Picking on Palestine

Hobbes

Originally posted by klaz
Violence was used, but as a tool. Politics was what achieved the peace.

As a tool to what ends? All violence did was highlight the fact to the rest of the world so people would actually taking note of what was going on.

Which seems to happen the world over. Politics doesn't work as no one needs listen. Violence comes into the equation and everyone starts examing why the violence is happening.

sovtek

Originally posted by klaz

But Utility, you're ignoring the Fact the land where Israel lies was not stolen. As for Palestine itself, its occupied. The only stolen land is what Israel has been doing with their colonising attempts. Thats wrong, agreed, but don't expand it beyond what it is. A lesser problem of the whole.

The land was stolen from the original inhabitants (at the time mostly Arab)by the British... and then under American pressure as a "solution" to what to do with all the European Jews uprooted by WW2...stolen again by said Europeans. The British resisted for a time because they knew it was a bad idea to put alot of Jews in a land that was 95% inhabited by Arabs. Oh yea and some bombs strategically planted by the Jewish terrorist group, the Stern gang, helped a bit too ( I saw a doccy called "Hidden Hollywood" where one producer was actually bragging about this).
Tell a Palestinian with a pre-1948 deed to land that Isreal didn't steal it.
If you look at the "wars" with it's neighbors it usually involves a provocation by Isreali forces (coincident calls for expansion in the Isreali parliament,as well), causing a build up of Arab troops, then an attack by Isreal...who then tells the UN that they were attacked first...then decades of occupation...
How many American accents (who should loose their citizenship IMHO)do you hear when interviews are given in the settlements.?

Geromino

Originally posted by sovtek
The land was stolen from the original inhabitants (at the time mostly Arab)by the British... and then under American pressure as a "solution" to what to do with all the European Jews uprooted by WW2...stolen again by said Europeans. The British resisted for a time because they knew it was a bad idea to put alot of Jews in a land that was 95% inhabited by Arabs. Oh yea and some bombs strategically planted by the Jewish terrorist group, the Stern gang, helped a bit too ( I saw a doccy called "Hidden Hollywood" where one producer was actually bragging about this).
Tell a Palestinian with a pre-1948 deed to land that Isreal didn't steal it.
If you look at the "wars" with it's neighbors it usually involves a provocation by Isreali forces (coincident calls for expansion in the Isreali parliament,as well), causing a build up of Arab troops, then an attack by Isreal...who then tells the UN that they were attacked first...then decades of occupation...
How many American accents (who should loose their citizenship IMHO)do you hear when interviews are given in the settlements.?

And who issued those deeds? Mostly by the Ottoman Empire in which it stole some of the land from the previous inhabitants. Since that government fell, those deeds became borrowed legality issues until a new government can be set up and retain the property rights under the former govenrment. But if we further followthe logic of 'stolen land" then we must look at before the Ottoman empire and before that the Mongols, the Egyptians, Israel, Rome, Greece and so forth. At what point does one stop or one begins in the "land being stolen.?" A highly dubious and extremely naive attempt at "blaming Israel" no matter what the cost or what the propoganda. Klaz is therefore correct that the land was not stolen. You also have the legal issue of abandonment of property. When property is abandoned, then the govenrning authority has the right of obtaining and owning said land. This is what happened with the Palestinians fleeing their land during the wars within Palestine Proper (Israel, Palestine, and Trans Jordon).

So, all the wars are Israel's fault again. LMAO. Very selective memory Sovtek. So, it was Israel's fault for being attacked by simply creating a state one-tenth the size of Israel proper (What is now known as the current boundraries of Israel authorized by the Olso Accords). Or was it the fact that Arab nationalism was central to destroying Israel at all costs. this is a cultural conflict in which two very different cultures are clashing in a region known as Palestine. It is a 2000 plus year conflict that will not be solved now nor in the near future. Or how about the rhetoric of Nassir. Or how about the rhetoric of Syria. Or how about the secret document signed before the 1967 war. Or how about the 1972 war. Or how about Sedat going to Israel and Camp David to resolve the conflict but was assassinated for even making contact with 'the mortal enemy of Islam,"

dumb larry

There's a documentary on tonight (Sunday) about the Palestinian Authority called "Arafat Investigated" on BBC2. Might be of interest to some. It's starts at 19:15.

