arab Muslims to bail them out? And Israel has done nothing wrong?
You've ignored my question every single time, sir.
Has Israel done nothing wrong in this situation, nothing wrong at all???
connies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3892 posts, RR: 13 Reply 120, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3659 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 112): I find it richly ironic that Israel, which shamelessly 'trades on' memories of the holocaust, has virtually turned Gaza into a vast concentration camp.
I've long thought that Israel has turned Gaza into the world's largest open air prison.
Quoting mariner (Reply 115): Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 114):
I'm not used to you of all people grasping for straws, as it were. Now, the twenty-something year old would not have surprised me. You remember how it was I'm sure. When you knew everything and yet knew nothing? I remember.
And I remember that Mr. Netanyahu is and has been for many years, a strong advocate of what he calls "the Jordanian Option" by which all the Palestinians should be all evicted from their land and homes and moved to Jordan.
How helpful is that?
Netanyahu is not the solution. He is the problem. Unfortunately, he will win the election on Jan 22, and with the despicable lapdog Liberman at his side, have a majority in the Knesset.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 121, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3618 times:
Quoting mariner (Reply 117): Shall I take it you are in favour of the Jordanian Option - sending an entire population of people from their ancestral lands to another country where they have never lived?
There's an interesting German word for that - lebensraum.
Good point, mariner. For younger A.netters who may not have encountered the term ('living-space' in English), it was much used by Adolf Hitler - in the 1930s, and right through WW2. This is the best summary of the term that I can find:-
"The main reason for the Nazi expansion into its neighboring western countries was built upon the principle of lebensraum. Even though it translates literally to mean only “living space,” lebensraum carried with it the desire for the Nazis to expand into other countries to provide living space for the growing German race.
"During this time, the “inferior” races, such as the Jews and Gypsies, who occupied the new Nazi territories, were stripped of their possessions, jobs, and “resettled” in ghettos or concentration camps. This helped break the people’s will, asserted the strong power of the Nazis, and gave direct benefits to the Nazi regime.
"When the Nazi Army successfully overtook and conquered the surrounding lands of France, Alsace, and Lorraine, the Reich immediately began its policy of racial restructuring. The German bureaucracy began by issuing orders for Jews in a particular town or city to submit an announcement of their possessions. This property was then gathered and confiscated, and the money was used directly by the bureaucracy.
"The Nazis basic intent was to make survival for the Jews more difficult and to create a loss of identity for the Jews. For the most part, the Nazis were successful in accomplishing their two goals as well as devastating the lives of the for letters stating that their jobs no longer existed or that their possessions were to be handed over to the German Reich. The Nazis occupying the towns asserted that the consequence of dissension was severe punishment or death.
"As the Jews were stripped of their belongings, they also were stripped of their purpose and their identity. By taking their positions at work, their personal possessions, and their money, the Nazis ensured a supreme hold on the Jewish population that allowed them to expand and exploit the Nazi’s power.
"After the possessions of the Jews were taken and sold, the Nazis continued their plans of "resettlement.” During World War II, 70,000 individuals were deported in France and the Alsace-Lorraine region with the help of the French government in power, 3,300 of which were Jews.
"Most of the deportees were shipped to concentration camps throughout Europe for slave labor or to be put to death. The Nazis maintained their clear purpose of cleansing Europe of the Jews, Gypsies, criminals, and foreign nationalists, and they carried these goals into the occupied territories for implementation. Through the goals of lebeusraum and “resettlement,” the Nazis tried to restructure the racial content of Europe and deeply scarred the lives of many Jews living in the occupied regions. The Nazis stripped away their lives and their identities in an effort to expand their own race at the expense and exploitation of the Jewish race."
So there we have it, guys - the Israelis are now seeking to do to the Palestinians (Muslims, Christians, and whatever other religions) exactly what Hitler did to the Jews and gypsies - and lots of other people, of all sorts of other religions, all over Europe - in the 1940s.........
[Edited 2012-12-10 05:52:30]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
powerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 490 posts, RR: 1 Reply 122, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3459 times:
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 120): I've long thought that Israel has turned Gaza into the world's largest open air prison.
Considering all the Hamas riff raff running around its a perfect place for Israel to contain her most aggressive enemies.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 121): So there we have it, guys - the Israelis are now seeking to do to the Palestinians (Muslims, Christians, and whatever other religions) exactly what Hitler did to the Jews and gypsies - and lots of other people, of all sorts of other religions, all over Europe - in the 1940s.........
Israel has the power for the 'final solution' on the Palestinian people any time they want. Comparing Israel to Hitler Germany is asinine.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 123, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3456 times:
Quoting powerslide (Reply 122): Considering all the Hamas riff raff running around its a perfect place for Israel to contain her most aggressive enemies.
At the last count, powerslide, the population of the Gaza Strip amounts to 1.72M. people. All crammed into an area of 140 square miles, a population density rivalling that of New York City.
Are you saying that all 1.72M. of them are 'Hamas riff raff'...............?
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
powerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 490 posts, RR: 1 Reply 124, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3445 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 123): At the last count, powerslide, the population of the Gaza Strip amounts to 1.72M. people. All crammed into an area of 140 square miles, a population density rivalling that of New York City.
So? The rest of the Arab world is fairly vast.....
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 123): Are you saying that all 1.72M. of them are 'Hamas riff raff'...............?
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 125, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3442 times:
777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5281 posts, RR: 4 Reply 126, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3361 times:
For those using the anti-semite card, ARABS are SEMITE too as pointed out go GOOGLE it, The Aarabic name Sami comes from semite,It is said to be the name of one of prophet Noah's sons, whose decendants are called semite, and tons of Muslims are named that too.
So that's a no? So there are innocent Palestinians caught in all this and not all of them are savages?
Take it with a pinch of salt DeltaMD90, its angst talking.
Quoting powerslide (Reply 122): Israel has the power for the 'final solution' on the Palestinian people any time they want.
No they dont, a war of epic proportions simply ignited by a small terror act can change that, the world status quo need not remain the same, it happend in the past and can in the future too, no one imagined 9/11 or the US attacking Afghanistan a country they helped liberate from USSR occupation, nor was the breakup of that superpower ever thought of, or what ahppened to Kuwait and the attack on Iraq, we cant picture USA breaking up ever, but who knows what surprises are in store.
EDKA From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 293 posts, RR: 1 Reply 127, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3352 times:
So here we have it again, when someone posts something anti-semitic nothing is being done, when someone else point that out, the posts are being deleted, as a violation of rules. Nice job, moderators!
Let me point this out then, again:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 43): There is only one way that can be achieved - by the United States 'stopping the money' and leaning very hard on the Jews to end their merciless persecution of the Palestinians.
If this is not an anti-semitic quote, then i dont know what is....I remember seeing in various "Israel bashing" threads that so many Israeli critics, including the author of the above, specifically that the problem is Israel/Israelies and not Jews....So now, according to NAV20, I AM PERSECUTING palestinians??
So here is the open question: If you dont agree with this statement, why are you happy to accept this language????
Oh and by the way
Quoting 777way (Reply 126): For those using the anti-semite card, ARABS are SEMITE too as pointed out go GOOGLE it, The Aarabic name Sami comes from semite,It is said to be the name of one of prophet Noah's sons, whose decendants are called semite, and tons of Muslims are named that too.
For you and anyone else who claims that "Arabs cannot be antisemites" why dont YOU GOOGLE the term and see what it means. While technically also applicable to Arabs, the "luxury" of the term "Anti-Semitic" is reserved for the Jews.
So if you dont know, look it up. If you do - stop hiding behind the technicalities...
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 128, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3309 times:
Quoting EDKA (Reply 127): So here we have it again, when someone posts something antisemitic nothing is being done
What "antisemitic posts?" I sent you a PM like you said but you still haven't shown us these alleged antisemitic posts. I don't want to sound insulting, but do you know the difference between antisemitism and simply disagreeing with the actions of the Israeli government?
Quoting EDKA (Reply 127): specifically that the problem is Israel/Israelies and not Jews....So now, according to NAV20, I AM PERSECUTING palestinians??
I'm pretty sure he meant Israelis (that is what makes sense here.) If he did mean "all Jews around the world" yes I could see how that's antisemitic
EDKA From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 293 posts, RR: 1 Reply 129, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3293 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 128): I sent you a PM like you said but you still haven't shown us these alleged antisemitic posts.
I just saw your PM, which, i must admit i didn't know i received. i will respond to you privately
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 128): I don't want to sound insulting, but do you know the difference between antisemitism and simply disagreeing with the actions of the Israeli government?
yes i do
i think i have made myself very clear - i do not have problem with people criticizing Israeli government. What i have a problem it the way some people express themsleves....and get away with it.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 130, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3277 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 128): I'm pretty sure he meant Israelis (that is what makes sense here.)
