Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Jimmy Carter refused entry into Gaza
Options
Comments
-
this thread encapsulates the hopelessness of what is going on over there
lots of finger pointing, absolutist positions and unwillingness to compromise
honest broker required0 -
Well said. Peace will require compromise on both sides.0
-
Why are there then checkpoints within the West Bank? Checkpoints that separate Palestinian villages? We aren't talking about checkpoints into Israel, but deep in the West Bank.
They exist to make life miserable for Palestinians plain and simple. The World Bank comment shows us the effect it has on there economy.
Why does it separate Palestinians villages then? Why does it annex more Palestinian land? Its a land grab pure and simple.
There are several tiers of defence against would be terrorists. The more checkpoints you have, the further they are from Israeli centres of population, the more secure the Israelis are. It makes perfect sense actually – security wise. Don’t forget – there is no defined border in the west bank. The area can’t be sealed completely (because of its natural topography) by a line of checkpoints on a non-existing border.
I do believe that the logic behind Israel’s actions is – better my enemy suffers economically, than our children exploding in buses. Sorry, but I can understand it.Also, Israel has no issue with killing Palestinians. I provided links showing hwo the IDF treat them.
I actually read the article, and then did a little more research on the subject.
The first think I’d like to say, is that I am totally against the actions taken by the Israeli soldiers described in the article, and in my opinion all those who committed these acts should go to jail for what they did, preferably for a very long period of time.
That said, just a few points:
1. The article mentions 500 testimonies. I wish I could see 500 Hamas people stand up and repent the violence they have supported. I have yet to see one. These testimonies, and the feelings the Israeli soldiers describe show me the moral difference between Hamas and Israel.
2. The Israeli government never supported such crimes against the Palestinian people. There are documented cases of Israeli soldiers tried, convicted and jailed for abusing Palestinians. So this is not an Israeli policy but random acts of violence that should be punished severely when encountered.
3. The average Israeli soldier is 18-21 years old. In most cases, the soldiers have gone straight from high school to fighting terrorists. The mental & physical pressure is unbelievable. 18 year olds see their best friends die in front of them, see their friends explode into pieces; see hundreds and thousand of Palestinians out for their blood on a daily basis. These experiences can change anyone, let alone an 18 year old. This is not an excuse for these crimes – anyone who commits such crimes should be punished. Thing is – in such wars these kind of things happen. Nothing anyone can do about it – war brings out the worst in human beings. And compared to what the US or Britain and the rest of the western countries are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, 500 reported cases over a period of 20 years is awful, but it could be a lot worse – just check how many cases were reported in Iraq & Afghanistan.The roads run right through the West Bank on stolen Palestinian land. They are there to serve illegal Jewish colonies and to make life impossible for Palestinians.
Let’s say for a minute that the Israelis are “stealing land”, as you describe it. So, stealing land justifies bombing buses with women and children in them?Make peace. Offer them a actual 2 state solution. Not one where all that is on offer are Bathusans.
Or they could give them equal rights, but Zionist will never consider a Palestinian as equal.
The Israeli's are terrorist themselves as can be seen by there collective punishment of Palestinians in Gaza.
The 2 state solution was given in 1948. The Arabs got a state, and the Jews got a state. We saw how the Arabs were happy with this solution then, what makes you think they have changed? In any case, the Israelis have agreed to it, what is left is to reach an understanding regarding the “small” (but extremely important) details. Things is – to have peace talks, you need to stop the violence first. Israel tried; Hamas doesn’t want to do it.
I have read about speeches given in Arabic by Palestinian leaders (including Yasser Arafat at the time), where they promised the entire audience that they will never stop working to rid the country of all Israelis. Funny how the speeches designed to reach western ears do not have all the promises of violence and holy war against the Israelis, while speeches given to Palestinian audiences promise death & destruction to the evil Zionist entity.
As for equal rights – I am a strong believer that these have to be earned. If someone wants equal rights, the first thing he has to do is accept the rule of the elected government. That has to be done before equal rights are given. In any case – I have never heard the Palestinians talking about equal rights, so why is this even a question?Oh so the world bank hate Israel :rolleyes:. Anyone who says something bad about Israel are being controlled by the big bad Muslims or Arabs. Care to provide proof that Muslims/Arab countries influenced the World Bank comments?
In fact Israel best buddy the USA, has a lot of control over the world bank.
I never said that the world bank hates Israel. I just said that the world bank is motivated by financial issues. If the western world pours money into Gaza through the world bank, the world bank and its directors will make a lot of money from brokering deals, etc.
Besides, since when does a bank get involved in politics? Think about that one…What you said here is complete and utter nonsense of the highest order. As can be seen from the article the US is firmly in control of the World Bank.
Do you really believe everything you read? Do you also believe in the protocols of the elders of Zion?
I can supply you with links to articles proving that Kennedy was killed by aliens, the earth is flat, the free masons control the world, the Bilderbergs control the world, the illuminate control the world, the Jews control the world, the US government was behind 9/11, NASA faked the moon landing, the earth is ruled by Martians, my old grandmother controls the world, etc..Ah, so its ok to give half there country away to Europeans then. Not like that would bother the people living there or anything.
My friend, anywhere in the world, well, at least the democratic parts of it, if you buy land it is yours.
By 1948, the Jews owned a lot of the land in Israel since they bought it from its Arab owners – not the Turks, not the British – the Arab owners. This is documented.Both from Israeli historians.
All, the Zionist nonsense you spouted is refuted in those books. The Zionists engaged in a deliberate ethnic cleansing, pure and simple.
I already told you what I think of Ilan Pappe. He enjoys the spotlight too much, and is too one sided for me to trust what he says.
And again- apparently those murderous Zionists aren’t so good with their weapons, because the number of Palestinians and Arabs is only increasing. Some “Ethnic cleansing”. I am sure however, that if the Palestinians were the stronger side in this conflict, we would have had another Darfur on our hands. Or another holocaust, to be exact.The lie Zionist present is down right disgusting denialism. Especially to blame the victims of Zionist racism is doubly disturbing.
The victims of Zionist racism? More like victims of their own murderous folly.The Palestinians were the majority evne then. Large scale Jewish immigration
began before 1948.
True. And I’ll repeat – there was always a Jewish presence in Israel. Their numbers started growing during the 19th century – well before 1948. The Jews and Arabs in Israel lived side by side until 1948 when the UN divided the country into two, giving the larger part to the Arabs. That wasn’t enough for them.
By the way – the UN/superpowers of the time also created Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Jordan – all these countries were never real states until they got the UN/superpower mandate. Do you also have a problem with these countries – maybe we should disband their governments, and plunge them into chaos and war? Saudi Arabia is ruled by a minority class, the same is true for Syria – both countries simply kill anyone who opposes the regime, and none of them are democratic.
I would like to know, why doesn’t anyone demonstrate against these countries? I guess it’s just not the current fashion.So? Palestinians were the majority and if you read the book I mentioned above you will see it was the Ottomans who sold the land.
Some land was sold by the Ottomans. Like it or not – at the time they owned the country (and a few others). Most of the land was that was bought from the Ottomans was not populated – swamp land and desert land.
The Arabs in the country sold much more to the Jews – again, this is well documented, and one more example, to how people like Ilan Pappe conveniently bend the truth to serve their needs.Complete and utter nonsense. The Zionists wanted rid of the Arabs and thats what they always intended to do. Again refer to the links I posted earlier.
And the Arabs want to get rid of all the Zionists, and that is what they always intended to do. I don’t need links because the entire world knows the 1948 war story.
It is usually the case you know – one side in a conflict wants to get rid of the other and vice versa.I have provided proof of Israel intentionally attack civilians. You need look no farther than Gaza to see there collective punishment of entire population there.
You have provided proof, that as in any army, the Israeli army has its share of heartless psychopaths. There is a big difference between that and proving that Israel (the state) as a policy, attacks civilians on purpose.
Unfortunately for your argument, at least for now, such proof only exists in regards to the Palestinians. They are the ones who keep targeting Israeli civilians.One would expect the Israeli's to stop stealing land. Which causes a lot of anger towards them in the first place, but as I showed earlier in the thread, they never do so.
I will say it again: Stealing land doesn’t justify blowing buses. Land is not more important than human life.
Besides that, I am totally against the Israeli settlers, and I think Israel should kick them all out of the Palestinian areas. I think they are the worst thing for Israel to support.Also, its odd you don't mention that Israel should stop there violence, which tends to lead to Palestinian violence. Same old Zionist apologist double standard, only 1 side is ever expected to stop the violence.
I believe that Israel is purely in reaction mode here. They do hit known terrorists if they have info that these are about to commit terrorist acts, but if you look at the news, the only times you see Israel attacking in force is after the Palestinians attack. When the Palestinians do not attack – there is relative quiet in the region.
This is also proven by the fact that when there were cease fire agreements – no Palestinian was killed by Israeli forces, and as far as I remember these cease fires were always broken by the Palestinians, which renewed the circle of violence.I do expect them to remove checkpoints deep in the West Bank. Why are they there at all? How can people possibly suicide bomb Israel from within the West Bank? You love to ignore so many inconvenient details?
I already answered this, but I’ll do it again: If a terrorist needs to get from his location to an Israeli city with an explosive device, and he needs to go through 50 km of roads, there is a better chance for the Israeli security forces to catch him if there are several checkpoints along the way, instead of one.As I showed earlier, they stole more land in the West Bank right after they left Gaza. Odd you always leave that detail out. What the Palestinians saw was Israel steal more land and show they had no intentions for peace.
I already posted the links of Israel stealing more land in the West Bank in this thread. You can pretend they never happened but there for everyone to see.
The Israelis usually take hold of land for security reasons. For example – they will flatten an area if their patrols are fired upon from that area, they will take control of areas which are strategically important, etc. It is war, and they do what they have to do.
Besides these reasons, if land is taken for any reason which is not security related – I am against them stealing land. I think it is wrong and unjust. I also think that the wrongfulness and injustice of it doesn’t justify sending suicide bombers to kill and maim people in urban centres.Terrible. Those men were criminals. Why should all Palestinians be judged by them?
They shouldn’t, but then again why should all Israelis be judged by the criminal actions of a few soldiers as you described earlier with the link you supplied? It works both ways, this demonizing of entire groups of people based by actions of a few.We know the Israeli government (as opposed to the people) are liars and the IDF treat the Palestinians as sub-human.
The same is true for the Palestinian government, and even more so for the Hamas & Islamic Jihad leaderships.