As a tool to what ends? All violence did was highlight the fact to the rest of the world so people would actually taking note of what was going on.

not strictly true. Times have changed and in the early 1900's opinions have changed alot, along wth the freedom of information to flow. What Irish forces did probably wouldn't work today. But what they did was force the British Empire to realise how costly occupation was. Technology, advances in military tactics/doctrine & Changes in World Culture have pretty much nullified the possibility of using these tatcics again.

---

Maybe what Geromino has said will stop the usual references to stolen land for a while

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino
And who issued those deeds? Mostly by the Ottoman Empire in which it stole some of the land from the previous inhabitants.

The Ottaman empire was largely controlled by the British.
It doesn't matter who the government was that issued the deeds. It violates the UN charter to take land no matter who the government
You can't call being forced off your land "abandonment"

Since that government fell, those deeds became borrowed legality issues until a new government can be set up and retain the property rights under the former govenrment.

Simply wrong. Someone that lives on a peice of land that has a deed does not mean they forfeit their right to it even if their government is forced out of power.

But if we further followthe logic of 'stolen land" then we must look at before the Ottoman empire and before that the Mongols, the Egyptians, Israel, Rome, Greece and so forth.

No I'm not going to accept that logic at all. I'm talking about who forced who off who's land in the context of what actions directly affect the situation today.
It is the logic of Zionism and the Stern gang used to justify genocide to obtain their "god given land" for "his choosen people".

At what point does one stop or one begins in the "land being stolen.?"

When Isreal stops increasing it's settlements on an almost daily basis as well stop taking resources from a people that were forced by the same country to flee to where they now live.
As well allow return or at least compensation for the land said country forced them off of in the first place.

A highly dubious and extremely naive attempt at "blaming Israel" no matter what the cost or what the propoganda.

What's propoganda and what's the truth. Blame is not the issue, it's who is causing the most damage and whose killing the most people, providing the most provocation and loss of life.

You also have the legal issue of abandonment of property. When property is abandoned, then the govenrning authority has the right of obtaining and owning said land. This is what happened with the Palestinians fleeing their land during the wars within Palestine Proper (Israel, Palestine, and Trans Jordon).

Neither the UN nor any other legal body gave Isreal the right to kick people of their land. That's exactly what they did as soon as Isreal was created. That's forgetting why the British relented and who caused that.
The Palestinians fled their land because they were forced off it (mostly) by immigrants that came from another country. That is not abandonment and ,in fact, it is legally known as genocide.
That ignores the stack of UN resolutions that tell Isreal to stop invading other countries and taking their land as well as give what they've taken back.

So, all the wars are Israel's fault again. LMAO. Very selective memory Sovtek. So, it was Israel's fault for being attacked by simply creating a state one-tenth the size of Israel proper (What is now known as the current boundraries of Israel authorized by the Olso Accords).

Oslo is well after the fact of said wars and is actually a huge capitulation on teh Palestinian side of the fence.
When you speak of selective memory, many would say you are doing much yourself.
Let's imagine that the French took over Louisiana? What would you classify the reaction of the US government in that repect. Nationalism?

Or was it the fact that Arab nationalism was central to destroying Israel at all costs. this is a cultural conflict in which two very different cultures are clashing in a region known as Palestine.

Some Arab nationalist have called for this. As many Jewish fundalmentalist have called for the same thing in the Isreali parliement, expansion of Isreal that is. (and also coincide with Isreal attacking it's neighbors.)