Exactly so, DeltaMD90. I was calling attention to the fact that, besides persecuting the Palestinians, the State of Israel systematically discriminates against non-Jewish Israeli citizens. That issue was fully discussed in subsequent posts.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 131, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3277 times:
This is very easily solved--what did you mean, NAV20?
I do agree this thread is getting very extreme. I've given my 2c against the difference between antisemitism and plain ol criticism, but I'll be fair and admit that for Israel, there are a lot of concerns that are brushed aside IMO
I brought up Hamas saying they wouldn't stop until they had all of Israel and was told it was just "passionate speaking" or something. When I asked about weapons being imported into a free Palestine, I was told "they probably wouldn't do it since they'd have little reason to." No, I think various groups would come up with some reasons
Bottom line, I think we need to be less cynical when dealing with the other sides. The average Israeli isn't going to be a modern day Nazi against Palestinians, and average Palestinians aren't uneducated savages that just want to kill Jews for no reason. If something sounds crazy, it probably is
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 132, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3270 times:
My post above crossed with yours, DeltaMD90.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 131): The average Israeli isn't going to be a modern day Nazi against Palestinians, and average Palestinians aren't uneducated savages that just want to kill Jews for no reason.
Trouble is, the 'average Israelis' aren't running the place. I think it comes down to future intentions. I have recently (and, oddly enough, quite reluctantly) come to the conclusion that Israel's leaders intend eventually to 'dehouse' and drive all the remaining Palestinians in the West Bank across the Jordan; the next step in the process being the 'D 1' settlements, whicih will virtually cut the Palestinians off from their present 'capital,' East Jerusalem.
Oddly enough, there aren't just religious reasons for doing that; in my view such a policy is pretty well essential on practical grounds. Thanks to the policy of unlimited (Jewish) immigration, the whole - geographically tiny - area is already vastly over-populated. There simply isn't room for both the Israeli and the Palestinian populations to go on growing and growing - 'something's gotta give.'
[Edited 2012-12-11 16:58:25]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5281 posts, RR: 4 Reply 133, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3223 times:
Quoting EDKA (Reply 127): So here we have it again, when someone posts something anti-semitic nothing is being done, when someone else point that out, the posts are being deleted, as a violation of rules. Nice job, moderators!
Let me point this out then, again:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 43):There is only one way that can be achieved - by the United States 'stopping the money' and leaning very hard on the Jews to end their merciless persecution of the Palestinians.
If this is not an anti-semitic quote, then i dont know what is....I remember seeing in various "Israel bashing" threads that so many Israeli critics, including the author of the above, specifically that the problem is Israel/Israelies and not Jews....So now, according to NAV20, I AM PERSECUTING palestinians??
So here is the open question: If you dont agree with this statement, why are you happy to accept this language????
I have seen worse racsim towards blacks and muslims even hindus in one topic here and not a single post was deleted from those topics,, the racism was truly eye opening, I honetsly do not see any anti-semitism here.
Atleast you are being referred to as a Jew, not ten other tracist things.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 134, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3155 times:
Looks like I owe the EU (European Union) an apology. They've just issued a statement saying exactly the right things:-
"The European Union (EU) called on Israel to cancel planned construction in West Bank settlements and “avoid any step undermining the financial situation of the Palestinian Authority” (PA).
The EU made the appeal in a document published Dec. 11 titled “Council Conclusions on the Middle East Peace Process,” which came out of a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels the previous day.
Last week, Israel said it would withhold approximately $100 million in tax revenues that it had collected for the PA.
“Such action by Israel would undermine existing cooperation mechanisms” and “negatively affect the prospects of negotiations,” the document read.
---------------
The EU text also said the EU was “deeply dismayed by and strongly opposes” recently announced plans by the Israeli government to construct 3,000 housing units in the West Bank. Some of the homes are to be built in the E1 corridor between Jerusalem and Maale Adumim.
“The E1 plan, if implemented, would seriously undermine the prospects of a negotiated resolution of the conflict by jeopardizing the possibility of a contiguous and viable Palestinian state and of Jerusalem as the future capital of two states,” the document said.
The document also called on both parties to start direct talks with no preconditions on a two-state solution based on pre-1967 borders."
TheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2346 posts, RR: 6 Reply 136, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3128 times:
Yes NAV20
Who would have thought ?
And I think think the 3000 new homes are directly related to this outburst.
And this today from the SMH.....
"West is repeating appeasement" Lieberman.
Appears as though the EU hit a sore point somewhere in Tel Aviv, and Avigdor is not impressed I believe.
The best part is a quote from Tzipi Livni, who was foreign Minister before Lieberman. This is what she had to say about A Lieberman's speech.
"There is absolutely no similarity between the situations of Israeli citizens today to that of European Jews then. Not everybody is against us, and not everyone is anti-Semitic," she said, calling for the resumption of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
The British embassy in Tel Aviv declined to comment regarding Lieberman. And a good thing to, it doesn't warrant it.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 137, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3108 times:
Fascinating article - quite the best I've seen recently, TheCommodore. Livni's comments are especially interesting.
Looks as if there's an 'opinion split' among Israeli politicians. Some, like Lieberman, still mentally see the Israelis as entitled to do anything they like to other races/religions, because of what the German Nazis did to the European Jews in 1939/45. Others, like Livni, think that Israel should start living in peace with their neighbours.
Interesting about Lieberman. He wasn't even born until 1958:-
"Lieberman was born on 5 June 1958 in Kishinev, Soviet Union (now Chi%u015Fin%u0103u, Moldova). His father Lev (May 18, 1921 - July 2, 2007) had served in the Red Army and spent seven years in a Siberian Gulag under Joseph Stalin's rule, where he met Evet's mother Esther (born July 2, 1924).[citation needed] After high school, Lieberman applied to study international law at Kiev University, but was, according to an interview, rejected for being Jewish. He then temporarily enrolled at the Chi%u015Fin%u0103u Agriculture Institute with a hydrological land improvement major.[3]
"Lieberman and his family immigrated to Israel in 1978, and Lieberman changed his first name to 'Avigdor'."
So the only people that ever 'persecuted' him were the Stalinist Russians. And even that only amounted to him not succeeding in achieving university entrance........
But he still sees it as his right to knock seven bells out of the Palestinians......
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
The more people who point towards Israel and call out her actions, the better !
And they are beginning to, globally, as the article below states...
NZ SUPER FUND........ excludes three Israeli firms on ethical grounds.
Why you ask ?
Well, it all boils down to Settlements, surprised. Don't be, I think you will see more and more countries/companies, cut their ties with this country because of this.
I know its a small drop in the ocean, but never the less, its a start at least. Its also pleasing to see, a slow wave of international condemnation reach across the world, right from the normally silent?lost its tongue EU, to the UN, and also
Stevie Wonder cancelled is recent performance in Israel too.
Individuals can protest by writing to super companies and the like, asking if they have any dealings with Israeli companies, especially those with direct connections with the Government.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13369 posts, RR: 64 Reply 139, posted (6 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 3002 times:
Even Israel´s president Peres is getting fed up of the continous historical references to justify the expansionist politics:
Quote:
Peres: We are not going to deal with Abraham, our father and brother. It's over.
SPIEGEL: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, though, refers to that history on an almost daily basis.
Peres: History is necessary to justify the present. But to go back 2,000 years? My God, leave it to the historians. What happened 2,000 years ago is not being repeated today. My proposal is: Draw a line and say there is a forgiveness of the past; we are not going to sue each other. It's a waste of time. We have to open negotiations without prior conditions right away. And right away means after parliamentary elections on January 22.
flyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 1380 posts, RR: 9 Reply 140, posted (6 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 2937 times:
Sadly, the "peace process" had mainly one result - the exclusion of Palestinians from the Israeli society and economy. After erecting all these checkpoints and walls, Israelis have turned to Non-Arab and Non-Jewish immigrants to do lowly paid jobs.
And they are insulted and attacked on a daily basis. When the thousands of Israelis protested against low wages and high apartment rents, they did not even mention the huge wrong on the other side of the security fence. They see not in their blindness...
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 130): Exactly so, DeltaMD90. I was calling attention to the fact that, besides persecuting the Palestinians, the State of Israel systematically discriminates against non-Jewish Israeli citizens. That issue was fully discussed in subsequent posts.
Every time I think Israel should not be compared to Nazi-time Germany I get second thoughts. And I don't feel guilty about doing so. Israel clearly does not play in the same league as any of the EU countries when it comes to human and civil rights.
The founders of postwar Germany must be all weeping in their graves. They rebuilt their country to right their wrongs, to do explore their guilt, and what do we have now at the eastern shore of the Mediterrenean Sea?
"The dignity of man is inviolable. To respect and protect it is the duty of all state authority." - from the German federal constitution with love.