I guess until both people realise who their leaders are, they are deep trouble.
As for the IDF treating the Palestinians as sub-humans – I think they usually just treat them as a potential threat, nothing more, nothing less.Pure speculation. Israel has broken plenty of cease fires and have launched attacks on the West Bank, even though no rockets are coming from there. So nonsense again.
Not true. The only cases Israel broke cease fires, was to launch specific attacks in response to very specific information they had in regards to pending terrorist activity. These were based on accurate intelligence which determined the Palestinians were going to break the cease fire anyway by committing an attack on Israelis, so the Israelis struck first.
The problem with the Palestinians – there are so many groups and local militia and leaders, that even if the leaders say one thing, it usually means that someone will break it on his own accord, and these are the people Israel targets.The Palestinian have never been offered anything other than Bathusans. Hence no peace.
Not sure what “Bathusans” is. But the Palestinians have been given many chances to improve their condition and start moving on to a better future. They always choose fighting instead. Peace begins with small steps. You don’t get peace after 20 years of fighting and hatred in one day.
The fact remains – Israel, amidst all the violence and hate on both sides, at least tried.
The Palestinians? They never even try.Why then did Israel (I posted a link earlier to this btw) fund Hamas then? Strange how you forget that so very quickly.
Israel funded Hamas because they had the stupid notion that this will help them to fight their greatest enemy until then – the PLO, led by Yasser Arafat.
The US did the same thing basically, when they funded Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban because they wanted them to fight the Russians.
Some things do come back to bite you in the ass, don’t they?0 -
munchester29 wrote: »There are several tiers of defence against would be terrorists. The more checkpoints you have, the further they are from Israeli centres of population, the more secure the Israelis are. It makes perfect sense actually – security wise. Don’t forget – there is no defined border in the west bank. The area can’t be sealed completely (because of its natural topography) by a line of checkpoints on a non-existing border.
I do believe that the logic behind Israel’s actions is – better my enemy suffers economically, than our children exploding in buses. Sorry, but I can understand it.
More excuses for Israel apartheid and racism. Again, the checkpoints give Israel no safety. A determined attacker can get through.
Also, you say Israel wants security. Why would they put there own citizens in colonies among a hostile populace?munchester29 wrote: »I actually read the article, and then did a little more research on the subject.
The first think I’d like to say, is that I am totally against the actions taken by the Israeli soldiers described in the article, and in my opinion all those who committed these acts should go to jail for what they did, preferably for a very long period of time.
That said, just a few points:
1. The article mentions 500 testimonies. I wish I could see 500 Hamas people stand up and repent the violence they have supported. I have yet to see one. These testimonies, and the feelings the Israeli soldiers describe show me the moral difference between Hamas and Israel.
Combatants for PeaceFrom Combatants for Peace Home page:
We are a group of Israeli and Palestinian individuals who were actively involved in the cycle of violence in our area. The Israelis served as combat soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces and the Palestinians were involved in acts of violence in the name of Palestinian liberation.
We all used weapons against one another, and looked at each other only through weapon sights; however today we cooperate and commit ourselves to the following:
* We no longer believe that the conflict can be resolved through violence
* We believe that the blood bath will not end unless we act together to terminate the occupation and stop all forms of violence.
* We call for the establishment of a Palestinian State, alongside the State of Israel. The two states can exist in peace and security one by the other.
* We will use only non violent means to achieve our goals and call for both societies to end violence.
Lets stop pretending the Palestinians are uniquely evil. Neither side people are evil. Both have as much capacity for good.
So the moral difference you describe, once again nonsense.munchester29 wrote: »2. The Israeli government never supported such crimes against the Palestinian people. There are documented cases of Israeli soldiers tried, convicted and jailed for abusing Palestinians. So this is not an Israeli policy but random acts of violence that should be punished severely when encountered.
Rubbish once more.
The Israeli Military's Failure to Investigate Wrongdoing
Once again you have been proven wrong.
Here is another example:
Israel/Lebanon: War crimes without accountability
Israel is very selective in what the prosecute, they let a lot slide as can be seen from the links I provide.munchester29 wrote: »3. The average Israeli soldier is 18-21 years old. In most cases, the soldiers have gone straight from high school to fighting terrorists. The mental & physical pressure is unbelievable. 18 year olds see their best friends die in front of them, see their friends explode into pieces; see hundreds and thousand of Palestinians out for their blood on a daily basis. These experiences can change anyone, let alone an 18 year old. This is not an excuse for these crimes – anyone who commits such crimes should be punished. Thing is – in such wars these kind of things happen. Nothing anyone can do about it – war brings out the worst in human beings. And compared to what the US or Britain and the rest of the western countries are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, 500 reported cases over a period of 20 years is awful, but it could be a lot worse – just check how many cases were reported in Iraq & Afghanistan.
500 is the tip of the ice berg. Thats one of the points of the article I mentioned. Also, the incidents described by the soldiers are not the sum total of such crimes.munchester29 wrote: »Let’s say for a minute that the Israelis are “stealing land”, as you describe it. So, stealing land justifies bombing buses with women and children in them?
Laughable. I suggested no such thing.
What Israel is doing is colonialism. Its not a peaceful activity. So let not pretend it is.munchester29 wrote: »The 2 state solution was given in 1948. The Arabs got a state, and the Jews got a state. We saw how the Arabs were happy with this solution then, what makes you think they have changed? In any case, the Israelis have agreed to it, what is left is to reach an understanding regarding the “small” (but extremely important) details. Things is – to have peace talks, you need to stop the violence first. Israel tried; Hamas doesn’t want to do it.
Israel has never been serious about peace. I posted there continued colony building. You can pretend it isn't happening, but its there for all to see.
Oh and the Camp David. Israel offered very little:The brilliant offer Israel never made
.............
With Israel, it will be necessary to challenge some deeply held illusions about the peace process and why it broke down. Chief among these is the assertion that the Palestinians rejected a "generous" Israeli offer at Camp David two years ago. It is a view that spans the Israeli political spectrum, uniting the hard right with born-again rejectionists like Ehud Barak, confirming all in their belief that political dialogue has been exhausted and that Arafat is an inveterate terrorist. It is time for some constructive revisionism.
Barak's proposal for a Palestinian state based on 91% of the West Bank sounded substantive, but even the most cursory glance at the map revealed the bad faith inherent in it. It showed the West Bank carved into three chunks, surrounded by Israeli troops and settlers, without direct access to its own international borders.
The land-swap that was supposed to compensate the Palestinians for the loss of prime agricultural land in the West Bank merely added insult to injury. The only territory offered to Palestinian negotiators consisted of stretches of desert adjacent to the Gaza Strip that Israel currently uses for toxic waste dumping. The proposals on East Jerusalem were no better, permitting the Palestinians control of a few scattered fragments of what had been theirs before 1967.
Barak offered the trappings of Palestinian sovereignty while perpetuating the subjugation of the Palestinians. It is not difficult to see why they felt unable to accept. The only surprise is how widely the myth of the "generous offer" is now accepted.
For this, Bill Clinton must accept responsibility. With the end of his presidency in sight, Clinton saw time running out along with the hope that he might be remembered in history for something more dignified than blow jobs in the Oval Office. He needed a quick deal rather than a just deal and chose to attempt to bounce Arafat into accepting Israel's terms. When this failed, Clinton vented his wrath at the Palestinian leader.
Maladroit diplomacy played its part, but the failure at Camp David was the product of a deeper problem for which the Palestinians must also accept their share of blame. With the benefit of hindsight, the 1993 Oslo agreement that embodied the land-for-peace compromise was a mirage. Although both sides signed up to a two-state solution, neither was completely sincere in accepting its implications. The Palestinians clung to maximalist demands on refugee returns in the hope that demographics would allow them to rewrite the past. The Israelis insisted on territorial demands that made a mockery of the idea of a viable Palestinian state.
.............
So again you are incorrect.munchester29 wrote: »I have read about speeches given in Arabic by Palestinian leaders (including Yasser Arafat at the time), where they promised the entire audience that they will never stop working to rid the country of all Israelis. Funny how the speeches designed to reach western ears do not have all the promises of violence and holy war against the Israelis, while speeches given to Palestinian audiences promise death & destruction to the evil Zionist entity.
As for equal rights – I am a strong believer that these have to be earned. If someone wants equal rights, the first thing he has to do is accept the rule of the elected government. That has to be done before equal rights are given. In any case – I have never heard the Palestinians talking about equal rights, so why is this even a question?
Nice of you to excuse Israel racism. Every man deserve equal rights. To deny them it, is racism pure and simple.
Its a questions as they are not equal. Racism is always wrong and needs to be challenged and excuses should not be mad for them.
What you said there is quite frankly disturbing that you would make such excuses for racism. However typical of Zionist apologists.munchester29 wrote: »I never said that the world bank hates Israel. I just said that the world bank is motivated by financial issues. If the western world pours money into Gaza through the world bank, the world bank and its directors will make a lot of money from brokering deals, etc.
Besides, since when does a bank get involved in politics? Think about that one…
Nonsense. Israel best pal the USA controls it. So stop pretending there is some bias against Israel. All they care about is economics.
Oh and from your earlier post:munchester29 wrote:The world bank is an organization much like the UN, comprised of many countries, including Arab & Muslim countries, some with more influence and some with less (guess who some of the richest countries in the world are…)
These organizations, by their nature are influenced by many factors, and the world bank is influenced mostly by money.
You were suggesting that there was a bias in the World Bank due to Muslims and Arabs. You provide no proof of this. As I showed, the US is very much in control of the World Bank.
Quite frankly what your suggesting has no proof whatsoever and I have shown that Israel best buddy the USA basically control the World Bank.
So wrong once again.munchester29 wrote: »Do you really believe everything you read? Do you also believe in the protocols of the elders of Zion?
Nonsense. You have not provided anything to back up your rubbish and then come out with this.munchester29 wrote: »I can supply you with links to articles proving that Kennedy was killed by aliens, the earth is flat, the free masons control the world, the Bilderbergs control the world, the illuminate control the world, the Jews control the world, the US government was behind 9/11, NASA faked the moon landing, the earth is ruled by Martians, my old grandmother controls the world, etc..
More nonsense. I have proven you wrong severals time in this post alone. Nor do I suggest half the crap you mention here.
Instead of engaging in debate you come up with this rubbish.munchester29 wrote: »My friend, anywhere in the world, well, at least the democratic parts of it, if you buy land it is yours.
