1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Frankie Lee

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Conversely, Israel is one of the few places in the middle east where ethnic cleansing is talking place.

Serenity Now!

The Saint wrote: »

As you said the Palestinian territories were occupied by Jordan and Egypt and after the war occupied by Israel. I don't see what this has to do with anything. The Palestinians had nothing to do with the begining of the war. The Israeli occupation is still illegal under international law

???
It has everything to do with everything with the region. 1967 is constantly referred to whenever negotiations do take place or pundits commentate on the region.
The complacency of the Arab nations who were about to initiate a war and attack Israel was to such an extent that they lost even more in six days than they began with. Strangely enough, nobody ever blames any of those other occupying countries for the situation they have left the region with. Nobody blames Turks or Arabs for selling their land to Jewish settlers during the first three decades of the last century.

Demanding Israel give back the territory it gained during the Six Day War is akin to kicking a ball through your neighbour's window intentionally and then demanding the neighbour give your ball back. They'll never do it. I wish they would but they won't. Just the same as Hamas will never (despite some watery claims in this forum that they have) recognise Israel or cede an inch.

The Israeli govt and Hamas are beyond diplomacy and have been ever since Fatah went to the table. Even a coalition govt with liberal/secular majority members in its ranks. Its obvious that some here do not understand this hence all the one-eyed diatribe about ratios and "but Israel"-rhetoric.
None of this excuses Israel's actions of the last three days but neither should it excuse Hamas for persisting with cross-border rocket attacks.
If you call me an 'apologist' for saying that then I just give up.

The Saint

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's not legitimate as it has nothing to do with the conflict that we are talking about. If you want to open another thread regarding general human rights of Arab states in the Middle East I will contribute to this and I'd imagine we'd probably be in 100% agreement in condemnation. It is just completely irrelivant.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Boston

The Saint wrote: »

And Israel is still occupying the West Bank and continuing its settlement expansion. What are the underlying reasons for the conflict? Start from there and see where that takes you.

Hamas wants to destroy the Israeli state and the Israelis arn't playing ball? Trying to summise the reasons for this conflict is counter productive. Ask 100 people you'll get 100 answers all equally valid and invalid.

I think he was talking about the West Bank more than Gaza. In the West Bank settlers are subject to Israeli law and have full rights however Palestinians in the West Bank are denied rights based on their ethnicity. It woulod appear the prominant anti-aparthied South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu as well as other anti-aparthied South Africans agree with this analogy.

Key word there is analogy. You can say its like apartheid, you can say its worse then apartheid, but it isn't apartheid. You can't get away from the fact that these people aren't israeli's. If the Israelis where treating Israeli Arabs the way they treat Palestinians, then yes it would be apartheid, but they don't.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Frankie Lee

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Mainly because they all moved to the Jewish State. Which these days indiscriminately kills people of Arab ethnicity.

The Saint

Serenity Now! wrote: »

???
It has everything to do with everything with the region. 1967 is constantly referred to whenever negotiations do take place or pundits commentate on the region.

The complacency of the Arab nations who were about to initiate a war and attack Israel was to such an extent that they lost even more in six days than they began with. Strangely enough, nobody ever blames any of those other occupying countries for the situation they have left the region with. Nobody blames Turks or Arabs for selling their land to Jewish settlers during the first three decades of the last century.

Demanding Israel give back the territory it gained during the Six Day War is akin to kicking a ball through your neighbour's window intentionally and then demanding the neighbour give your ball back. They'll never do it. I wish they would but they won't. Just the same as Hamas will never (despite some watery claims in this forum that they have) recognise Israel or cede an inch.

Once again Egypt, Syria and Jordan went to war with Israel. The Palestinians didn't so they are not giving the land back to those countries. Isreal gave back the Sinai in 1979 when Egypt was by far the most powerful belligerent power in the region against Israel. The Palestinians didn't kick the ball through the Israelis window. If Israel wants any modicum of peace they will have to return most of the land to the Palestinians and the Syrians. Thats a fact. Also it is undeniable that Israel is occupying these lands in contravention of international law. Both sides abiding by international law is the only real prospect for a peaceful outcome. If Israel doesn't want to do this then they can hardly expect peace.

If I had been alive during the Jordanian and Egyptian occupation of the West Bank and Gaza then I would certainly have condemned them. As for the sale of land and land ownership, the amont that the immigrant Jews actually purchased was negligible.



The Jewish population was also pretty small also.

As of 1914, Jews in Palestine (who were mostly persecuted European Jews) were under 8% of the total population and owned under 2% of the total land. Despite active British support for settling of even more persecuted European Jews in Palestine, as of 1947 Jews constituted only 33% of the total population (only one third of them gained Palestinian Citizenship).

Serenity Now! wrote: »

The Israeli govt and Hamas are beyond diplomacy and have been ever since Fatah went to the table. Even a coalition govt with liberal/secular majority members in its ranks. Its obvious that some here do not understand this hence all the one-eyed diatribe about ratios and "but Israel"-rhetoric.
None of this excuses Israel's actions of the last three days but neither should it excuse Hamas for persisting with cross-border rocket attacks.
If you call me an 'apologist' for saying that then I just give up.