David
Even a letdown, if it is thoroughly and final, is a step forward.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 141, posted (6 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 2914 times:
Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 140): The founders of postwar Germany must be all weeping in their graves. They rebuilt their country to right their wrongs, to do explore their guilt, and what do we have now at the eastern shore of the Mediterrenean Sea?
Share your concerns, flyingturtle. Causes me to remember my physics lessons, all those years ago; specifically, Sir Isaac Newton's 'Third Law' - that if any object applies force to another object, the second object reacts by applying an 'equal and opposite' force in return.
I think myself that that's basically what is happening. The grandchildren of holocaust victims (plus other people of the Jewish faith from other parts of the world, like the United States, who weren't affected in the least by what went on in Germany in the 1940s) - feel that they're entitled to some sort of 'payback.'
And, unfortunately (purely on the basis of the Old Testament, as far as I can see) they're claiming their (not overly logical) 'compensation' from the people who, unlike the Europeans, the Americans, and the Asians, took next to no part in the Second World War (except as victims). The people of the Middle East, mainly the Palestinians.
Makes no sense at all, if you give it a moment's thought. But it's been happening for about sixty years, and it's still happening...........
Blowed if I know what anyone can DO about it........
[Edited 2012-12-14 04:52:05]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Or the constant belief of being the "chosen people". As soon as you think you're something special, you're keenly watching out for how other people are treating you. If you're gay, you're sensitive to anti-gay discrimination. If you're black, you see how you're treated differently - even in progressive countries.
But this should hinder nobody from carrying on in his or her life.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 141): Blowed if I know what anyone can DO about it........
I just don't know. But like we have invited children from the Chernobyl region to spend summer breaks in Western Europe, we can invite young Israelis to spend time and study in the EU or the USA. Just to learn that their lives are not constantly in danger, and that one can trust other people, no matter where they come from.
David
Even a letdown, if it is thoroughly and final, is a step forward.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10569 posts, RR: 21 Reply 143, posted (6 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2871 times:
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 139): Peres: History is necessary to justify the present. But to go back 2,000 years? My God, leave it to the historians. What happened 2,000 years ago is not being repeated today. My proposal is: Draw a line and say there is a forgiveness of the past; we are not going to sue each other. It's a waste of time. We have to open negotiations without prior conditions right away. And right away means after parliamentary elections on January 22.
Interesting. Here we have an Israeli politician saying let's draw the line at today, whereas many Palestinian politicians careers if not lives depend on drawing that line at 1948.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 144, posted (6 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2828 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 143): Here we have an Israeli politician saying let's draw the line at today, whereas many Palestinian politicians careers if not lives depend on drawing that line at 1948.
Sorry, Revelation, can't agree. The Palestinians were (and remain) ready to settle for the borders that were agreed in 1967. It is the Israelis who keep 'moving the goalposts' by building more and more settlements on Palestinian land.
About Lieberman, it looks as if he'll be out of circulation for a while; he's just resigned as Foreign Minister - yet more corruption charges:-
"JERUSALEM — Facing indictment for breach of trust and fraud, Israel’s foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, resigned his post Friday afternoon amid mounting political pressure, upending the campaign landscape five weeks before national elections.
"Mr. Lieberman, a powerful but polarizing figure, wrote on his Facebook page, “I know that I committed no crime,” but said he was stepping down so “I will be able to put an end to this matter swiftly and without delay and to clear my name completely.”
"Mr. Lieberman, who is also a member of Parliament, indicated that he still hoped to compete in the Jan. 22 balloting, suggesting a possible plea bargain. The expected indictment, which prosecutors announced on Thursday, concerns a relatively minor offense compared with a broader case of money laundering and fraud that was dropped after an investigation stretching for more than 12 years."
777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5281 posts, RR: 4 Reply 145, posted (6 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2772 times:
Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 142): I just don't know. But like we have invited children from the Chernobyl region to spend summer breaks in Western Europe, we can invite young Israelis to spend time and study in the EU or the USA. Just to learn that their lives are not constantly in danger, and that one can trust other people, no matter where they come from.
Quite a few years abck BBC had shown a clip on a meet up arranged between Palestinain and Israeli teens, the differences of their body languages were too obvious, Palestinains were coming accross as timid, shy, hesitant, the Israeli's as bold, confident.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 141): I think myself that that's basically what is happening. The grandchildren of holocaust victims (plus other people of the Jewish faith from other parts of the world, like the United States, who weren't affected in the least by what went on in Germany in the 1940s) - feel that they're entitled to some sort of 'payback.'
And, unfortunately (purely on the basis of the Old Testament, as far as I can see) they're claiming their (not overly logical) 'compensation' from the people who, unlike the Europeans, the Americans, and the Asians, took next to no part in the Second World War (except as victims). The people of the Middle East, mainly the Palestinians.
Wow! I have been thinking the same infact even composed the post with these thoughts in this very topic but then for some reason did not post it,
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 146, posted (6 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2763 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 141): The grandchildren of holocaust victims... feel that they're entitled to some sort of 'payback.'
Quoting 777way (Reply 145): but then for some reason did not post it,
Just as well 777way, there have been a number of studies suggesting a "guilt" felt by survivors and their descendants - "why did I survive and not the others?" I don't give them much credence when it comes to establishing a State or dispossessing others. At an individual level there may be some who feel such confusion but that does not lead to a universal feeling of revenge by proxy, as your argument seems to imply. Some individuals may need to identify with Israel as a result but that is not necessarily the norm.
But even if you read your own post NAV20, you would see that there is a glaring mistake.
"Grandchildren of holocaust victims" are by definition affected by what happened. Those who are lucky enough to have seen their grandparents survive still have them. But what of those who have no grandparents because they died. To say that a child who has no nan and grand-pop is not affected comes across as either ignorant or uncaring. While other children can have fun times with their grandies, the kids of holocaust survivors miss out on that simple pleasure.
I think far more common would be the perception (and it is based in reality) that the Jewish people have been traditionally ostracised and persecuted and that the one place on earth that they may call "home" is surrounded by enemies. We can debate the rights and wrongs of the Mandate all day, but the fact is that Israel exists and that many Jews support it, even if they don't live there, not out of a sense of guilt or revenge, but out of a feeling of solidarity with those who they see as being threatened.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation recently reported on young Australian Jews who were wanting to join the IDF and their reasons for doing so. There was no hint of "payback" being involved in deciding to support Israel in a practical sense.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13369 posts, RR: 64 Reply 147, posted (6 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2747 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 143): Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 139):
Peres: History is necessary to justify the present. But to go back 2,000 years? My God, leave it to the historians. What happened 2,000 years ago is not being repeated today. My proposal is: Draw a line and say there is a forgiveness of the past; we are not going to sue each other. It's a waste of time. We have to open negotiations without prior conditions right away. And right away means after parliamentary elections on January 22.
Interesting. Here we have an Israeli politician saying let's draw the line at today, whereas many Palestinian politicians careers if not lives depend on drawing that line at 1948.
If you read the full interview he is statinmg that he is in favour of unconditional negotiations, something Netanyahu refuses categorically.
IMO, this also means that the borders of 1967 will come on the table.
777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5281 posts, RR: 4 Reply 148, posted (6 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2742 times:
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 146): The Australian Broadcasting Corporation recently reported on young Australian Jews who were wanting to join the IDF and their reasons for doing so. There was no hint of "payback" being involved in deciding to support Israel in a practical sense.
You maybe right who knows, maybe they dont want to air their views in public. BTW israel has started duing live war updates on social media with pics of young soldiers posing at location like fashion models,complete with smiles and making victory signs including women, so I really dont know what to make of their attitudes.
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 149, posted (6 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2731 times:
Quoting 777way (Reply 148): You maybe right who knows, maybe they don't want to air their views in public.
Well no person will ever deliberately publish on their own web site self-incriminatory information. I am prepared to believe that the views expressed by those interviewed by the ABC because I have personally met people who do identify with Israel and want to support her but do not hate the Palestinians. This does present them with a dilemma but it is not fair to say that they are motivated by either hatred or payback.
That said, there are those who may wish to take the law in their own hands. Reuters is claiming that its camera men have been assaulted, stripped down to their underpants and while on their knees with hands behind their backs had tear gas canisters used on them.
Quote: The Foreign Press Association in Israel condemned the alleged assault, telling the BBC: "Press freedom is the signal of a civilised nation. The assault and humiliation of reporters trying to do their work is unacceptable and falls far, far below the standards that the IDF says it adheres to."
The IDF is reported to be conducting a review and it will be interesting to see whether the standard "everything was in accordance with..." response will be given or whether any admission of failing will result.
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 151, posted (6 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2715 times:
Quoting 777way (Reply 150): Does Reuters have local Israeli reporters or foreigners?