By 1948, the Jews owned a lot of the land in Israel since they bought it from its Arab owners – not the Turks, not the British – the Arab owners. This is documented.
You have provide no documentation. You provide no links to back up your arguement. Yes, some Arabs sold there land, but the Ottomans did the same.
I have on the other hand, provided proof. The ethnic cleansing of Palestine is a fact. It happened. I have backed this up already. You have come up with complete nonsense, that has nothing to do with what we are discussing instead.
Here are some great quote from Ben Gurion to hammer the point home:David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff.
From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978:
"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population."David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson,
1978, p. 99:
"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."
Says it all doesn't it? Pretty clear what there saying.munchester29 wrote: »I already told you what I think of Ilan Pappe. He enjoys the spotlight too much, and is too one sided for me to trust what he says.
What you think of Pappe doesn't matter. What matters is his work. Which is true, but still calling Pappe an extremist is absurd. He has had to flee Israel, due to death threats. Those people are extremists not Pappe.Ilan Pappe: I'm not a traitor
Controversial historian Ilan Pappe left Israel last year after his endorsement of an academic boycott of Israel exposed him and his family to death threats. Now a professor in England, Pappe maintains that a cultural boycott on his homeland is the only way to end the occupation
Ayelet Negev Published: 03.15.08, 23:49 / Israel News
Last summer, the Pappe family packed its belongings, rented out its spacious house in Israel and moved to Britain. Ever since his support of an academic boycott on Israel's universities became public, historian Ilan Pappe, 54, has felt like public enemy number one. Pappe says he had received death threats by phone almost on a daily basis.munchester29 wrote: »And again- apparently those murderous Zionists aren’t so good with their weapons, because the number of Palestinians and Arabs is only increasing. Some “Ethnic cleansing”. I am sure however, that if the Palestinians were the stronger side in this conflict, we would have had another Darfur on our hands. Or another holocaust, to be exact.
The increase is due to birth rates.
There are plenty of Palestinians in refugee camps. So stop pretending it never happened.munchester29 wrote: »The victims of Zionist racism? More like victims of their own murderous folly.
Again disgusting to blame the victims of Zionist racism. Let pretend Deir Yassin never happened.munchester29 wrote: »True. And I’ll repeat – there was always a Jewish presence in Israel. Their numbers started growing during the 19th century – well before 1948. The Jews and Arabs in Israel lived side by side until 1948 when the UN divided the country into two, giving the larger part to the Arabs. That wasn’t enough for them.
Again you ignore the ethnic cleansing. It happened. I have provided plenty of information on it. Including quote from Zionists, earlier in this post.munchester29 wrote: »By the way – the UN/superpowers of the time also created Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Jordan – all these countries were never real states until they got the UN/superpower mandate. Do you also have a problem with these countries – maybe we should disband their governments, and plunge them into chaos and war? Saudi Arabia is ruled by a minority class, the same is true for Syria – both countries simply kill anyone who opposes the regime, and none of them are democratic.
I would like to know, why doesn’t anyone demonstrate against these countries? I guess it’s just not the current fashion.
Pure nonsense as per usual. How does the action of other excuse Israels? They don't quite frankly, but then again typical Zionist apologist tactic. Try and change the subject to someone else.
Oh and from todays Independent.co.uk:
Saudi women appeal for legal freedoms
I also posted a thread on this earlier.
Once again proven wrong.munchester29 wrote: »Some land was sold by the Ottomans. Like it or not – at the time they owned the country (and a few others). Most of the land was that was bought from the Ottomans was not populated – swamp land and desert land.
The Arabs in the country sold much more to the Jews – again, this is well documented, and one more example, to how people like Ilan Pappe conveniently bend the truth to serve their needs.
Look at the quotes I provided earlier, as well as links to the books. Zionist had a deliberate policy of ethnically cleansing Palestinians. This is a fact.munchester29 wrote: »And the Arabs want to get rid of all the Zionists, and that is what they always intended to do. I don’t need links because the entire world knows the 1948 war story.
It is usually the case you know – one side in a conflict wants to get rid of the other and vice versa.
Zionist actually ethnically cleansed the Palestinians. That happened. I have provided links as well as quote. It is a fact.munchester29 wrote: »You have provided proof, that as in any army, the Israeli army has its share of heartless psychopaths. There is a big difference between that and proving that Israel (the state) as a policy, attacks civilians on purpose.
Unfortunately for your argument, at least for now, such proof only exists in regards to the Palestinians. They are the ones who keep targeting Israeli civilians.
I have provided plenty of proof to back up my arguement and have proven your wrong several times.munchester29 wrote: »I will say it again: Stealing land doesn’t justify blowing buses. Land is not more important than human life.
Stop pretending colonialism is a peaceful non-violent activity. Its ridiculous.munchester29 wrote: »Besides that, I am totally against the Israeli settlers, and I think Israel should kick them all out of the Palestinian areas. I think they are the worst thing for Israel to support.
Yet, you do your best to make out there colonialism to be not so bad.munchester29 wrote: »I believe that Israel is purely in reaction mode here. They do hit known terrorists if they have info that these are about to commit terrorist acts, but if you look at the news, the only times you see Israel attacking in force is after the Palestinians attack. When the Palestinians do not attack – there is relative quiet in the region.
You do realize, things could easily been seen the other way.munchester29 wrote: »This is also proven by the fact that when there were cease fire agreements – no Palestinian was killed by Israeli forces, and as far as I remember these cease fires were always broken by the Palestinians, which renewed the circle of violence.
Hamas threatens to break ceasefire after Israeli air strikes
Wrong again.munchester29 wrote: »I already answered this, but I’ll do it again: If a terrorist needs to get from his location to an Israeli city with an explosive device, and he needs to go through 50 km of roads, there is a better chance for the Israeli security forces to catch him if there are several checkpoints along the way, instead of one.
The world bank and I disagree with your nonsense. There for purely punitive measures, basically collective punishment.munchester29 wrote: »The Israelis usually take hold of land for security reasons. For example – they will flatten an area if their patrols are fired upon from that area, they will take control of areas which are strategically important, etc. It is war, and they do what they have to do.
Besides these reasons, if land is taken for any reason which is not security related – I am against them stealing land. I think it is wrong and unjust. I also think that the wrongfulness and injustice of it doesn’t justify sending suicide bombers to kill and maim people in urban centres.
More excuse for Israel and pretending colonialism is a lovely non-violent activity.munchester29 wrote: »They shouldn’t, but then again why should all Israelis be judged by the criminal actions of a few soldiers as you described earlier with the link you supplied? It works both ways, this demonizing of entire groups of people based by actions of a few.
Isreal is an apartheid state. There own actions make them look bad.munchester29 wrote: »The same is true for the Palestinian government, and even more so for the Hamas & Islamic Jihad leaderships.
I guess until both people realise who their leaders are, they are deep trouble.
As for the IDF treating the Palestinians as sub-humans – I think they usually just treat them as a potential threat, nothing more, nothing less.
Look at Amnesty or Human Rights Watch and you will see how they treat them.munchester29 wrote: »Not true. The only cases Israel broke cease fires, was to launch specific attacks in response to very specific information they had in regards to pending terrorist activity. These were based on accurate intelligence which determined the Palestinians were going to break the cease fire anyway by committing an attack on Israelis, so the Israelis struck first.
Still breaking a cease fire. So it is true. Also, once again you provide no link to back up what your saying.munchester29 wrote: »The problem with the Palestinians – there are so many groups and local militia and leaders, that even if the leaders say one thing, it usually means that someone will break it on his own accord, and these are the people Israel targets.
Not sure what “Bathusans” is. But the Palestinians have been given many chances to improve their condition and start moving on to a better future. They always choose fighting instead. Peace begins with small steps. You don’t get peace after 20 years of fighting and hatred in one day.
I have already proven you wrong earlier in this post.munchester29 wrote: »The fact remains – Israel, amidst all the violence and hate on both sides, at least tried.
The Palestinians? They never even try.
They haven't tried at all. Again I refer to all the links I have provided through out the thread and this post.munchester29 wrote: »Israel funded Hamas because they had the stupid notion that this will help them to fight their greatest enemy until then – the PLO, led by Yasser Arafat.
The US did the same thing basically, when they funded Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban because they wanted them to fight the Russians.
Some things do come back to bite you in the ass, don’t they?
It was a deliberate policy to create the current situation. Its very clear what they were trying to do. To split the Palestinians to weaken them and they now have the current situation.
Your nonsense knows no bounds. You can keep on insisting your correct after being proven wrong. Its isn't going to make you right all of a sudden.0 -
Since this is a pointless argument - neither you or me will change our minds, I'll just sum my last thoughts:
I don't supply links to prove most of the things I've said, because:
1. I believe people should do their own research, and make up their own minds.
2. As I've said before - I can find documents and links that support any nonsense belief you can think of. The fact that documents, books and research papers exist doesn't make what is written in them true. Eventually a person needs to exercise a bit of common sense.
Allow me to sum your view of Israel, based on the descriptive words in your comments:
Apartheid, Racism, Colonialism, Zionist, Ethnic cleansing, etc.
I think your actual point of view is clearly shown. The thing I am having the most problem with is your insistence on "Ethnic Cleansing". Seriously, what's next? Do the Jews drink baby's blood in their spare time when they rest from cleansing the Palestinians? What is the birth rate in the Palestinian community? I mean - the Jews keep cleansing them ethnically, yet their numbers continue to grow from year to year... Does each Palestinian family bring 30 children to the world each year?
I'm just fed up with that specific nonsense you so dearly believe in. When a community of people is ethnically cleansed, their numbers usually go down. Check the holocaust numbers - that was real ethnic cleansing. Check the Darfur numbers - that is another real ethnic cleansing process. Hell, check the number of Jews remaining in the Arab countries in the middle east - another good example of true ethnic cleansing.
When you use that term in the Israeli/Palestinian context you empty it of meaning.
Another thing that bothered me was that when you see claims that you can't really refute, you revert to sentences like "Your nonsense knows no bounds" and "You have come up with complete nonsense".
Well my friend, repeating the phrase "i have proved you wrong" a thousand times in your responses still doesn't make you right. All the links in the world will not prove you right.
Do you know why?
As much as you'd maybe like, there are other sources of information than Amnesty or left wing UK newspapers.
For every quote you give of Israeli leaders talking about the Arabs, you can find a hundred quotes by Palestinian and Arab leaders that say much worse things, and I do encourage anyone who is interested to do his own research.