It is a 2000 plus year conflict that will not be solved now nor in the near future.

That's a big fat ol' cop out as an excuse to do nothing.

Or how about the rhetoric of Nassir. Or how about the rhetoric of Syria.

Or how about the rhetoric of Bush or the rhetoric of Sharon or the rhetoric of many in the Isreali govennment and the illegal settlements or the rhetoric of many Jewish "charities" in America or the Anti-Defamation League or various Christian fundamentalists?

Or how about the secret document signed before the 1967 war.

If your are going to make refernce to some cryptic document, it might help to refer by name if it has any bearing on the subject that is.

Or how about the 1972 war.

You mean the one with Egypt in 1973? When Egypt fought Israel FOR IT'S OWN TERRITORY. Territory that Israel took in 1967 after invading Egypt and subsequent UN resolutions condemning said action as well as telling Israel to give the land back.

Or how about Sedat going to Israel and Camp David to resolve the conflict but was assassinated for even making contact with 'the mortal enemy of Islam,"

And who assassinated Yitzhak Rabin and why?
Nevermind that Sadat was not taken out by another nation.

(Unlike Sharon's stated intention with regards to Arafat)

The Ottaman empire was largely controlled by the British

the Ottaman predated British influence in the Middle east, especially since it originated from the Persian Empire. It wsa only when the empire started to fall that British interests held sway over teh Empire.

It doesn't matter who the government was that issued the deeds. It violates the UN charter to take land no matter who the government

Ahh but you're quoting the UN that provided the land that Israel had prior to the occupation of Palestine. This is the land that so many critics of Israel refer to when they say that land was stolen.

Simply wrong. Someone that lives on a peice of land that has a deed does not mean they forfeit their right to it even if their government is forced out of power.

So Generals in Nazi germany should have been allowed to keep tracts of land in the territories occupied during WW2? (Its not a comparison between Palestine/Israel with Nazi Germany btw) So when Nazi germany fell, the deeds authorised by the German courts should have held sway? Hardly. Generally when a government or a nation falls, deeds are worthless, while they're occupied.

When Isreal stops increasing it's settlements on an almost daily basis as well stop taking resources from a people that were forced by the same country to flee to where they now live.

Ok, so the land contained with Israel's original borders isn't stolen then. Then at least we agree. The land being taken during the occupation of Palestine is stolen. I agree. But they're occupied. they started a war, that they failed to win. To the Victor goes the spoils. But if Israel wants peace they will have to give that land back.

Neither the UN nor any other legal body gave Isreal the right to kick people of their land. That's exactly what they did as soon as Isreal was created. That's forgetting why the British relented and who caused that. The Palestinians fled their land because they were forced off it (mostly) by immigrants that came from another country. That is not abandonment and ,in fact, it is legally known as genocide. That ignores the stack of UN resolutions that tell Isreal to stop invading other countries and taking their land as well as give what they've taken back.

You keep talking about the UN, and how they've made resolutions against Israel. Its very convenient to forget that the UN recognises the State of Israel, and helped allocate the land where Israel currently exists. You can't point out the one and ignore the other. yes, Israel has been told to stop invading other nations, and they've ignored them. In my eyes thats wrong.

In regards to the Genocide comment, you might want to look at a dictionary. What Israel is doing is not Genocide. I'm not going to make references to WW2, or the usual comments, since i think they're over used, however, it sounds like the usual Anti-Israel comments. They're relocating a people. That is not genocide. I don't agree with it, but don't make it out for more than it is.

That's a big fat ol' cop out as an excuse to do nothing.

And blaming Isreal for everything, isn't? Everyone sees different ways for the M.East to resolve. Your opinion isn't any more justified than mine ot his.