One could make an assumption that the cameramen were treated in the way that was reported because they were not immediately recognisable as Israeli or at least from a country that is normally pro-Israel.
Reuters use many accredited sources,including Israeli, Palestinian and foreign journalists, although might be possible that the standards for verification differ. In this instance the reporters Yousri al-Jamal and Mamoun Wazwaz were allegedly stopped near a checkpoint where a Palestinian teenager, Mohammed Ziad Sulaima, had just been shot dead by an Israeli border guard. You can probably guess from their names, despite being accredited, they were seen as being the "enemy" or at least "apologists" (I think that is the current in word) for terrorists.
TheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2346 posts, RR: 6 Reply 152, posted (6 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2701 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 144): About Lieberman, it looks as if he'll be out of circulation for a while; he's just resigned as Foreign Minister - yet more corruption charges:-
"It is the second time in the past year that one of Mr Netanyahu's political deals has backfired."
I can think of a third back fire event, to add to the list..
His political underhandedness on the Palestinian UN vote issue.
I think Bibi was really taken aback, by the resounding support shown to Palestine. He didn't see that one coming, although he should have, it was more than obvious Israel political manoeuvrings was going nowhere and falling on deaf ears.
Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10569 posts, RR: 21 Reply 153, posted (6 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2639 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 144): The Palestinians were (and remain) ready to settle for the borders that were agreed in 1967.
I presume you make this statement based on:
Quote:
In 1993, PLO recognized Israel's right to exist in peace, accepted UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, and rejected "violence and terrorism"; in response, Israel officially recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 154, posted (6 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2639 times:
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 146): I think far more common would be the perception (and it is based in reality) that the Jewish people have been traditionally ostracised and persecuted and that the one place on earth that they may call "home" is surrounded by enemies.
Oddly enough, Quokkas, as far as anyone knows, the origin of that problem (which I acknowledge has at times been very real) had its roots in mediaeval times.
Back in that period the Jewish religion placed greater stress than any other on scriptures - and the result was that literacy among Jews was much higher than that among other religions, including Christianity. That automatically made Jewish people better fitted for what we would nowadays term 'business careers' - which required 'reading, writing, and figuring.'
A second (and arguably more significant) factor was that for some hundreds of years, the Christian churches (erroneously, as we now accept) believed that the Bible forbade 'usury' - the charging of interest on loans. And therefore didn't allow it. The (IMO, more correct) Jewish interpretation of Scriptures didn't share that view.
So historians believe that the more literate (and more financially-sensible) Jews found themselves in the position of effectively being the 'suits' of the late Middle Ages - businessmen if you like, the 'scribes' and 'bankers' of the late Middle Ages, lending money and charging interest. Which would hardly have made them popular among the (largely illiterate, and usually flat broke) European peasantry of the time..........
Moving on a few centuries, it should come as no surprise that (with the ordinary Germans flat broke, desperate, and starving in the aftermath of the First World War) it wasn't difficult for one Adolf Hitler to stir up hatred of the (relatively wealthy) Jews (many of whom still made a living out of loans) and then unmercifully persecute them.........
Personally I hope that I've shown in my posts on here that I abhor all forms of racial and religious prejudice, and have every sympathy for all the people who suffered under the Nazi tyranny. And I have every sympathy with the Jews who 'copped it' under Hitler, and their descendants.
But what I can't accept is that the Palestinians (who played no part at all in WW2, except putting up with British military bases in the region during the period) should have to put up with having their whole country being taken over by millions of foreigners - and themselves either having their homes demolished and being driven out into Jordan or Syria, or being walled up in the 'Gaza Concentration Camp.'
Sorry for the long and involved post - but I hope that (as a WW2 'survivor' myself) it offers a better explanation of where I'm coming from..........
[Edited 2012-12-16 05:34:19]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13369 posts, RR: 64 Reply 155, posted (6 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2630 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 154): Moving on a few centuries, it should come as no surprise that (with the ordinary Germans flat broke, desperate, and starving in the aftermath of the First World War) it wasn't difficult for one Adolf Hitler to stir up hatred of the (relatively wealthy) Jews (many of whom still made a living out of loans) and then unmercifully persecute them.........
Most Germans back then wouldn´t have any contact with the few wealthy Jews. The Jews they knew were mostly not better of than themselves (e.g. my grandfather talked about Galician Jews in traditional clothing, who walked along the streets with handcars collecting any kind of recycleable rubbish to sell it on. But they often had business networks going on among their communities and a strong sense for the value of education, a bit like the Chinese business class in South East Asia, and while the father was collecting rubbish, the son would work as a clerk in a shop and the grandson mioght own the shop.).
The emphasis on education and the respect they had for teachers also lead to a disproportionate number of Jews in science.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10569 posts, RR: 21 Reply 156, posted (6 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2623 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 154): A second (and arguably more significant) factor was that for some hundreds of years, the Christian churches (erroneously, as we now accept) believed that the Bible forbade 'usury' - the charging of interest on loans. And therefore didn't allow it. The (IMO, more correct) Jewish interpretation of Scriptures didn't share that view.
As my friend says, "Jesus saves, Moses invests!"...
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 154): But what I can't accept is that the Palestinians (who played no part at all in WW2, except putting up with British military bases in the region during the period) should have to put up with having their whole country being taken over by millions of foreigners - and themselves either having their homes demolished and being driven out into Jordan or Syria, or being walled up in the 'Gaza Concentration Camp.'
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22870 posts, RR: 87 Reply 158, posted (6 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2580 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 154): Oddly enough, Quokkas, as far as anyone knows, the origin of that problem (which I acknowledge has at times been very real) had its roots in mediaeval times.
Back in that period the Jewish religion placed greater stress than any other on scriptures - and the result was that literacy among Jews was much higher than that among other religions, including Christianity. That automatically made Jewish people better fitted for what we would nowadays term 'business careers' - which required 'reading, writing, and figuring.'
You're right that Jews were often - not always - better educated, but the reasons for that come from history, too. Rabbinical study gave them teachers, which many of the serfs of Europe did not have. Many Jews could read - and do sums.
Jews were often seen a interlopers in many European countries, in the sense they were not native, and the mantra "they're taking our jobs!" applied. So it was easy enough for the church to whip up anti-Semtic frenzy. The Jews were perceived by the Catholic church as an assault on its primacy and the too-easy mantra of "Christ-killers" was invoked.
But in many cases, Jews had no access to European jobs in a feudal system, as in England, they were not born to serve a land-owner and often not allowed to learn a trade, or practise it. They were forced to live by their wits, which, in many cases, involved money-lending, because, educated, they could add up.
This led to the York Massacre (1190) - of Jews - because the local lords and land-owners owed the Jewish money-lenders too much money, and why pay back a loan when you can kill the lender with impunity?
The idea caught on, and led to the expulsion, within a century (1290) of ALL Jews from England (the Edict of Expulsion) but forced to leave all the money they had loaned out behind.
Thus when Shakespeare wrote Shylock in "The Merchant of Venice" it is extremely unlikely he had ever met many actual Jews, because there weren't any in England, only perhaps a tiny community of Sephardic Jews living undercover in London.
After the Civil War, when England was bankrupt, Oliver Cromwell wanted the Jews back, essentially for the bankers, he wanted their money.
The idea was not universally popular, especially by the church ("anti-Christianity") and because many of the Jews who had come back paradoxically supported the Jacobite cause. The eventual law defining Jewish status (1753) was repealed (1754) because of that populist revolt.
This was resolved by a not unexpected twist. Jews could return to and live in England but they were forbidden to have a trade - no carpenters, builders, etc. They had to live by their wits. This is why there were (are) so many Jews in the rag trade and, of course and as always, bankers. And, famously in one case, politicians - Disraeli.
Even so, there was massive anti-Semitic violence, whipped up by the church, and led to a curious thing. Many young Jewish men took to boxing as a way to defend themselves. They proved to be, for a while, some of the most successful boxers in England.
Acutally a full scale civil war might be the solution to all the problems that peace is not solving, it seemed to work in Yugoslavia., more so when forign fotces had to intervene.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 161, posted (6 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2462 times:
Hi, zrs70, answers are 'Yes' (Dachau), 'No,' and 'No.'
The whole border between Israel and Gaza is fenced, and guarded by the Israeli Army. Anyone who goes within 15 metres of the fence can be (and quite often are) shot by Israeli troops.
The place is hopelessly over-crowded - I've explained before that the population is over 1.7M., and they're crammed into an area of only 140 square miles; a density similar to that of New York City. They have to obtain permits to travel anywhere outside the Strip, and these are very sparingly granted. Even their fishermen are not allowed to fish further than 10km. off the coast.