I have no intention of spoon feeding anyone with links to documents or newspaper articles - anyone can find those.
For every article condemning Israel, I could show a link to an article describing Palestinian/Arab cruelty - from killing their own people, to using their own children as human shields, honor killings within the family, the derogatory treatment of women in Arab societies, the killings of homosexuals, the severing of limbs when people are caught stealing, suicide bombers, and the list goes on and on.
Because things are never black and white, no side is innocent in this conflict. No matter how you try to present the Palestinians as the only ones who suffer - the Israelis suffer also.
Both people are stuck in a cycle of violence. One injustice is answered by another injustice and it goes on and on with no end. You can't really determine who is right and who is wrong, because both the Israelis and Palestinians are right - they want their own country and to live in peace and quiet, and both people are wrong - they do horrible things to each other.
The one thing I do believe, is that the Palestinians are not doing enough to achieve peace.
When you are offered an olive branch, even though it is not the whole olive tree - you can start with that, and build your way onwards. The Palestinians do not even try that.
Can you give me any examples of anything the Palestinians did for peace?
I gave you quite a few examples of how the Israelis tried. But whatever they tried - it was never enough for the Palestinians. They always seem to find excuses to why the Israeli actions are not enough.
The Israelis left Gaza, but that isn't enough as a first step because they are still controlling the west bank. So the Palestinians are firing rockets on a daily basis from Gaza into Israeli cities.
The Israelis send food supplies, fuel, medicine, etc and supply electricity to Gaza through border passes, but that isn't enough - they are doing it because the world forces them. So the Palestinians attack this area instead, and stop all those necessary items from getting to the Palestinian people.
The Israelis let the Palestinians travel to Israel to find work there, but that isn't enough - they don't open the passes for everyone, and they insist on checking people to make sure that there are no suicide bombers among them. So the Palestinians try to blow up buses and poison innocent people eating in restaurants.
The Israelis allow red cross representatives and family members to visit many of the Palestinian terrorists held as prisoners - but that isn't enough, because they don't free all the prisoners. So the Palestinians are keeping one Israeli soldier prisoner for two years, during which they allow only one letter from him to be sent to his family, and no one - including the red cross can see him and verify if he is ok.
And this list goes on and on also.
I think that Israel offered the Palestinians many olive branches, but it is never enough for them, is it?
One might think that the only thing that will ever satisfy the Palestinians is the fulfillment of their old 1948 war slogan - All the Jews in the sea.
When will the Palestinians make one small step towards peace?0 -
Advertisement
-
Jimmy Carter is showing considerable moral courage today, endorsing in Jerusalem and bringing to an international audience, Hamas's offer of a bilateral ceasefire. Readers should remember, there is a major industry engaged in suppressing and rubbishing Palestinian feelers for peace.
The International Crisis Group (www.crisisgroup.org) , hardly a wild-eyed bunch of johnny-rebs, published a careful report on Gaza about a month ago concluding that the completely disproportionate isolate Gaza campaign (The EU, the USA, the UN and the Russian Federation against one and a half million people confined in a space half the size of a county) had failed in it's aims... but has considerably added to Hamas's status in the territories and throughout the middle-east.
Our own government is, through the EU playing an ignoble part in these policies, which have no constructive purpose and are a betrayal of our neutrality and our long-standing sympathy for indigenous people's political and economic rights.0 -
Yeah, I read what Jimmy Carter has done today in the news and he has managed to do more than Bush, in a relatively short time for one thing.0
-
@munchester29
In the Politics forum, your suppose to back up your claims with links from time to time. So how you feel about links doesn't matter, as its one of the things that we are suppose to do here. If you don't believe me, you can ask a mod.
I have rubbished several of your claims pure and simple and I provided links to back up my arguement. You made claims about Israel and I showed they were simply wrong. You pretending otherwise mean nothing. I didn't just simply stated you were wrong, I showed why you were wrong in the first place and then said that.
Your continued absurd insistence that there was no ethnic cleansing is ridiculous. There are millions of Palestinians in refugee camps. I have provide books and the words of the first Prime Minister of Israel to prove this. You have provided your own opinion and nothing else. You try and compare what I am saying to all sort of other rubbish. Instead of providing a shred of evidence to back up your claims. The reason is pretty clear, its kinda hard to refute the words of the first Prime Minister of Israel. Simply put I looked at the facts and came to a conclusion. I don't believe anything, I provided the facts that I based my conclusion on.
I never made any claims about the Palestinians and there making efforts towards peace.
Still the examples you give of Israel, them leaving Gaza for insistence. As I pointed out they gave nothing in the end, since they took more land in the West Bank. Why you continue to ignore this is puzzling. Why you keep making this claim in the face of the facts I provided is bizarre. What your saying is half the story, I provided the other half. This is basically how your posts go, no matter the evidence provided that what you said is wrong, you still insist that your right and offer nothing to refute what I have said.
Simply put you refuse to engage in debate and seem to believe that which was shown to be wrong will some how become more true, by stating it again and again. You offer nothing to counter any of the links and arguments I offer. Hence why I call what you post nonsense.0 -
Wes, got your point, I guess I should have added links, etc to supports my claims, but I still suggest that anyone can do the internet search on their own instead of blindly believing in what I have to say, or anyone else for that matter.
My vacation ends tonight
, so I doubt I will have much more time to invest in this discussion - maybe on my next vacation.
I still however maintain that documents and articles can be found on the net to support any crazy idea out there.
Like it or not - it will eventually always boil down to what you believe in, and sometimes on your personal experiences.
That said, I truly welcome The Jimmy Carter initiative.
It still remains to be seen though if anything will come out of it, since there were many similar initiatives in the past which came to nothing in the end.
If Hamas will actually agree to a cease fire on both sides and the resume of talks, it will be a significant development, and we should all pray that it happens.
If it happens - it will also mean that the metaphoric olive branch I was talking about earlier might actually have a chance to grow into something more substantial.
Time will tell.0 -
munchester29 wrote: »Wes, got your point, I guess I should have added links, etc to supports my claims, but I still suggest that anyone can do the internet search on their own instead of blindly believing in what I have to say, or anyone else for that matter.
My vacation ends tonight, so I doubt I will have much more time to invest in this discussion - maybe on my next vacation.
I still however maintain that documents and articles can be found on the net to support any crazy idea out there.
Like it or not - it will eventually always boil down to what you believe in, and sometimes on your personal experiences.
The stuff I provided were links to varied organizations. There were reputable newspapers and Human rights organizations.
I also provided links to information on books. I can't hardly post the entire book as it would copy right infringement. I didn't soley rely on Internet, as I referred to books.
I also, provided quotes from books again and provided references. I am not saying anything crazy at all. Just presenting the facts and coming to my own conclusions based on them.
**EDIT**
Forgot to mention this earlier.
Oh and you summary of my position was a straw man pure and simple. You purposefully mis-represent my position, for no other purpose than you seem unable to counter my arguments. Your try to make me out to be an Anti-Semite, for no other reason than I stated a historical fact, one that you found unpalatable to you position. Instead of trying to counter the fact I presented, you engage in rather pathetic straw man argument and childish accusations.0 -
Advertisement
-
When I first saw the headline about Hamas' offer, I was amazed. With the greatest holdout coming around, I didn't see how Israel could refuse.
However, reading the fine print, Mashaal also added that little caveat about Hamas never going to formally recognise Israel as a country, that's quite a catch, which I can't see Israel agreeing to. There is little incentive for the future: Ten years from now when the truce expires, where's the benefit to Israel?
NTM0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »When I first saw the headline about Hamas' offer, I was amazed. With the greatest holdout coming around, I didn't see how Israel could refuse.
However, reading the fine print, Mashaal also added that little caveat about Hamas never going to formally recognise Israel as a country, that's quite a catch, which I can't see Israel agreeing to. There is little incentive for the future: Ten years from now when the truce expires, where's the benefit to Israel?
NTM
Why is recognising Israel so important?
What does it mean?
The physical location of the borders, these keep moving and would mean the end of any right to return.
A Jewish state? What would that mean for non-Jews living in Israel?0 -
Why couldnt the jews live side-by-side with the Palestinians in Palestine? Why did they have to take over the land and kick the Palestinian people off their land and then take some moral high-ground that they belong there. I think the whole thing is disgusting.0
-
Why is recognising Israel so important?
It's a public commitment to abandoning the goal of removing Israel as a State. A refusal to make such a commitment is pretty much evidence that the goal still stands.
If I were to say to you "Give me a thousand Euro and I will not shoot at you for the next half hour, but I refuse to recognise your right to live, make no promises about what I'm going to do after the half-hour is over, and during that half-hour, I'm not saying I'm not going to use non-shooting methods at my disposal to get you to die", I don't think you'd take it as that positive a thing overall. You give away something, but you don't get anything back in return.
I believe such a proposal of a temporary hiatus on a violent act in return for a tangible is known as 'extortion' in the civilian world.
NTM0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »It's a public commitment to abandoning the goal of removing Israel as a State. A refusal to make such a commitment is pretty much evidence that the goal still stands.
If I were to say to you "Give me a thousand Euro and I will not shoot at you for the next half hour, but I refuse to recognise your right to live, make no promises about what I'm going to do after the half-hour is over, and during that half-hour, I'm not saying I'm not going to use non-shooting methods at my disposal to get you to die", I don't think you'd take it as that positive a thing overall. You give away something, but you don't get anything back in return.
I believe such a proposal of a temporary hiatus on a violent act in return for a tangible is known as 'extortion' in the civilian world.
NTM
So what are they supposed to recognise?
Israel has not defined her borders.
A Jewish state?
Does that mean any non-Jews in Israel have no right to be there. Imagine a Catholic State or a White State or any state based on race or religion there would be uproar.
This right to exist thing is just an exuse not to talk.0 -
The PLO recognized Israel, but refused to recognize it as a Jewish state. They were of course right to do so. Accepting Israel as a Jewish state, would be tantamount to saying that the Palestinians living there are not full and equal citizens. A Jewish state is a inherently racist concept and asking the Palestinians to accept racism is unreasonable. Now asking them to accept the state of Israel as a state of its citizens is reasonable.0
-
The PLO recognized Israel, but refused to recognize it as a Jewish state. They were of course right to do so. Accepting Israel as a Jewish state, would be tantamount to saying that the Palestinians living there are not full and equal citizens. A Jewish state is a inherently racist concept and asking the Palestinians to accept racism is unreasonable. Now asking them to accept the state of Israel as a state of its citizens is reasonable.