You mean the one with Egypt in 1973? When Egypt fought Israel FOR IT'S OWN TERRITORY. Territory that Israel took in 1967 after invading Egypt and subsequent UN resolutions condemning said action as well as telling Israel to give the land back

Aye, but people always forget the steps leading up to it. I'm not going to list it here. Look up a link and you might find some disturbing references to Arab build-ups and plans for the invasion of Israel. As the US love to call it, its generally called a pre-emptive strike. But i agree, they invaded another nation. Shame, that the Arab nations aren't innocent of trying to do the same thing, the Israeli's are just more effective.

sovtek

Originally posted by klaz
the Ottaman predated British influence in the Middle east, especially since it originated from the Persian Empire. It wsa only when the empire started to fall that British interests held sway over teh Empire.

Fair enough, but the point made was in regard to who "owned" the land previously.

Ahh but you're quoting the UN that provided the land that Israel had prior to the occupation of Palestine.

Providing political borders for a country and kicking people off their land are two COMPLETELY different prospects altogether. That wasn't what the UN recognition of Israel provides for.
And no I don't agree with the creation of Israel in the first place. It was a bad idea and that's why Britian resisted it. 50 years later they haven't been proven wrong. That being said I do not beleive that Israel should be disolved. That would be an even bigger headache that what's going on now.
At the same time Palestinians that lost their land during the process should at least be compensated for it.

So Generals in Nazi germany should have been allowed to keep tracts of land in the territories occupied during WW2? (Its not a comparison between Palestine/Israel with Nazi Germany btw) So when Nazi germany fell, the deeds authorised by the German courts should have held sway? Hardly. Generally when a government or a nation falls, deeds are worthless, while they're occupied.

K so your giving me an instance to compare to Israel/Palestine which just happens to be Nazi Germany and then telling me that you aren't comparing the two situations?
A country invading another and then allocating land to people (in a 6 year time span) is not what we are discussing here.
Israel was given it's political borders. Then the Israeli government removed people from their land that inhabited it for centuries.

Ok, so the land contained with Israel's original borders isn't stolen then. Then at least we agree. The land being taken during the occupation of Palestine is stolen. I agree. But they're occupied. they started a war, that they failed to win. To the Victor goes the spoils. But if Israel wants peace they will have to give that land back.

Who started a war? Israel was the invader in every case.
In the Six Day War they invaded Egypt and took land. In the Yom Kippur War Egypt told them to give it back or they would attack. While it's debatable if that goes against the UN Charter they had UN resolutions already in place telling Israel to give it back.
Even in '67 and Egypt's military build up, the Isaeli Parliement even admitted that they didn't think that Egypt would attack. At the same time you had calls for Israeli expansion. Guess what happened next?
In Lebanon's case, same calls for expansion and incursion by Israeli troops into their territory.
Either way "to the victor goes the spoils " IS not condoned by the UN Charter NOR the Geneva Convention.

You keep talking about the UN, and how they've made resolutions against Israel. Its very convenient to forget that the UN recognises the State of Israel, and helped allocate the land where Israel currently exists. You can't point out the one and ignore the other. yes, Israel has been told to stop invading other nations, and they've ignored them. In my eyes thats wrong.

Please tell me where I said that Israel doesn't have the right to exist?

In regards to the Genocide comment, you might want to look at a dictionary. What Israel is doing is not Genocide.

The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.
Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:
1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and
2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."

Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services. Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, detention in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion into deserts.

Key Terms

The crime of genocide has two elements: intent and action. “Intentional” means purposeful. Intent can be proven directly from statements or orders. But more often, it must be inferred from a systematic pattern of coordinated acts.

Intent is different from motive. Whatever may be the motive for the crime (land expropriation, national security, territorrial integrity, etc.), if the perpetrators commit acts intended to destroy a group, even part of a group, it is genocide.

The phrase "in whole or in part" is important. Perpetrators need not intend to destroy the entire group. Destruction of only part of a group (such as its educated members, or members living in one region) is also genocide. Most authorities require intent to destroy a substantial number of group members – mass murder. But an individual criminal may be guilty of genocide even if he kills only one person, so long as he knew he was participating in a larger plan to destroy the group.