Due to border restrictions they are very short of almost everything; necessities as well as luxuries. And even proper food (especially for the kids). Rather than type all evening, I'll just quote these brief reports (from an Israeli charity and Amnesty International):-
"In January 2010, the Israeli group Gisha took Israeli authorities to court, forcing them to reveal which goods were permitted and which goods weren't. The Israeli government replied that canned fruit, fruit juices and chocolate are blocked, while at the same time canned meat, canned tuna, mineral water, sesame paste, tea and coffee are allowed into the Gaza Strip.[113]
"According to the Failing Gaza after one year report by Amnesty International and other organisations cement, glass, steel, bitumen, wood, paint, doors, plastic pipes, metal pipes, metal reinforcement rods, aggregate, generators, high voltage cables and wooden telegraph poles are "high priority reconstruction materials currently with no or highly limited entry into Gaza through official crossings."[114] A 2009 UN report by Kevin M. Cahill called the restrictions "Draconian", and said that reconstruction is halted because Israel does not permit the importation of steel, cement or glass, among other building materials, and has restricted importation of lentils, pasta, tomato paste and juice, as well as batteries for hearing aids for deaf children. He said that despite the restrictions UNRWA has been able to provide a basic food supply to over a million refugees in the Gaza Strip. He added that he "visited a food station where hundreds of displaced persons waited to collect their meager staples of rice, sugar, lentils and cooking oil. While this program may save people from starvation, it is a diet that does not prevent the highest level of anemia in the region, with alarming rates of childhood stunting due to inadequate nutrition."
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 162, posted (6 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2444 times:
The term "concentration camp" is emotionally charged and is often associated with Auschwitz and other death camps. Yet the term was introduced by the British during the South African Wars (sometimes referred to as the Boer Wars). Establishing such camps had the aim of fragmenting, isolating and containing opposition to the British. There has been debate over whether it was intentional or not but we know that many died (mainly women and children) due to poor diet and sanitary conditions.
Concentration camps did not disappear following WWII. The British used them again in Kenya, where the terminology was changed. Here they were called "Protected Villages" - so called because they were protected by barbed wire and booby traps. Known as the "Pipeline" these camps provided a means of subduing the population and providing forced labour.
Comparisons between the policy of isolation, fragmentation and containment to render opposition ineffective in Israel can be made. But there is no indication that Israel is planning on converting those areas into death camps where the prime aim is to eradicate a population rather than subdue it. Restrictions on chocolate may seem to be petty but even flour and cocoa powder can explode, although I am not too sure of an effective means of making a weapon out of either. The distinction between concentration camps and death camps may seem arbitrary but I think it necessary to recognise a difference in the original aim of establishing such camps. Is the aim to contain or to destroy?
And before you ask, yes I have visited both types of camp. My great uncle was a guest at Neuengamme, near Hamburg. I was still child and my mother did not want me to go there. She said that belongs to the past. But another great uncle insisted that I go.
Many years later, following the fall of the Iron Curtain, I witnessed some visitors from Israel parading through Auschwitz, complete with an Israeli flag. During that visit, the thing that brought tears to my eyes was a doll that once belonged to a child and may have been deliberately smashed in a display of calculated cruelty. Seeing the collection of tins that contained Zyklon B, the mountain of suitcases, the fabric made from human hair did not have the same effect. For some reason it remained abstract (although I could see the horror of it all) until I saw that smashed doll and in my mind I saw the fear and lack of understanding in the eyes of the child who held it. I am not ashamed to say, that made me cry.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 163, posted (6 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2432 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 161): The whole border between Israel and Gaza is fenced, and guarded by the Israeli Army. Anyone who goes within 15 metres of the fence can be (and quite often are) shot by Israeli troops.
I just avoid the word all together... it is an emotionally charged word (as Quokkas said) and it just turns off the opposition and makes them defensive... I can't even blame them, although I disagree with a lot the Israelis are doing, they aren't and aren't intending to inflict the same fate on the Palestinians.
Talking with people on the other side of the fence, this is seen as really offensive and perceived as antisemitic... although I disagree, I can see how they feel that way. I feel I can describe what I feel is unjust about the situation without using that word, and in the end, I might be listened to instead of shut out
I think that is where the confusion is laying... I know you aren't antisemitic, NAV20, and I definitely know you aren't a Nazi (after hearing the stories of your childhood in London.) I've stuck up for you in PMs but I think a lot of the perceived antisemitism comes from comparing Israel with the Nazis (and NOT making sure to point out all the differences at the same time... I think it's better to avoid it all together)
And for a treat the Israeli courts are in the process of deporting a Polish woman who has been living in Poland for 20 years and her Israeli born son (whose father is an Israeli).
Does not sound like like multiple religions are welcome.
And on the other hand you have Afrikaners who have "converted" and are more than welcome to stay .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsbtIsg2Cfk
Maybe not ethnic cleansing then, but certainly land cleaning of it's previous occupant and reserving it for Israel on occupied (pardon me, the MFA claims it's merely 'disputed' not occupied. International law and the ICJ disagree, but international law does not apply in the occupied territories).
This duplicity will in the end prove to be the downfall of Israel.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22870 posts, RR: 87 Reply 168, posted (6 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2340 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 163): Talking with people on the other side of the fence, this is seen as really offensive and perceived as antisemitic.
It's an old problem - any criticism of the policies of the present government of Israel is too often perceived as being anti-Israel and, ultimately, anti-Semitic.
But what else can we do? Should we just ignore the philosophies and actions of an extremist government in such a volatile part of the world, in ways that we don't ignore in any other country?
I'm British (father and mother) but because of my father's airline posting, I was born in Palestine - the mandate. It is pointless trying to go back to visit my birthplace because Israeli security makes it just too difficult.
I absolutely support Israel's right to exist, but under the terms and conditions of the Balfour Declaration:
"....that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
The sad irony is that the parallel between the Netanyahu policies and the German policies of the 1930's does exist. The great Israeli diplomat, Abba Eban, once delineated those policies as developing in three stages:
(i) You cannot live amongst us as equals.
(ii) You cannot live amongst us.
(iii) You cannot live.
In the Occupied Territories, we are already at (i) and Mr. Netanyahu has long advocated (ii). When should we say "enough" - not to Israel, but to Mr. Netanyahu?
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 169, posted (6 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2332 times:
Quoting mariner (Reply 168): Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 163):
Talking with people on the other side of the fence, this is seen as really offensive and perceived as antisemitic.
It's an old problem - any criticism of the policies of the present government of Israel is too often perceived as being anti-Israel and, ultimately, anti-Semitic.
I did not mean that... although we do see some people go that far (equating simple criticism with antisemitism.)
I was talking about using loaded words, and when comparing a group to Nazis, it brings a lot of connotations along.
For example, comparing Gaza to a concentration camp does have similarities, BUT, there are many differences (huge, huge differences) so I can see how it would enrage others. I've been a lot more successful when I list X, Y, and Z without using words such as concentration camp or Nazi
Just a suggestion, I've found this trend by talking to members of this very board, and I think it would go far to find common ground with them
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22870 posts, RR: 87 Reply 170, posted (6 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2319 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 169): I was talking about using loaded words, and when comparing a group to Nazis, it brings a lot of connotations along.
I do understand and agree with your point.
And I do understand the need of my Jewish friends to defend Israel (if only in terms of "never again" - meaning the Shoah), but equally, I understand the bewildered anger of my Palestinian friends when they ask me "why?"
The problem, as in my previous post, is that the parallel between the present government's policies and those in 1930's Germany is there.
And I wish - almost as much as I wish anything - that it wasn't.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 171, posted (6 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2312 times:
Quoting mariner (Reply 170): I understand the bewildered anger of my Palestinian friends when they ask me "why?"
And I understand as well. I think it gets to the point, however, where arguing for one side can ultimately hurt them. I'm not saying you did, or anyone does a lot, but all it takes is a spark in a sensitive debate like this to light off some people's emotional fuses (not criticizing them either, I totally can see a Jew's feelings relating to the holocaust.)
It goes both ways... legitimate criticism can't be called antisemitism... that's just ridiculous
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 172, posted (6 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2303 times:
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 162): The term "concentration camp" is emotionally charged and is often associated with Auschwitz and other death camps. Yet the term was introduced by the British during the South African Wars (sometimes referred to as the Boer Wars).
Exactly right, Quokkas - and the camp I visited (Dachau) was not one of the 'death camps.' I used the word advisedly - I didn't mean that the Nazis exterminated people there; simply that they 'walled people up' and didn't provide much at all in terms of food, medical care, etc. Oddly enough, I got chatting to the guide who showed us round, and he told me (in confidence) that he'd been one of the guards. He said that they didn't deliberately starve the prisoners either; but food was short everywhere in Germany at that time, and that once they'd taken enough of what food arrived for themselves, there wasn't much left over for the prisoners..........