Of course it is racist. But why doesnt anyone in the media mention this? Why do they turn a blind eye to this racism yet scream from their ivory towers when another country does something that is just as racist?0 -
The PLO recognized Israel
Good for the PLO. I wouldn't be surprised if that was part of the reason that Israel actually decided to accept the concept of a Palestinian independent state and started to progress towards it. Hamas are a different group.So what are they supposed to recognise?
The right to exist as a national entity. Not as a Jewish state, just as a country. You need to get that far before you can even start talking about borders. What's the point in declaring a border line with something you refuse to acknowledge as an entity? You don't just make a sweeping peace deal which will magically solve everything at once, you start with some pretty basic concepts and work from there. The very first concept you need to start from is an acknowledgement that you're going to have to deal with the other side. Refusal to acknowledge that the other side is a legitimate entity is going to undermine absolutely everything else you do.This right to exist thing is just an exuse not to talk.
It's a pre-requisite, not an excuse. If you refuse to acknowledge me for being me, nothing else matters.
NTM0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »Good for the PLO. I wouldn't be surprised if that was part of the reason that Israel actually decided to accept the concept of a Palestinian independent state and started to progress towards it. Hamas are a different group.
Israel is asking them to accept it as a Jewish state btw. Hence there refusal to recognize it as a Jewish state as per the article I linked:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/923076.html
After the recognized Israel, they (Israel) went and changed the goal posts. Also, its not like the PLO got anything for it in the first place. I refer to the following article again:
The brilliant offer Israel never made
Then there is the further demand for recognition as a Jewish state which is ridiculous.
**EDIT**
Do you think Israel demands to be recognized as a Jewish state is reasonable (especially since the PLO recognizes Israel already)? This is what there asking from both the PLO and Hamas btw.0 -
Erekat: Palestinians will not accept Israel as 'Jewish state
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/923076.html
Earlier Monday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that the starting point for all negotiations with the Palestinians will be the "recognition of Israel as a state for the Jewish people,
This recognition is meant to bolster Israel's position that rejects the return of Palestinian refugees to areas inside the Green Line - the border before the 1967 Six-Day War.
"We won't hold negotiations on our existence as a Jewish state, this is a launching point for all negotiations," Olmert said.0 -
Advertisement
-
Found the following details in the Hamas charter. I think that these will show exactly what Hamas is all about...
Please, feel free to verify these quotes in the links attached. I actually encourage you to read the whole thing... Fascinating reading.
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
"The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim)"
"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "
"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."
Links:
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html0 -
Amazingly enough Israel, actually funded Hamas. Even with there charter. Bloody crazy thing to do.0
-
The charter came after the ties between Israel & Hamas were severed.0
-
munchester29 wrote: »The charter came after the ties between Israel & Hamas were severed.
Fair enough.
However, they must have known who they were dealing with. Why deal with such people at all? Its a very odd thing to do.0 -
Do you think Israel demands to be recognized as a Jewish state is reasonable (especially since the PLO recognizes Israel already)? This is what there asking from both the PLO and Hamas btw.
I hate to give a wishy-washy answer, but I think it rather depends on just what they intend by the statement. After all, the UK is pretty explicitly a Christian State: The Head of State, the symbol of the country, is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and Defender of the Faith, but this doesn't particularly seem to interfere with anyone's rights regardless of their religion.
For example, I don't think they mean "Jewish State" to mean that it shall be run according to the Laws of the Talmud (If there are such things) in the same manner as Sharia law exists in some other countries in the region, or that only Jews will be permitted there: There is a difference between a Jewish State which is Home to All Jewish People and a State for only Jewish People.
However, I think most likely it's meant as a counter to the Palestinian claims that Palestine is an Arab State.
The draft Palestinian Constitution: http://www.jmcc.org/documents/palestineconstitution-eng.pdfArticle (2)
Palestine is part of the Arab nation. The state of Palestine abides by the charter of the League of Arab States. The Palestinian people are part of the Arab and Islamic nations. Arab unity is a goal, the Palestinian people hopes to achieve.
<snip>
Article (5)
Arabic and Islam are the official Palestinian language and religion. Christianity and all other monotheistic religions shall be equally revered and respected. The Constitution guarantees equality in rights and duties to all citizens irrespective of their religious belief.
<snip>
Article (7)
The principles of Islamic Shari’a are a major source for legislation. Civil and religious matters of the followers of monotheistic religions shall be organized in accordance with their religious teachings and denominations within the framework of law, while preserving the unity and independence of the Palestinian people.
Now, frankly, I don't have a problem with this Palestinian Constitution. Even though it blatantly aligns itself with a particular group of people, and is going to configure much of its laws around the beliefs of that group, it protects the rights of all regardless of if they're in that group or not. A nation is going to align itself somewhat to the dominant perceptions, values and beliefs of its majority.
So, in this sort of context, if Palestine wishes to be recognised as Arab and Islamic nation (per Art 2), why should Israel not claim a similar recognition as a Jewish nation, subject to the same equal rights qualifications for those not of the Jewish faith?
[ETA: I guess there's also the issue of UN General Assembly Resolution 181 which actually terms what would become Israel as "The Jewish State"]
NTM0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »I hate to give a wishy-washy answer, but I think it rather depends on just what they intend by the statement. After all, the UK is pretty explicitly a Christian State: The Head of State, the symbol of the country, is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and Defender of the Faith, but this doesn't particularly seem to interfere with anyone's rights regardless of their religion.
Your not comparing like with like at all. The article shows the difference quite clearly.
The UK has no discriminatory laws against Muslims, Irish people etc.
Israel does have such laws:
Israel/Occupied Territories: Amnesty International condemns discriminatory laws passed by the Israeli KnessetManic Moran wrote: »For example, I don't think they mean "Jewish State" to mean that it shall be run according to the Laws of the Talmud (If there are such things) in the same manner as Sharia law exists in some other countries in the region, or that only Jews will be permitted there: There is a difference between a Jewish State and a State for only Jewish People.
Again, Olmert says Israel is a state of the Jewish people. Its right there in the article, not a state of its citizens.
Olmerts words are very clear:From Haaretz:
"We won't hold negotiations on our existence as a Jewish state, this is a launching point for all negotiations," Olmert said.
"We won't have an argument with anyone in the world over the fact that Israel is a state of the Jewish people. Whoever does not accept this cannot hold any negotiations with me. This has been made clear to the Palestinians and the Americans. I have no doubt that Abu Mazen [Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas] and [PA premier Salam] Fayad are committed to prior agreements and want to make peace with Israel as a Jewish state," Olmert continued.
"Israel is a state of the Jewish people", the word of Israel's Prime Minister. Sorry what he is saying is down right racist.
Just imagine George Bush called the USA, "USA is a state of the White people". There would be uproar and no excuses would be made.
Also, Israel make claims to be a Western style state. Its claims show there clearly not. So they should be held to those standards. They clearly fail on that count. I am an ethnic minority here in Ireland and I was born here. I am no less Irish than the next man in the eyes of the law. I am considered Irish, by virtue of citizenship.
In Israel, its a nation of the Jewish people. Its not a nation of Israeli's (who can be Palestinian or Jews). There is a very clear different between the 2.Manic Moran wrote: »However, I think most likely it's meant as a counter to the claims that Palestine is an aligned state.
Don't see how that applies at all. Considering that the point of Zionism is to create a Jewish state and all there stating is what they are.Manic Moran wrote: »The draft Palestinian Constitution: http://www.jmcc.org/documents/palestineconstitution-eng.pdf
Now, frankly, I don't have a problem with this Palestinian Constitution. Even though it blatantly aligns itself with a particular group of people, and is going to configure much of its laws around the beliefs of that group, it protects the rights of all regardless of if they're in that group or not. A nation is going to align itself somewhat to the dominant perceptions, values and beliefs of its majority.
Well there is no Palestinian state. Such a constitution would go through changes, before implementation.
Regardless, defining a state based on ethnicity is a bad idea, regardless of who is doing it.
Just, because someone else is doing it doesn't make it right.Manic Moran wrote: »So, in this sort of context, if Palestine wishes to be recognised as Arab and Islamic nation (per Art 2), why should Israel not claim a similar recognition as a Jewish nation, subject to the same equal rights qualifications for those not of the Jewish faith?
Except that not true. Palestinians aren't equal. They aren't treat equal at all.
The Palestinians are natives to Israel. Why should they not be recognized as equals? Why would they accept defacto 2nd class status? Would anyone ever except such a thing?
Seriously replace the word Jewish with White and it will rightly be called racists.
Now, it seems you don't want to answer my question. So fair enough.
However, I doubt the Palestinians living in Israel, like living in a "state of the Jewish people" to paraphrase Olmert. I see no reason why they should accept this, or why other Palestinians should accept this. Its basically asking them to accept racism and there 2nd class status. Yes, the Palestinians should recognize Israel, but not as the state of the Jewish people, but rather of its citizens.Article (2)
Palestine is part of the Arab nation. The state of Palestine abides by the charter of the League of
Arab States. The Palestinian people are part of the Arab and Islamic nations. Arab unity is a goal,
the Palestinian people hopes to achieve.
Lets see, there is a world of difference between that and saying that Palestine is a state of the Arab people. The wording makes a world of difference.
Still, its could do with some work to be more inclusive and its pretty bad still imo.
Also, I am against religious laws so that applies here too.
**Replying to Edit**Manic Moran wrote: »[ETA: I guess there's also the issue of UN General Assembly Resolution 181 which actually terms what would become Israel as "The Jewish State"]
Which is very different to the "state of the Jewish people". However, Israel isn't know for implementing UN resolutions. Perhaps they should start implementing them and maybe people would cut them some slack on the "Jewish state". I await with baited breath for Israel to do so, instead of claiming a UN bias.From the Resolution 181:
Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in Parts II and III below.
Do you think Israel would allow there "undivided" capital to become apart of a "Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem". Also, why hasn't Israel offered to create an "Arab State", why do they offer what amounts to Bantustans?From the Resolution 181:
All persons within the jurisdiction of the State shall be entitled to equal protection of the laws.
We know this to be not true of Israel, as can be seen from the link I provided earlier.