I'm not going to make references to WW2, or the usual comments, since i think they're over used,

Which is why you previously made reference to WWII in this very post.?

however, it sounds like the usual Anti-Israel comments. They're relocating a people. That is not genocide. I don't agree with it, but don't make it out for more than it is.

There is no national or international norm that says that forced relocation of people is legal, moral or defensable.

And blaming Isreal for everything, isn't? Everyone sees different ways for the M.East to resolve. Your opinion isn't any more justified than mine ot his.

Your welcome to your opinion. I don't disagree with everything you say either...but IMO just that is justified as well.
I don't blame Israel for everything. My point is that they are the agressor and should be the ones to capitulate. Once that happens peace can start to be worked out. It's not going to be pretty...but I beleive it's the only way it's going to happen unless members of the Israeli govenment succeed in their determination to completely destroy the people in the occupied territories or another group gets voted in that reverses said process. Seeing 50 years of Israel's history doesn't make me hopeful. Otherwise it's going to take a massive change in international politics.

Aye, but people always forget the steps leading up to it. I'm not going to list it here. Look up a link and you might find some disturbing references to Arab build-ups and plans for the invasion of Israel. As the US love to call it, its generally called a pre-emptive strike. Shame, that the Arab nations aren't innocent of trying to do the same thing, the Israeli's are just more effective.

Preemptive strikes are against the UN Charter anyway. So is holding land gotten by military means.
Aye people that say that seem to forget alot themselves.
I can point you to quotes by various MP's and PM's about how they knew various countries wouldn't actually invade as well as how they wanted to expand Israel.

Fair enough, but the point made was in regard to who "owned" the land previously.

previous to the Ottaman Empire? I doubt theres any conclusive evidence. That area consisted of tribes from many different ethnic backgrounds. They didn't own the land since they never stayed anywhere. they moved across the whole of the middle east. Before someone refers to the Bible, i'm not a catholic, and i don't hold with religious texts. References in the bible don't hold much sway with me.

Providing political borders for a country and kicking people off their land are two COMPLETELY different prospects altogether. That wasn't what the UN recognition of Israel provides for

Yes i agree. Israel's resettlement program is wrong. Very wrong. But where israel was created isn't. That land itself isn't stolen. Just as the land where Palestine was originally created by the UN wasn't stolen by anyone. The creation of the two states happened at the same time.

At the same time Palestinians that lost their land during the process should at least be compensated for it

See above. It wasn't their land. It was British land, and before that the Ottomans empire. And even if you're talking about the individuals they weren't Palestinians (since Palestine didn't exist as a nation) but British Citizens.

K so your giving me an instance to compare to Israel/Palestine which just happens to be Nazi Germany and then telling me that you aren't comparing the two situations?

What i meant abt not comparing, is that whenever a comparison is made with Nazi germany, its the genocide thats compared. Alot more went on than just that.

A country invading another and then allocating land to people (in a 6 year time span) is not what we are discussing here.

Actually in a way it is. germany invaded and won. They allocated the land. The only difference is that Israel was not defeated later. During the period that Germany had control, the locals had no rights to the land.

I can point you to quotes by various MP's and PM's about how they knew various countries wouldn't actually invade as well as how they wanted to expand Israel.

Just as i can find quotes from Russians and Polish Officers who believed that Germany wouldn't invade them. This is based on perception of the threat... For the Israeli's perhaps they saw the Arabs as a bigger threat than we do in hindsight.

I don't agree with alot of what you're saying but i can understand where you're coming from.

sovtek

Originally posted by klaz
previous to the Ottaman Empire? I doubt theres any conclusive evidence. That area consisted of tribes from many different ethnic backgrounds. They didn't own the land since they never stayed anywhere. they moved across the whole of the middle east.