Sadly, at that time, a lot of people, including women and children, were still living in the Dachau barrack-blocks. He told me that a very few of them were actually ex-prisoners (this was about 1960) but that most of them were newer arrivals; the product of the latest 'ethnic cleansing programme,' which was being carried out by the Russians and their 'Eastern Bloc' allies..........
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 163): I just avoid the word all together... it is an emotionally charged word (as Quokkas said) and it just turns off the opposition and makes them defensive...
OK - I'll try not to use it again! But there's no denying that 'walling up' Gaza does appear to be 'a chip off the old block'; a recurrence of 'ethnic cleansing.' And that Israel's 'settlement policy' amounts to the same thing - there's no reasonable doubt that Israel's latest 'project' is more or less to 'wall up' East Jerusalem, cutting it off from what is left of the rest of Palestine.
More constructively - having spent a lot of my working life in urban renewal, new town development, and industrial promotion - I can say in a few words why the Gaza Strip will never emerge from its current state of overcrowding, low living standards, and food shortages. Any city needs a 'hinterland,' providing space for agriculture to feed it, and large open areas on which to develop modern industrial projects. So Gaza, in present circumstances, has no chance whatever of emerging from its present state of poverty, deprivation, and food shortages - things will only get worse as the population grows.
The Israeli Government must know that as well as I do. But they show no sign of doing anything about it; indeed, they appear if anything to be seeking to accelerate it by their restrictions on imports. And, in due course, the same thing is likely to happen to East Jerusalem.
Sorry, can't see that attitude as anything less than religious and/or ethnic discrimination on the grand scale.......
[Edited 2012-12-17 18:24:32]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
TheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2346 posts, RR: 6 Reply 173, posted (6 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2289 times:
Quoting zrs70 (Reply 166): Ethnic cleansing????? Is that why Israel so openly attracts foreigners from multiple religions and backgrounds to move there?
Yes, ethnic cleansing in regards to "moving on" all the Palestinians. You know the illegal settlements Israel is building...
Where do all the "displaced" Palestinians go ?
So yes, to me it sure is a type of ethnic cleansing.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22870 posts, RR: 87 Reply 174, posted (6 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2281 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 172): More constructively - having spent a lot of my working life in urban renewal, new town development, and industrial promotion - I can say in a few words why the Gaza Strip will never emerge from its current state of overcrowding, low living standards, and food shortages.
I don't want to defend the situation in Gaza in any way - I could not - and while parts of Gaza are what you say, not all of it is.
The journalist went there recently as a tourist and paints a different picture of parts of Gaza:
"Within Gaza, is there intense poverty, bombed out buildings, a humbled people living in refugee camps dating from 1948? Yes there is all of that, but most of my too brief visit was to see the good things within Gaza, from newly renovated Ottoman mansions in Gaza's historic center, to hotels like the Al Mathaf with its own archeological museum, to cafes where locals gathered in outdoor gardens to smoke shisha pipes, generator powered lights in the trees above them, to the beaches featured in the movie God Went Surfing with the Devil.
All of this I believe will also humanize what the world thinks of Gaza. Even in my visit with Alafranji, he told me his website's restaurant listings had long been used against Gaza politically as evidence the blockade had no impact on nutrition in the closed territory.
It puzzled him and he asked me, viewing criticism on the website, "why do you find it bad that we have good restaurants? At the end of the day, we are human too."
QFA380 From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 2043 posts, RR: 1 Reply 175, posted (6 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2272 times:
Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 140): Israel clearly does not play in the same league as any of the EU countries when it comes to human and civil rights.
The EU has with open arms allowed ghettos to be created in their midst, with many (predominantly) Muslim immigrants. If that's what a human right looks like I'm glad Israel isn't like the EU.
Thankfully the Arab world is positively sparkling then, next to zero Jews, Christians and other minorities. All without a single person being forcibly converted, 'resettled' or plain old slaughtered. The Copts are having a glorious time in Egypt, thriving multicultural society it is, hell they won't even let the Gazans come in at all. Guess its not all Israel's fault that Gaza is an overcrowded prison when the other side is holding up one of the walls.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 172): and the camp I visited (Dachau) was not one of the 'death camps.' I used the word advisedly - I didn't mean that the Nazis exterminated people there; simply that they 'walled people up' and didn't provide much at all in terms of food, medical care, etc. Oddly enough, I got chatting to the guide who showed us round, and he told me (in confidence) that he'd been one of the guards. He said that they didn't deliberately starve the prisoners either; but food was short everywhere in Germany at that time, and that once they'd taken enough of what food arrived for themselves, there wasn't much left over for the prisoners..........
Nav, sounds like the guide/ guard gave you a snow job as to what Dachau actually was. Dachau was a true death camp with gas chambers and crematoria. Inmates were subjected to medical experiments, forced labor, and executions. Prisoners were starved because of an evil regime, not because there was not enough food left over.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 178, posted (6 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2271 times:
Fair enough, zrs70, 'I got had.'
Quoting zrs70 (Reply 177): There needs to be major changes in Gaza and the West Bank.
But that's progress. What sort of changes do you have in mind? And what are the chances of them o them taking place?
PS If you google, Dachau definitely had crematoria, for the disposal of bodies. But there's a lot of doubt that it had 'gas chambers' - the consensus appears to be that they had gas jets in some of the shower-rooms for disinfestation of insects, but not used for (or suitable for) killing people.
The ones left in the West Bank will probably go into Jordan and those in Gaza, Egypt. Unless someone stands up to Israel by force, because the UN is basically powerless, this seems to be the most logical outcome.
"When the Arabs put down their guns there will be peace in the Middle East.
When the Jews put down their guns----there will be no Jews!"
The Palestinians are certainly not interested in peace.
I will never tolerate such ignorance from fellow Americans. What you said is ignorant straight up.
No one is really interested in peace anyways, least of all the Israelis. If the Israelis were, they would advocate a two state solution, and move forward quickly towards it. Why does that not happen?? Because they are colonizers, and only interested in expanding their land and control.
Why would a nation and people continuously invade, conquer, pillage, and destroy another's territory and people except for that reason. There is a line crossed with regards to self-defense and offense. That the United States would kowtow to such a militant disdain for common decency, human rights, and international law says only one thing. That the United States is the bitch of Israel.
Every skirmish that breaks out, oh 3 Israelis are killed versus 50 Palestinians? Is that ratio fair? And yet, the onus is ALWAYS on the Palestinians to "control their militant factions" to kowtow to Israelis wants and needs. Please, this is bullshit.
And frankly, a lot of it is founded in prejudice against Arabs, against darker or browner people, against a religion which is less understood by a significant number of Americans, and against a people cast in a dark light as terrorists, as less than, as subhuman, etc.
I for one, will not stand for this, even though the US is a country where Israel "can do no wrong". This is ignorance, racism, prejudice, and the most horrible thing since South African apartheid. It deserves lambasting, it deserves people getting their feathers ruffled, and people feeling uncomfortable.
And frankly Obama should be ashamed as a non-white person for helping continue this de-facto apartheid in the 21st century. He should be ashamed as a black man. But, he isn't stupid, he is beholden to the powers that be also.
Overall, it is a VERY tragic situation that will never in 100 years be resolved peacefully. The closest we got to it was when Yitzhak Rabin was alive and in communication with Clinton.
Clinton, Arafat, and Rabin was EPIC. These Israeli leaders who came after Rabin are too hardline, and what does that provoke??? Hardliners on the other side. That is diplomacy and human nature. If you are an asshole to me, I will be an asshole to you.
But I wish people could be the bigger man after 60 years. 60 years is a generation.
If you are so FOOLISH and adolescent-like not to be able to sit down with your neighbor and negotiate peace in almost 65 years...then you deserve the wars and attacks you have had. It's almost so pathetic it is like adolescent boys playing with water guns. Except it is real and thousands of people on all sides have died and been maimed.
777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5281 posts, RR: 4 Reply 181, posted (6 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2136 times:
Quoting QFA380 (Reply 175):
Thankfully the Arab world is positively sparkling then, next to zero Jews, Christians and other minorities.
Not true, and in any case they are free to move out to Chritian countries or Israel, just as is being suggested for Palestinians to be accomodated by other Arab nations.
sbworcs From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 799 posts, RR: 5 Reply 182, posted (6 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2090 times:
Quoting Powerslide (Reply 179): Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 173):
Where do all the "displaced" Palestinians go ?
The ones left in the West Bank will probably go into Jordan and those in Gaza, Egypt. Unless someone stands up to Israel by force, because the UN is basically powerless, this seems to be the most logical outcome.
And why shoudl these countries take them? Who will compensate them for the extra strain on the new "host" country - will Israel pay?
Both sides need to grow up and talk rather than name throw, However, at the moment it is Israel that appears to be the one making the situation far worse than it already is.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5375 posts, RR: 47 Reply 183, posted (6 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2076 times:
Quoting sbworcs (Reply 182): And why shoudl these countries take them?