See if the Jewish state thing was just in name, I wouldn't care, but as can be seen from Israels laws, this isn't the case.0 -
Before diving into your response, perhaps I should make the observation that I don't think the "recognise as a Jewish State" requirement should be as hard and fast a one as the "Recognise as a State" requirement. It seems to a large extent that the Israelis aren't worried about it as a pre-cursor either: As you point out yourself, the PLO hasn't acknowledged Israel as a Jewish State, but Israel has still negotiated with them. The evidence shows it to be a compromisable statement. As long as Hamas refuses to acknowledge the State of Israel in any manner whatsoever, be it secular, Jewish, or Pastafarian, which is its current policy, there's no start-point from which one can even begin to make compromises.Your not comparing like with like at all. The article shows the difference quite clearly.
The UK has no discriminatory laws against Muslims, Irish people etc.
Israel does have such laws:
True, but the two issues are separable. When the UK did have such laws, it did not change its character as a Christian nation. Indeed, the English Bill of Rights went as far as to grant certain rights only to Protestants, let alone Christians. It has since redressed these inequities whilst retaining its Christian alignment. I don't see why this should not be the case for Israel as well: They can still be a Jewish State after they nullify any unfair laws, which I think they're going to have to do at some stage.Again, Olmert says Israel is a state of the Jewish people. Its right there in the article, not a state of its citizens.
Olmerts words are very clear:
"Israel is a state of the Jewish people", the word of Israel's Prime Minister. Sorry what he is saying is down right racist.
Considering that's de-facto what the Palestinians say about being a state of the Arab people (I'll get to that in a bit, as it appears to be a point of contention between us), I would suggest that one shouldn't be too one-sided in one's criticism. However, I don't think he's wrong. Part of the problem is the inter-relationship between "State", "Nation," and "People." Again, I'll come back to this.Just imagine George Bush called the USA, "USA is a state of the White people". There would be uproar and no excuses would be made.
Probably not. But then, I don't recall the White People ever claiming to originate in the area either. As it is, people still haven't figured out if the US is a Christian country or not. We know it was created by Christians, the Declaration of Independence makes that fairly clear, the national motto is "In God we Trust", and Federal calendar revolves around Christian concepts such as Christmas or Easter. On the other hand, the Constitution also has that little bit in the 1st Ammendment saying that the government can't enact legislation favouring any religion over another. There's enough dispute over that, and the country's only 200 years old, so any consideration of the Middle East is going to be orders of magnitude more complicated.Also, Israel make claims to be a Western style state. Its claims show there clearly not. So they should be held to those standards. They clearly fail on that count. I am an ethnic minority here in Ireland and I was born here. I am no less Irish than the next man in the eyes of the law. I am considered Irish, by virtue of citizenship.
Yet many, with no citizenship, also claim to be Irish (as in of the Celtic people, not the legal citizenship) by heritage. You can see how the problems of citizenship vs nationality can cause no end of difficulty. I do not hold an Irish passport. But I certainly have an Irish accent, lived most of my life in Ireland, dad's Irish, as was every one of his ancestors as far back as I know. Am I Irish, as per a socio-ethnic definition as opposed to a citizenship one?Well there is no Palestinian state. Such a constitution would go through changes, before implementation.
True. Indeed, it says it's on its third draft, and was approved by the Palestinian Council, so it's probably pretty close to what they're looking for. Certainly the reading of the document as a whole, however, has so many references to the nation/state/country concepts that I think that after two revisions, it's unlikely to be changed so dramatically in the future as to radically change its intent.Regardless, defining a state based on ethnicity is a bad idea, regardless of who is doing it.
Why not? What is a country? Is it not a grouping of peoples with something in common in order to create a common entity? Why not use ethnicity? France for Gallics, Korea for Koreans, Italy for Italians, Greece for Greeks (Who are fiercely proud of their identity, just ask my mother), Japan for the Japanese... and yes, Palestine for Palestinians.
If you were to create a country today, what would be your requirements? Do you think Kosovo should be an independent country to Serbia? If so, do you think the ethnic differences should be a factor? The locals certainly seem to think so.Except that not true. Palestinians aren't equal. They aren't treat equal at all.
Please excuse my brief foray into optomism, but I believe it is possible that Israel will eventually sort itself out and start treating its non Jewish citizens as equals. Should this happen, (And saying that it never will is basically resigning oneself to a state of perpetual conflict), then my hypothesis is valid.Now, it seems you don't want to answer my question. So fair enough.
I thought I had. Maybe I just didn't understand the question well enough. I had thought you were asking my opinion on the whole 'Jewish State' deal.Lets see, there is a world of difference between that and saying that Palestine is a state of the Arab people. The wording makes a world of difference.
OK, this is that point of contention I mentioned earlier. I wonder if you're not using terms like "State", "country" and "nation" synonymously. A 'nation' is not a geographical entity which one can place on a map (though it is a common, but incorrect, usage.) It is a group of peoples, a belief or ethnicity. The "Arab Nation" mentioned consists of most of the denizens of what we know as the various Arab countries, plus people inside some other countries. Palestine, according to their draft constitution, is part of this Arab Nation, and as such, they are definitely claiming to be a state of the Arab people.
If you read through the entireity of the Palestinian document, you can see that they have distinguished often enough between nation-state (i.e. Palestine as defined by the borders and government), State (Referred to as "The Palestinian State) and "Nation."
For example, Article 13:Palestinians who left Palestine as a result of the 1948 war, and who were denied return thereto shall have the right to return to the Palestinian state and bear its nationality. It is a permanent, inalienable, and irrevocable right.
Constitutional Authors are extremely particular, with, as one US Supreme Court Judge said, "no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added." If they intended to mean "Palestine" as in the nation-state (country), they would simply have said "return to Palestine and bear its nationality." They did not. They are clearly identifying Palestine as the State of the Palestinian people.Also, I am against religious laws so that applies here too.
That's fair enough as a policy, but how many of our laws do you think are not based on religious foundation? Our entire code of conduct as a modern society, whether you know it or not, is heavily based on the teachings of religion and simultaneously to a large extent, a lot of religous concepts are based on the laws that were existant at the time. You just have to go back a whole hell of a long way in the past.Which is very different to the "state of the Jewish people".
True. Still, the resolution is peculiarly worded, such as saying that Arabs in what would become the Arab State may not have the option of choosing to become citizens of the Jewish State, but Jews in the Arab area would, and vice versa. It seems the UN's intent was somewhere along those lines.However, Israel isn't know for implementing UN resolutions. Perhaps they should start implementing them and maybe people would cut them some slack on the "Jewish state". I await with baited breath for Israel to do so, instead of claiming a UN bias.
I will not argue the bit about the adherence to resolutions, but I don't think this affects the heart of the matter as to whether Israel should or should not exist for UN resoltions to be taken against in the first place, which is an issue Hamas seems to have.Do you think Israel would allow there "undivided" capital to become apart of a "Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem".
I doubt it. (Besides, who'd run it? I get the feeling the UN of today is quite happy it doesn't need to deal with the issue.) Still, this is a slightly different issue: Jerusalem wasn't separated because of its own "Jeruselmite" identity in the same manner as Israel and Palestine were.Also, why hasn't Israel offered to create an "Arab State", why do they offer what amounts to Bantustans?
I don't think the Arab State is within Israel's purview to create. The Palestinians seem to be pretty determined to have a state of their own, though the West Bank / Gaza Strip political division of late seems to be making this a bit difficult. Israel has little issue, it seems, with the concept of a Palestinian state, the problem seems to be more a matter of the nuts and bolts, which are matters for negotiation. The West Bank seems to be progressing better along these lines than the Strip.
NTM0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »Before diving into your response, perhaps I should make the observation that I don't think the "recognise as a Jewish State" requirement should be as hard and fast a one as the "Recognise as a State" requirement. It seems to a large extent that the Israelis aren't worried about it as a pre-cursor either: As you point out yourself, the PLO hasn't acknowledged Israel as a Jewish State, but Israel has still negotiated with them. The evidence shows it to be a compromisable statement. As long as Hamas refuses to acknowledge the State of Israel in any manner whatsoever, be it secular, Jewish, or Pastafarian, which is its current policy, there's no start-point from which one can even begin to make compromises.
Olmert made it a condition recently as evidence by the article I posted. He changed the goal posts as I mentioned earlier.
Here is is again:From Haaretz:
"We won't hold negotiations on our existence as a Jewish state, this is a launching point for all negotiations," Olmert said.
"We won't have an argument with anyone in the world over the fact that Israel is a state of the Jewish people. Whoever does not accept this cannot hold any negotiations with me. This has been made clear to the Palestinians and the Americans. I have no doubt that Abu Mazen [Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas] and [PA premier Salam] Fayad are committed to prior agreements and want to make peace with Israel as a Jewish state," Olmert continued.
Its stupid thing for Olmert to say, when recognizing Israel was good enough previous. Still not unexpected for him to change the goal posts like this.
I put the bit where he says he won't won't negotiate in bold.
The fact that Olmert mentioned this at all, says it all. The PLO has recognized Israel, to demand recognition as a Jewish state, as I pointed out earlier is racist and simply unreasonable as well as pointless as it gains Israel nothing and in fact detracts from them.Manic Moran wrote: »True, but the two issues are separable. When the UK did have such laws, it did not change its character as a Christian nation. Indeed, the English Bill of Rights went as far as to grant certain rights only to Protestants, let alone Christians. It has since redressed these inequities whilst retaining its Christian alignment. I don't see why this should not be the case for Israel as well: They can still be a Jewish State after they nullify any unfair laws, which I think they're going to have to do at some stage.
They haven't changed any laws. Nor does it look like they will any time soon. Your talking about a hypothetical changed, which therefore has no bearing on what I said. Also, your example would be great if such changed were made, but they haven't.
Also, I think most UK politician describe the UK as secular.Manic Moran wrote: »Considering that's de-facto what the Palestinians say about being a state of the Arab people (I'll get to that in a bit, as it appears to be a point of contention between us), I would suggest that one shouldn't be too one-sided in one's criticism. However, I don't think he's wrong. Part of the problem is the inter-relationship between "State", "Nation," and "People." Again, I'll come back to this.
There would have to evidence of racist laws to draw equivalence. There is no Palestinians state, so no such laws can exist. Again, at present the Palestinians state is Arab in name only.