Some tribes are nomadic. I've seen that argument used to take their land before as well. Funny enough one such South African that was justifying apartheid (and ironically of the Jewish persuasion) , that I had witness to, used just such an argument...as in "there wasn't anybody there so it was ok to take the land".
Furthermore that doesn't cover people that actually inhabited a land and had deeds to it.
Whether those deeds were of the government from the Ottaman Empire, British Empire or some other colonial power, forced exile of a people is illegal by international law.
So I guess since they were British citizens then it would have been ok to just round em all up and take em to the UK? Equally the European Jews that came into Isreal were citizens of Germany, Poland, Czechloslavakia (spelling?)and citizens of other European countries.

Before someone refers to the Bible, i'm not a catholic, and i don't hold with religious texts. References in the bible don't hold much sway with me.

Neither with me. If we used that as justification then any number of tribes and groups of people could make claims to land in various parts of the world. I'm not talking about ancient history...but an event roughly 50 years ago that directly affects the situation today.

Yes i agree. Israel's resettlement program is wrong. Very wrong. But where israel was created isn't.

Again I say that the creation of Israel was a bad idea but that isn't rectifiable now.What I'm saying is that the people that had their land taken as a result of the Israeli government immediate actions should be rectified. As well as subsequent invasion and occupation of land.

That land itself isn't stolen.

I have yet to see you make a valid argument as to how people being thrown off their land that they inhabited for centuries isn't stealing it.

Just as the land where Palestine was originally created by the UN wasn't stolen by anyone.

Actually that was rejected by the Arab inhabitants as well Jewish militants took that land as well.

http://www.mideastupdate.com/palestine-israel.php

"
The State of Israel, the first Jewish state for nearly 2,000 years, was proclaimed at 1600 on 14 May 1948 in Tel Aviv. The declaration came into effect the following day as the last British troops withdrew. Palestinians remember 15 May as "al-Nakba", or the Catastrophe.

"The year had begun with Jewish and Arab armies each staging attacks on territory held by the other side. Jewish forces, backed by the Irgun and Lehi militant groups made more progress, seizing areas alloted to the Jewish state but also conquering substantial territories allocated for the Palestinian one. Irgun and Lehi massacred scores of inhabitants of the village of Deir Yassin near Jerusalem on 9 April. Word of the massacre spread terror among Palestinians and hundreds of thousands fled to Lebanon, Egypt and the area now known as the West Bank. The Jewish armies were victorious in the Negev, Galilee, West Jerusalem and much of the coastal plain.
"

The creation of the two states happened at the same time.

But as you can see the original inhabitants had little say in that as well as that was also taken from them.

See above. It wasn't their land. It was British land, and before that the Ottomans empire.

That still doesn't make any difference. The British controlled the land but the people living there were largely Arab and had been there for centuries.
It doesn't matter about their citizenship

And even if you're talking about the individuals they weren't Palestinians (since Palestine didn't exist as a nation) but British Citizens.

By that rationale then it was ok for the Germans to take the land (to use your previous example) because once they took over it became German land and therefore any German could take their pick of Polish real estate.

What i meant abt not comparing, is that whenever a comparison is made with Nazi germany, its the genocide thats compared. Alot more went on than just that.

I haven't used that comparison but, by legal definition, genocide did happen.
Furthermore genocide has taken place in many places and enough so in recent years.

Actually in a way it is. germany invaded and won. They allocated the land. The only difference is that Israel was not defeated later. During the period that Germany had control, the locals had no rights to the land.

By German law but not by international law that they were signatories to. Thats part of the reason the Nazis were tried for war crimes.

Just as i can find quotes from Russians and Polish Officers who believed that Germany wouldn't invade them. This is based on perception of the threat... For the Israeli's perhaps they saw the Arabs as a bigger threat than we do in hindsight.

Difference is that Poland and Russia didn't invade Germany.

I don't agree with alot of what you're saying but i can understand where you're coming from.

Fair enough.