Because they're Arab. And Muslims. Let them stick to their own kind. (I can't believe people can say that and not think it's racist!)
I'm telling you, it's as ridiculous of a statement as "Americans took the Native Americans' historical land, so we should move out to other white countries. I'm sure England, Germany, France, etc will absorb the 300 million of us, Europe is pretty huge and they're 'white' " too
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22870 posts, RR: 87 Reply 184, posted (6 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2057 times:
Quoting 777way (Reply 181): Not true, and in any case they are free to move out to Chritian countries or Israel, just as is being suggested for Palestinians to be accomodated by other Arab nations.
Ah - Netanyahu's "Jordanian Option."
While I fully support Israel as a Jewish state, I'm scratching my head at the idea that Palestinians should move away from their ancestral homeland to "other countries" - to make room for Jewish people whose families have not lived there for a couple of thousand years or more.
To force that on the Palestinians would be to do what the Romans did to the Jews.
If you want to go back to Biblical times, the Canaanites, the Phoenicians and the Philistines (all progenitors of the Palestinians) were there as well and Gaza was not originally part of the Kingdom of Judah, nor, obviously, the northern Kingdom of Israel.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 185, posted (6 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2032 times:
Quoting mariner (Reply 184): While I fully support Israel as a Jewish state
Must admit that I don't support it any more, mariner; if I ever did. Because being Jewish is basically a religion - not a race, and certainly not a nationality. It follows that any 'Jewish state' - that is, a state giving preference to one religion over all others - has to be based on religious discrimination. And the State of Israel currently delivers such discrimination 'in spades,' up to and including driving non-Jews out of their homes by the hundreds of thousands; and even, more than occasionally, shooting unarmed non-Jewish demonstrators.
It's quite clear that the origins of this tragedy go right back to 1896, when Zionism began. And that the man who made the original mistake (of giving the idea of a state based on religious discrimination 'houseroom') was Arthur Balfour. This meeting (in 1906, when Balfour was in opposition) appears to have been the starting point for what was to come:-
"During the first meeting between Weizmann and Balfour in 1906, Balfour asked what Weizmann's objections were to the idea of a Jewish homeland in Uganda, (the Uganda Protectorate in East Africa in the British Uganda Programme), rather than in Palestine. According to Weizmann's memoir, the conversation went as follows:
"Mr. Balfour, supposing I was to offer you Paris instead of London, would you take it?" He sat up, looked at me, and answered: "But Dr. Weizmann, we have London." "That is true," I said, "but we had Jerusalem when London was a marsh." He ... said two things which I remember vividly. The first was: "Are there many Jews who think like you?" I answered: "I believe I speak the mind of millions of Jews whom you will never see and who cannot speak for themselves." ... To this he said: "If that is so you will one day be a force."[5]
"Two months after Britain's declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire in November 1914, Zionist British cabinet member Herbert Samuel circulated a memorandum entitled The Future of Palestine to his cabinet colleagues. The memoradum stated that "I am assured that the solution of the problem of Palestine which would be much the most welcome to the leaders and supporters of the Zionist movement throughout the world would be the annexation of the country to the British Empire".
It has to be remembered that at that time Palestine was part of a Turkish empire covering the whole eastern shore of the Mediterranean, which was on the German side in WW1. And, I suspect that a high proportion of British politicians thought of 'Arabs' as nomadic guys in flowing robes riding camels around in deserts. And probably few if any of them knew just how small Palestine was. Even so, with hindsight, the Balfour Declaration in 1917 (by which time Balfour was the British Foreign Secretary) was a very 'ill-thought out' document:-
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
The big 'hole' in the thing is, to my mind, the mention of 'the Jewish people.' There was no such thing as a 'Jewish people' at the time - there were only people of the Jewish faith, living all over the world and having all sorts of nationalities. Balfour and Co. were basically granting the Jews a 'licence' to move into someone else's country purely on the basis of their religion. Laying the foundations for the religiously-intolerant state that Israel has now become.
There were other factors that contributed to the mess, of course. Hitler's persecution of the Jews turned a trickle of Jewish immigrants into a flood; And the British, wearied by war, pulled their troops out at the worst possible time, in 1948. But there's no doubt, in my mind anyway, that it was Balfour and Co. who made the whole (still-developing) tragedy possible.
And there'll be no end to it until the world powers and the UN do what they have routinely done to many other countries who don't 'follow the rules' and choose to disregard Roosevelt's 'four freedoms' - apply sanctions with a view to forcing Israel to put an end to religious and political discrimination, and stop grabbing more and more Palestinian land.
[Edited 2012-12-18 19:36:37]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 186, posted (6 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2017 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 185): Because being Jewish is basically a religion - not a race, and certainly not a nationality.
Again I would disagree because you are conflating Judaism with being Jewish. Throughout the ages, going back to the creation of Judea and even today, Jews have described themselves as being "the Children of Israel" and being descended from the Patriarch Jacob, although Jewish history goes back to Abraham.
It is correct to talk of the Jewish People. It is a reference to Jews as a nation in the classical sense, meaning a group of people with a shared history and a sense of a group identity rather than a territorial and political entity. Zionism itself was not a religious movement; it was a primarily political. The early Zionists sought to establish a secular state of Israel, recognized by the world, through purely legal means. But it drew on the notion of a Jewish People (as a nation) due to the continued abuse of Jews, not merely in the Pale but also countries like France. Jews who had completely assimilated or converted to another religion were the targets of discrimination and abuse.
Not surprising therefore to read and find that the anthem of the Zionist movement and modern day Israel includes the words:
Hatikva bat sh'not alpayim
Lih'yot am chofshi b'artzenu
Eretz Tziyon v'yirushalayim.
The hope of two thousand years
To be a free people in our own land
In the land of Zion and Jerusalem.
So I think that it is widely accepted that whatever differences there may be on the religious responses to Israel within the Jewish community itself, regardless of whether an individual is religious or not, the Jewish People are seen as a nation and that today the territorial embodiment of that nation is Israel.
The reason why I stress this is because if the problem was merely religious then we could simply turn to religion. People in the West are generally familiar with Jesus saying "love thy brother as thyself." Yet he was simply paraphrasing what was already in a book most consider harsh: Leviticus. “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord." [19:18] Should anyone argue that the Palestinians are not "among your people" Leviticus 19:34 goes on to say, "The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God." Then there is the famous story of Rabbi Hillel. A pagan came to him saying that he would convert to Judaism if Hillel could teach him the whole of the Torah in the time he could stand on one foot. The wise Rabbi replied, "What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man. That is the whole Torah; the rest is just commentary. Go and study it."
However, the problem is not religion but politics and solutions seem to be as far off as ever.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22870 posts, RR: 87 Reply 187, posted (6 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2001 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 185): Because being Jewish is basically a religion - not a race, and certainly not a nationality. It follows that any 'Jewish state' - that is, a state giving preference to one religion over all others - has to be based on religious discrimination.
Then I guess it boils down to your (or anyone's) attitude to "theocracy."
Surely England has been "theocratically inclined" at some stages of its history. From the death of Henry VIII to the end of the Glorious Revolution, there was a two hundred year war for religious primacy and an established church and it is only now that the bias against the succession of Catholics to the throne is being removed.
I have no wish to be an apologist for Israel, but there are over 1.5 million Arab citizens of Israel (more than 20%). They have the vote and are represented in the Knesset, although there are certainly some powerful voices against them among the right wing and some dirty pool.
I doubt their lives are "easy" - many of the Jewish population see them as a fifth column and many of their Arab constituencies don't see them as faithfully representing their interests. The point is only that they are there.
It is also suggested that since the Arabs have a higher birth rate, they may yet outnumber the Jews in Israel, which would be an interesting turn of events. This article is from 2011:
"For many years, Israeli politicians and scholars have warned that the higher birth rate of the country’s Palestinian population may ultimately lead to a state in which Jews become the minority – thereby threatening the very existence of the “Jewish homeland.”
According to press reports, Israel’s Arab Muslim population is growing at a rate almost double the annual growth of the Jewish population."
I disagree with your view that Jews are "not a people" since to be Jewish (orthodox) is carried only through the maternal lineage. I'm not sure how else you define "a people" except through the bloodlines.
I also disagree with some of your assessments of the early attitudes of Zionism (which were generally pro-integration) and I strongly disagree that the Balfour Declaration was an "ill-thought out" document. It contained the seeds of a settlement, which were, as I said earlier, completely corrupted by what happened in WW2.
There were many suggestions for a homeland for Jews including the whole of north-western Australia, the Kimberleys, where - ironically - there have seen been major deposits of diamonds discovered.
But the concept of the area called Palestine becoming a Jewish homeland was widely accepted - and approved of - before WW1, the 1916 Sykes Picot map was only an illustration of the reality of this thinking. T E Lawrence wrote approvingly of it in about 1912.