As I said before I would have no issue with Israel calling itself Jewish in name only, but thats not the case.Manic Moran wrote: »Probably not. But then, I don't recall the White People ever claiming to originate in the area either. As it is, people still haven't figured out if the US is a Christian country or not. We know it was created by Christians, the Declaration of Independence makes that fairly clear, the national motto is "In God we Trust", and Federal calendar revolves around Christian concepts such as Christmas or Easter. On the other hand, the Constitution also has that little bit in the 1st Ammendment saying that the government can't enact legislation favouring any religion over another. There's enough dispute over that, and the country's only 200 years old, so any consideration of the Middle East is going to be orders of magnitude more complicated.
Again, being Jewish is also a racial definition. So the comparison with White is correct. I am not talking purely about religion, but more about race.
Again the US laws don't discriminate against ethnic minorities, but Israel right now does. The comparison doesn't make sense.Manic Moran wrote: »Yet many, with no citizenship, also claim to be Irish (as in of the Celtic people, not the legal citizenship) by heritage. You can see how the problems of citizenship vs nationality can cause no end of difficulty. I do not hold an Irish passport. But I certainly have an Irish accent, lived most of my life in Ireland, dad's Irish, as was every one of his ancestors as far back as I know. Am I Irish, as per a socio-ethnic definition as opposed to a citizenship one?
You would be ethnically Irish. Nothing can change that, but you are not an Irish national/citizen, as you don't have citizenship. Seems like a very simple difference to me.
Ethnicity refers to race normally.
Citizenship/nationality tends to refer to the nation your a citizen of.
To give another example, I am a Sudhun (ethnic tribal group) and I am also a citizen of Pakistan (i have dual citizenship due to my parents Pakistani citizenship).Manic Moran wrote: »True. Indeed, it says it's on its third draft, and was approved by the Palestinian Council, so it's probably pretty close to what they're looking for. Certainly the reading of the document as a whole, however, has so many references to the nation/state/country concepts that I think that after two revisions, it's unlikely to be changed so dramatically in the future as to radically change its intent.
Well, the Palestinian state is no closer to happening. The longer that takes, the more revisions that will probably happen, but as it stands I agree its not the best.Manic Moran wrote: »Why not? What is a country? Is it not a grouping of peoples with something in common in order to create a common entity? Why not use ethnicity? France for Gallics, Korea for Koreans, Italy for Italians, Greece for Greeks (Who are fiercely proud of their identity, just ask my mother), Japan for the Japanese... and yes, Palestine for Palestinians.
Terrible choice of words here. You do realize, racist movements tend to say stuff like that about immigrants and what not.Manic Moran wrote: »If you were to create a country today, what would be your requirements? Do you think Kosovo should be an independent country to Serbia? If so, do you think the ethnic differences should be a factor? The locals certainly seem to think so.
I think the attempt at ethnic cleansing being the most important factor.
As I pointed out in my post. That defining such a state based on ethnicity in name only is fine, but with Israel, that is not the case, as they have laws to enforce this.Manic Moran wrote: »Please excuse my brief foray into optomism, but I believe it is possible that Israel will eventually sort itself out and start treating its non Jewish citizens as equals. Should this happen, (And saying that it never will is basically resigning oneself to a state of perpetual conflict), then my hypothesis is valid.
No it isn't, as it hasn't happened yet. For you hypothesis to be correct it would have to happen. Far be it for me to point out, you can't predict the future and I think it best to judge Israel on things it has done, rather than things you hope they do in the future.
As I said, if it does happen, then they can call themselves whatever they please.Manic Moran wrote: »I thought I had. Maybe I just didn't understand the question well enough. I had thought you were asking my opinion on the whole 'Jewish State' deal.
I asked if you taught the extra demand of recognition of Jewish state was reasonable.Manic Moran wrote: »OK, this is that point of contention I mentioned earlier. I wonder if you're not using terms like "State", "country" and "nation" synonymously. A 'nation' is not a geographical entity which one can place on a map (though it is a common, but incorrect, usage.) It is a group of peoples, a belief or ethnicity. The "Arab Nation" mentioned consists of most of the denizens of what we know as the various Arab countries, plus people inside some other countries. Palestine, according to their draft constitution, is part of this Arab Nation, and as such, they are definitely claiming to be a state of the Arab people.
No, they say they are apart of the Arab nation. Its very much in name only.
The meaning of state of the Arab people is very different.Manic Moran wrote: »If you read through the entireity of the Palestinian document, you can see that they have distinguished often enough between nation-state (i.e. Palestine as defined by the borders and government), State (Referred to as "The Palestinian State) and "Nation."
For example, Article 13:
Constitutional Authors are extremely particular, with, as one US Supreme Court Judge said, "no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added." If they intended to mean "Palestine" as in the nation-state (country), they would simply have said "return to Palestine and bear its nationality." They did not. They are clearly identifying Palestine as the State of the Palestinian people.
There clearly reffering to what was called Palestine in 1948. Just because the name was changed doesn't mean there right is some how truncated. Zionist drove them out and such they should have every right to return to there home regardless of what it is called today.
Btw, you provide no link to the judge you quote.
Denying there right to return is simply racist and the only reason Israel doesn't allow this is that there not Jewish.“Re-claiming Palestine: The Legal Basis for Rights of Return and Restitution”
Summary of Lecture by Susan Akram, Souad Dajani, and Bret Thiele
For the Record No. 231 / 2 August 2005
Akram said that the legal basis for a refugee's Right of Return is established in three main bodies of law: the law of nationality and state succession, human rights law, and humanitarian law. In all three, explained Akram, the Right of Return is both "a rule of customary international law and codified in international treaties." Pointing to numerous treaties that Israel has ratified, which bind it to recognize and implement this right, Akram argued that Israel is the state entity responsible for creating the refugees and is thus held responsible for the implementation of Palestinians' Right of Return.
The legal basis for there right to return.
At the end of the day Israel kicked them out and so are responsible.Manic Moran wrote: »That's fair enough as a policy, but how many of our laws do you think are not based on religious foundation? Our entire code of conduct as a modern society, whether you know it or not, is heavily based on the teachings of religion and simultaneously to a large extent, a lot of religous concepts are based on the laws that were existant at the time. You just have to go back a whole hell of a long way in the past.
When I talk about religious laws, I mean laws coming from the Bible and that sort of thing. Laws directly based on religion e.g. Mosaic law or Shar'iah.
I am not talking about laws that at one time were based on religion.Manic Moran wrote: »True. Still, the resolution is peculiarly worded, such as saying that Arabs in what would become the Arab State may not have the option of choosing to become citizens of the Jewish State, but Jews in the Arab area would, and vice versa. It seems the UN's intent was somewhere along those lines.
I will not argue the bit about the adherence to resolutions, but I don't think this affects the heart of the matter as to whether Israel should or should not exist for UN resoltions to be taken against in the first place, which is an issue Hamas seems to have.
Hamas need to accept Israel is there.
However, Israel needs to accept kicking people out of there country never ends well.Manic Moran wrote: »I doubt it. (Besides, who'd run it? I get the feeling the UN of today is quite happy it doesn't need to deal with the issue.) Still, this is a slightly different issue: Jerusalem wasn't separated because of its own "Jeruselmite" identity in the same manner as Israel and Palestine were.
I was making the point that Israel will not give up any or Jerusalem to anyone, or even the part that is Palestinians. Without East Jerusalem, becoming the capital of Palestine, there won't be peace.Manic Moran wrote: »I don't think the Arab State is within Israel's purview to create. The Palestinians seem to be pretty determined to have a state of their own, though the West Bank / Gaza Strip political division of late seems to be making this a bit difficult. Israel has little issue, it seems, with the concept of a Palestinian state, the problem seems to be more a matter of the nuts and bolts, which are matters for negotiation. The West Bank seems to be progressing better along these lines than the Strip.
It is in Israel purview as they are occupying and colonizing Palestinian land. You seem to conveniently forget this all of a sudden. Israel is the bigger problem to creating a Palestinians state, because if large chunks of the West Bank are colonized, a state can't possibly created.
See the colonies are all a part of Israel apartheid system. They want to grab as much land as possible and leave the Palestinians with what amounts to apartheid South African style Bantustans. Again see Jimmy Carters book (i provided details earlier), where he describes there system of apartheid, in far nicer fashion than I would.0 -
Olmert made it a condition recently as evidence by the article I posted.
For the record, the article is a little out of date. The position was made at least a month earlier http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/16/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-Palestinians.php,
before the Annapolis Conference, yet both parties attended. It is also important to note that the PNA and Israel have been talking in Egypt as recently as last month.I put the bit where he says he won't won't negotiate in bold.
So you did. But the Israelis appear to have been willing to compromise a bit anyway.as well as pointless as it gains Israel nothing and in fact detracts from them.
In that case, what's the harm to Palestine?They haven't changed any laws. Nor does it look like they will any time soon. Your talking about a hypothetical changed, which therefore has no bearing on what I said. Also, your example would be great if such changed were made, but they haven't.
That's the joy about negotiations. You're talking about taking the present, and changing it, to a future which is different. If negotiations succeed, the entire environment can change.Also, I think most UK politician describe the UK as secular.
As would most Israeli politicians describe Israel. Heck, their declaration of Independence mentions God even fewer times than the US. (None at all)There would have to evidence of racist laws to draw equivalence. There is no Palestinians state, so no such laws can exist. Again, at present the Palestinians state is Arab in name only.
OK, we have a fundamental difference of perspective here. You're looking at the present, and in effect blaming the current circumstances for the current circumstances. This isn't very productive. I'm working on the basis that most anything in the present is subject to change, and that people want instead to look to the future. The independent country of Palestine does not currently exist. Granted. I got it. But by the time all the negotiations are over, Palestine hopefully will exist as an independent nation, so it's reasonable to look at their aspirations as a basis for figuring out what their goals and negotiating points could be.Again, being Jewish is also a racial definition. So the comparison with White is correct. I am not talking purely about religion, but more about race.
And that is, I think, part of our problem. As I am reading you, you are occasionally flipping between Jewish (religious) and Jewish (socio-ethnic) witout necessarily making clear which of the two you're talking about.You would be ethnically Irish. Nothing can change that, but you are not an Irish national/citizen, as you don't have citizenship. Seems like a very simple difference to me.
OK. So if Ireland were declared the homeland of the Irish People, would I be included? Or would I need a passport?Ethnicity refers to race normally.
You might refer to it as race normally. I take a more expansive view of it being a grouping of people. You can have different ethnic groups without changing skin colour. (I use the official Army definition!)Citizenship/nationality tends to refer to the nation your a citizen of.
So what did the Palestinian drafters mean, then, when they said that Palestine was a part of the Arab Nation? What is an 'arab' passport? Looking at that list of drafters, they have some apparently pretty intelligent people on there, it is more than a simple mis-use of the word. Whether the Palestinian Constitution is in legal effect or not does not detract from their ability to be competent users of language.Terrible choice of words here. You do realize, racist movements tend to say stuff like that about immigrants and what not.
Yes. But they also tend to say "No-one who is not one of us is welcome." That doesn't negate the starting point that today's nations tended to be formed by groups of like-minded, or like-originated individuals, and most of them seem to have worked out rather well as a whole.As I pointed out in my post. That defining such a state based on ethnicity in name only is fine, but with Israel, that is not the case, as they have laws to enforce this.
OK. So I think we have some common ground. We both agree that calling Israel a Jewish State is acceptable, and that laws treating non-Jews differently is not acceptable. See how easy that negotiating was?I think it best to judge Israel on things it has done, rather than things you hope they do in the future.
By that argument, what hope do you hold out on the whole peace process? If everyone just had the attitude you do, nobody would bother. "Sure, the Israelis won't change, this is a waste of time"I asked if you taught the extra demand of recognition of Jewish state was reasonable.
By my understanding of the intent, yes. But see below.No, they say they are apart of the Arab nation. Its very much in name only.
The meaning of state of the Arab people is very different.
We obviously have great difference in understanding of the intent!There clearly refering to what was called Palestine in 1948.
They were? They felt that a British Mandate (occupation, if you prefer) was worthy of their accrediting it the status of being the Palestinian State and they think that Palestinians would want to bear its nationality?Btw, you provide no link to the judge you quote.
Sorry, didn't think you'd want it. It's a part of a fairly famous legal quote in the US.
Chief Justice Taney, Holmes v. Jennison, 14 U.S. 540, 570-1Hamas need to accept Israel is there.
However, Israel needs to accept kicking people out of there country never ends well.
OK, I can agree to both these points.I was making the point that Israel will not give up any or Jerusalem to anyone, or even the part that is Palestinians. Without East Jerusalem, becoming the capital of Palestine, there won't be peace.
Yet Olmert started a bit of a domestic flap late last year when that's precisely what he suggested. Obviously this was not well received amongst Israeli hard-liners. Still, I might suggest that when it was suggested to effectively remove the Constitutional claim to Northern Ireland back in the 90s, that was not particularly well received amongst some Nationalists either. But we did it. Similarly, the PNA suggested in Annapolis that absolute adherence to the 1967 borders may not actually be a non-negotiable concept. It's amazing what can suddenly become open to negotiation when people actually decide to put some effort and risk into things.It is in Israel purview as they are occupying and colonizing Palestinian land. You seem to conveniently forget this all of a sudden. Israel is the bigger problem to creating a Palestinians state, because if large chunks of the West Bank are colonized, a state can't possibly created.
Israel giveth, and Israel taketh away. There were a number of settlements in Gaza which were abandoned recently enough: I seem to recall Israeli troops 'convincing' settlers that they had better relocate. Again, you have to be a bit of an optomist to negotiate: Thinking that nothing is open for negotiation on the other side doesn't leave you very much room to negotiate for!See the colonies are all a part of Israel apartheid system. They want to grab as much land as possible and leave the Palestinians with what amounts to apartheid South African style Bantustans. Again see Jimmy Carters book (i provided details earlier), where he describes there system of apartheid, in far nicer fashion than I would.
Even apartheid came to an end. I think the issues facing Israel and Hamas are right now are a little more fundamental.
NTM0 -
Advertisement
-
Manic Moran wrote: »For the record, the article is a little out of date. The position was made at least a month earlier http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/16/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-Palestinians.php,
before the Annapolis Conference, yet both parties attended. It is also important to note that the PNA and Israel have been talking in Egypt as recently as last month.
Annapolis hasn't really gotten anywhere now has it. Still, the point remain, why did Olmert even mention it. It seems really pointless thing to demand.Manic Moran wrote: »So you did. But the Israelis appear to have been willing to compromise a bit anyway.
Why was it mentioned at all? How much of a compromise is just talking to someone who you have talked to before? It again seem like such a petty thing for Israel to make such a huge deal over. My point is that they made such a big deal over it in the first place.
We all know Olmert eventually changed his mind. I probably should have clearer about that.Manic Moran wrote: »In that case, what's the harm to Palestine?
You misunderstood. Making the demand gain Israel nothing. If they actually got there way, it mean the Palestinians are basically saying Israel racism is ok.Manic Moran wrote: »That's the joy about negotiations. You're talking about taking the present, and changing it, to a future which is different. If negotiations succeed, the entire environment can change.
I am talking about there here and now. Potential future change doesn't make Israel a lovely inclusive democracy in the present. I understand your point, but it has no bearing on the here and now. Israel has discriminatory laws now. If they changed it then great, until then its right to point out there laws.Manic Moran wrote: »As would most Israeli politicians describe Israel. Heck, their declaration of Independence mentions God even fewer times than the US. (None at all)
Yet, they have more religious laws than the US (you have none last I checked).Manic Moran wrote: »OK, we have a fundamental difference of perspective here. You're looking at the present, and in effect blaming the current circumstances for the current circumstances. This isn't very productive. I'm working on the basis that most anything in the present is subject to change, and that people want instead to look to the future. The independent country of Palestine does not currently exist. Granted. I got it. But by the time all the negotiations are over, Palestine hopefully will exist as an independent nation, so it's reasonable to look at their aspirations as a basis for figuring out what their goals and negotiating points could be.
Again, we really don't know what will happen in the future. By making points about a future, you have a convenient out to ignore whats happening right now.Manic Moran wrote: »And that is, I think, part of our problem. As I am reading you, you are occasionally flipping between Jewish (religious) and Jewish (socio-ethnic) witout necessarily making clear which of the two you're talking about.
Its very confusing for me too, there distinction between religion and ethnicity when it comes to Jews is blurred.Manic Moran wrote: »OK. So if Ireland were declared the homeland of the Irish People, would I be included? Or would I need a passport?
Probably not. However, if your parents have citizenship for Ireland, you could get it. Thats how it works with most countries.
However, in Israel if your Jewish, you do get a passport. You must know about the Jewish right of return law. Just imagine being a Palestinians in a refugee camp and seeing someone Jewish, who family may or may not have lived in Israel a 1000 years ago, being allowed to return and they are not allowed after 60 years. You see the right to return for Jews make my point for me.Manic Moran wrote: »You might refer to it as race normally. I take a more expansive view of it being a grouping of people. You can have different ethnic groups without changing skin colour. (I use the official Army definition!)
True.Manic Moran wrote: »So what did the Palestinian drafters mean, then, when they said that Palestine was a part of the Arab Nation? What is an 'arab' passport? Looking at that list of drafters, they have some apparently pretty intelligent people on there, it is more than a simple mis-use of the word. Whether the Palestinian Constitution is in legal effect or not does not detract from their ability to be competent users of language.
The Arab nation, is a hold over from Pan-Arab nationalism. Its pretty much dead at this point. So its doesn't really mean anything.Manic Moran wrote: »Yes. But they also tend to say "No-one who is not one of us is welcome." That doesn't negate the starting point that today's nations tended to be formed by groups of like-minded, or like-originated individuals, and most of them seem to have worked out rather well as a whole.
Again, the Israel right now discriminates. They should be judged on the here and now and not the future.Manic Moran wrote: »OK. So I think we have some common ground. We both agree that calling Israel a Jewish State is acceptable, and that laws treating non-Jews differently is not acceptable. See how easy that negotiating was?
Sure, now get Israel to changed there laws and I am sure the Palestinians will have no problem with whatever they call themselves. See thats a bit harder I would imagine.Manic Moran wrote: »By that argument, what hope do you hold out on the whole peace process? If everyone just had the attitude you do, nobody would bother. "Sure, the Israelis won't change, this is a waste of time"
Again, I judge them on what they are doing right now. Until they do change, there is no point and pretending things will get better. Its called being realistic. There is no basis presently for you prediction that Israel will get rid of settlements, when they intend to keep most of the main ones in anyways. See my opinion is based on the current facts, you base yours on a potential future and not current facts.Manic Moran wrote: »By my understanding of the intent, yes. But see below.Manic Moran wrote: »We obviously have great difference in understanding of the intent!
Fair enough.Manic Moran wrote: »They were? They felt that a British Mandate (occupation, if you prefer) was worthy of their accrediting it the status of being the Palestinian State and they think that Palestinians would want to bear its nationality?
They mean go to Israel (what its called now) and become citizens that or there talking of a bi-national arrangement.Manic Moran wrote: »Sorry, didn't think you'd want it. It's a part of a fairly famous legal quote in the US.
Chief Justice Taney, Holmes v. Jennison, 14 U.S. 540, 570-1
Thanks.Manic Moran wrote: »OK, I can agree to both these points.
Grand.Manic Moran wrote: »Yet Olmert started a bit of a domestic flap late last year when that's precisely what he suggested. Obviously this was not well received amongst Israeli hard-liners. Still, I might suggest that when it was suggested to effectively remove the Constitutional claim to Northern Ireland back in the 90s, that was not particularly well received amongst some Nationalists either. But we did it. Similarly, the PNA suggested in Annapolis that absolute adherence to the 1967 borders may not actually be a non-negotiable concept. It's amazing what can suddenly become open to negotiation when people actually decide to put some effort and risk into things.
Look at the settlements. They currently bisect the West Bank, along with the wall. The question that needs to asked, is an actual state on offer and not something that will just have the trappings.Manic Moran wrote: »Israel giveth, and Israel taketh away. There were a number of settlements in Gaza which were abandoned recently enough: I seem to recall Israeli troops 'convincing' settlers that they had better relocate. Again, you have to be a bit of an optomist to negotiate: Thinking that nothing is open for negotiation on the other side doesn't leave you very much room to negotiate for!
All, I am doing is looking at the facts.
Again Israel grabbed more land after leaving Gaza. So there past actions not exactly fill me with hope.
Actually its better to be a realist in negotiations. That way you don't engage in fantasies about the future.Manic Moran wrote: »Even apartheid came to an end. I think the issues facing Israel and Hamas are right now are a little more fundamental.
Doesn't look like this mess is gonna end anything soon. It took huge boycotts to end apartheid. That will never happen here as the Palestinians are the only ones who ever get punished by the "West" for breaking there deals. Israel is protected by the US, so has little incentive to do anything to change, as they know they can get away with whatever they want.0
Advertisement