I posted the Sykes-Picot map earlier in this thread, but I'll do so again, a different version which may illustrate it more clearly:
And while some (many?) British politicians may have been ignorant of that area of the world at that time, the British Foreign Office certainly wasn't and was calling the shots. The prime considerations were the protection of the Suez Canal and the post-Ottoman division of the spoils. Only the area known as Palestine was "unassigned" - neither pink/red (British) nor light blue/dark blue (French).
The intention was that it become a homeland for the people (all the people) who were there. It was not intended - at that time - as a sanctuary for European Jews. At that time, there was no perceived need.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 188, posted (6 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1984 times:
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 186): However, the problem is not religion but politics
I think it's really 'two sides of the coin,' Quokkas. I agree that Christianity and the Jewish religion - and the Muslim one for that matter - are close cousins in many respects. But Israel is currently perverting the basic beliefs of all three - by discriminating against both the other two. Non-Jewish citizens of Israel are discriminated against politically, they don't enjoy equal rights. And, of course, the Palestinians outside 'official' Israel are being afforded no 'human rights' at all - day by day Israel is forcibly driving them out in its endless thirst for land.
Quoting mariner (Reply 187): I strongly disagree that the Balfour Declaration was an "ill-thought out" document. It contained the seeds of a settlement, which were, as I said earlier, completely corrupted by what happened in WW2.
Possibly 'not thought through' would be a better way of putting it, mariner. Balfour didn't 'think through' the implications of telling foreigners that they were entitled to set up a 'national home' in an area that was already someone else's national home - namely that of the Palestinians. If he'd said straight out that land would have had to be legally acquired (paid for) by immigrants, the confrontation between the two sides might never have happened. But Jewish immigrants didn't appear to do that - it's worth mentioning that the Irgun started killing Palestinians and driving them off their land in 1936, and the Stern Gang was doing the same thing on a considerable scale by 1940 - before the 'holocaust.' It's arguable that those groups were the first 'terrorists,' in modern terms. And, as you'll know, they killed British 'mandate' troops on an increasing scale as well.
We agree that that caused the situation to 'spiral out of control' (see my post). But in my view the seeds of the conflict were sown many years previously - starting with Balfour's unwise reference to 'a Jewish national home.' That virtually ensured that a religious conflict would arise; and it did, during the 1930s if not before. And it's been raging ever since.
[Edited 2012-12-18 22:32:23]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 189, posted (6 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1969 times:
Quoting mariner (Reply 187): They have the vote and are represented in the Knesset,
By pure coincidence there is an article in today's Guardian discussing the attitude of Arab Israeli citizens to the elections due in January.
Quote: Arabs make up about a fifth of Israel's population, but their voter turnout has been much lower than that of the Jewish majority. Many Arabs are disillusioned with politics, feeling alienated as a minority in a Jewish state and dissatisfied with their own squabbling, ineffective representatives.
On the Jewish side, suspicion over the loyalty and ultimate goals of Israeli Arabs, always in the background, has grown in recent years with the deadlock in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking and more overt identification with the Palestinians by Israeli Arab leaders.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22870 posts, RR: 87 Reply 190, posted (6 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1958 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 188): Possibly 'not thought through' would be a better way of putting it, mariner. Balfour didn't 'think through' the implications of telling foreigners that they were entitled to set up a 'national home' in an area that was already someone else's national home - namely that of the Palestinians.
Hindsight is always perfect vision.
At that time, there was no rational reason to suppose that there would be any mass movement of Jewish people to Palestine.
At that time, the overwhelming migration of European Jews was to the USA, which was perceived by many as the new "promised land."
And Balfour wasn't telling foreign Jews that they could move to Palestine willy-nilly. He was defining the political structure after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. For the people already in Palestine, it was to be the equivalent of home rule.
This is partly why the Brits became so unpopular with the Jews in the 1930's, with the first serious movements of European Jews to Palestine - which the Brits tried to stop, most notoriously with the boat called Exodus.
There were competing interests after WW1, which put an end to several "homeland" dreams.
The Kurds, for example, had been semi-promised a national state, Kurdistan, but the Turkish War of Independence put a stop to that. The Treaty of Sevres was not put into effect and was replaced with the Treaty of Lausanne, which defined Turkey's new (post-war) borders, leaving the Kurds with zilch.
We can all imagine what might have been. But - it wasn't.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 191, posted (6 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1928 times:
Looks like the Palestinians are getting the chance to put their problems over now that they have access to the UN, anyway:-
"The four European members of the United Nations security council are drawing up a strong joint condemnation of recent Israeli moves to expand Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem amid growing international censure.
"The unusual statement, expected this week from the UK, France, Germany and Portugal, follows blunt criticism from the US of Israel's announcement on Monday of plans to build an extra 1,500 homes in the settlement of Ramat Shlomo."
But the referee (the USA) plans to blow the whistle and award Israel a free kick:-
"The United States has criticized Israel for its plans to build more settler units in the occupied Palestinian territories but says it will not throw its weight behind a UN resolution condemning the illegal Israeli settlements.
"State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters on Tuesday that Washington would not support a proposal for a Security Council resolution being discussed in preliminary talks in response to the plan for new Israeli settlements.
“I don't think we think that is a helpful step at this point,” she said."
Pellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1868 posts, RR: 8 Reply 192, posted (6 months 3 hours ago) and read 1743 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 191): "The United States has criticized Israel for its plans to build more settler units in the occupied Palestinian territories but says it will not throw its weight behind a UN resolution condemning the illegal Israeli settlements.
"State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters on Tuesday that Washington would not support a proposal for a Security Council resolution being discussed in preliminary talks in response to the plan for new Israeli settlements.
“I don't think we think that is a helpful step at this point,” she said."
The bitch of Israel strikes and looks stupid again.
Duhh we don't like what you're doing, but duhhhh, we ain't going to do diddily squat about it. In fact, we're going to prevent anyone else from raising a stink about it, duhhhh. Oh we're for democracy and human rights...duhhh, errrr, ummmm yeahhhh!!! USA USA USA!
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, RR: 37 Reply 193, posted (6 months 3 hours ago) and read 1743 times:
Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 192): The bitch of Israel strikes and looks stupid again.
In fairness to Nuland, Pellegrine, a few days ago, she spoke pretty strongly against Israel's goings-on:-
"U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland used the strongest words against Israeli settlements in recent years after Tuesday's announcement to move the settlement plan forward.
"We are deeply disappointed that Israel insists on continuing this pattern of provocative action. These repeated announcements and plans of new construction run counter to the cause of peace. Israel's leaders continually say that they support a path to a two-state solution, yet these actions only put that goal further at risk," she said Tuesday."
I suspect that, on that occasion, she felt free to say what she thought. But, a few days later, she had to say what she was told to say (and, I suppose, 'think')...........presumably by Obama..........
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
EDKA From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 293 posts, RR: 1 Reply 194, posted (6 months 1 hour ago) and read 1721 times:
Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 180): I will never tolerate such ignorance from fellow Americans. What you said is ignorant straight up.
Actually, that was pretty much the case until probably early 1990's.... Probably not so now, not officialy anyway.
Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 180): These Israeli leaders who came after Rabin are too hardline
I am afraid you are wrong here... Peres, Barak are not hardline (Camp David 2000 was Barak!!). In my view you, the deal could have even been done with Olmert and Sharon.
The "EPIC" fail here belongs to mr Arafat....
Frankly. I think Netanyahu has lots the plot. In the past week he has basically denounced any support for a two-state solution and is progressing nicely on annexing more and more land (one of his election promises is stepping up building in the occupied territories).
This is the "reward" (besides other "measures") for the Palestinians non-member observer status in the UN GA. His main point of contention seems to be that this "has not been negotiated" with Israel. Well, I don't recall Israel negotiating with Palestinian people in 1948, but just grabbing land. So, what Israel may do, Palestine may not?
Reading the JPost and YNetnews comments the past 2 weeks it is chilling to see he has massive support and the people are calling for even more ("push the Arabs into the sea", "move them to Jordan", "throw the leftists from Israel") it seems that Israel has lost all sanity. I don't know where this is going, but the outlook for Israel doesn't seem to be too good.
Hope some sanity returns after the elections, but really worried.
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9159 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19813 posts, 
From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6348 posts, 
From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15999 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13369 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 1380 posts, 
- that they felt that they themselves should be compensated - even though they'd never left England up to that time (1958).........
From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2080 posts, 
Again, this is about the West Bank, not Gaza. They are not the same place, they are not governed by the same people, and they are not the same in their position toward Israel. You cannot look at them through the same lens.
From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3448 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, 
From Slovenia, joined Feb 2004, 692 posts, 
From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5281 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2007, 2953 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22870 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5918 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