I don't think they are beyond diplomacy and apparently neither does Shlomo Ben Ami the former Israeli foreign minister who was involed in the Camp David negotiations.

I think that in my view there is almost sort of poetic justice with this victory of Hamas. After all, what is the reason for this nostalgia for Arafat and for the P.L.O.? Did they run the affairs of the Palestinians in a clean way? You mentioned the corruption, the inefficiency. Of course, Israel has contributed a lot to the disintegration of the Palestinian system, no doubt about it, but their leaders failed them. Their leaders betrayed them, and the victory of Hamas is justice being made in many ways. So we cannot preach democracy and then say that those who won are not accepted by us. Either there is democracy or there is no democracy.

And with these people, I think they are much more pragmatic than is normally perceived. In the 1990s, they invented the concept of a temporary settlement with Israel. 1990s was the first time that Hamas spoke about a temporary settlement with Israel. In 2003, they declared unilaterally a truce, and the reason they declared the truce is this, that with Arafat, whose the system of government was one of divide and rule, they were discarded from the political system. Mahmoud Abbas has integrated them into the political system, and this is what brought them to the truce. They are interested in politicizing themselves, in becoming a politic entity. And we need to try and see ways where we can work with them.

I agree with this statement and believe that Hamas can be pragmatic.

Serenity Now!

Frankie Lee wrote: »

Mainly because they all moved to the Jewish State

oh ffs :rolleyes:
Its okay that Jews left? (they didn't all leave for Israel either, by the way).
Ever thought why Jews have had to keep moving on over the last few centuries?

Ping Chow Chi

Serenity Now! wrote: »

oh ffs :rolleyes:
Its okay that Jews left? (they didn't all leave for Israel either, by the way).
Ever thought why Jews have had to keep moving on over the last few centuries?

Because they where being treated in the same way that the Palestinians are being treated now?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Saint

Boston wrote: »

Hamas wants to destroy the Israeli state and the Israelis arn't playing ball? Trying to summise the reasons for this conflict is counter productive. Ask 100 people you'll get 100 answers all equally valid and invalid.

Nice way to avoid all debate. No ones right, no ones wrong eh? I think if you ask anyone why there is a conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis most logical people would say the occupation.

Boston wrote: »

Key word there is analogy. You can say its like apartheid, you can say its worse then apartheid, but it isn't apartheid. You can't get away from the fact that these people aren't israeli's. If the Israelis where treating Israeli Arabs the way they treat Palestinians, then yes it would be apartheid, but they don't.

You forgot to address this little nugget from the International Criminal Court:

In 2002, a different definition of the crime of apartheid was provided by Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The crime of apartheid was listed as one of several crimes against humanity, and was defined as including inhumane acts such as torture, murder, forcible transfer, imprisonment, or persecution of an identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, or other grounds, "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."[93] This change to defining the crime of apartheid as discrimination on the grounds of national, ethnic or cultural group rather than racial group alone increased the applicability of the law to Israeli policy in the West Bank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/STATUTE/99_corr/2.htm
So it seems your definition of apartheid as needing to be within a state doesn't seem to stand up according to the International Criminal Court.

Serenity Now!

The Saint wrote: »

Once again Egypt, Syria and Jordan went to war with Israel. The Palestinians didn't so they are not giving the land back to those countries. Isreal gave back the Sinai in 1979 when Egypt was by far the most powerful belligerent power in the region against Israel.

The Saint wrote: »

The Palestinians didn't kick the ball through the Israelis window

The Saint wrote: »

If Israel wants any modicum of peace they will have to return most of the land to the Palestinians and the Syrians. Thats a fact

You know there will be a limit and this limit will never be reached in a point of agreement between both sides. Sad but true.
By the way, Syria lost their little bit as a result of losing a war they were quite happy to start. They'll never get a cm back.

The Saint wrote: »

Both sides abiding by international law is the only real prospect for a peaceful outcome. If Israel doesn't want to do this then they can hardly expect peace

Again with the one eyed "but they..." :rolleyes:
It is not only Israel breaking peace agreements.

The Saint wrote: »

As for the sale of land and land ownership, the amont that the immigrant Jews actually purchased was negligible

"Negligible" was it? lol
Why do you think the higher ranks in the British Mandate were given this as a condition by the Arabs (ie. it was to be ceased) when in negotiations for what to do with the region?

The Saint wrote: »

I don't think they are beyond diplomacy and apparently neither does Shlomo Ben Ami the former Israeli foreign minister who was involed in the Camp David negotiations.
I agree with this statement and believe that Hamas can be pragmatic.

Hamas being pragmatic is about as likely as Israel (or any party involved actually) giving up on Jerusalem.

wes

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

From Basic Law- The Knesset -1958- - updated translation:

(1) negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state;

So by asking that the state of Israel be a nation of all its citizens as opposed to being a Jewish state, some can be disqualified from elections. Nothing short of astonishing that asking for equal rights can have you disqualified from standing for election. Hardly equality. Now thats just a single example, but I think it proves my point.

Serenity Now!

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

Because they where being treated in the same way that the Palestinians are being treated now?

Careful with the moral relativism now.
I didn't use one instance to justify any of Israel's policies on Gaza or the West Bank so you can ease off with the sanctimonious diversion there.

The Saint

Frankie Lee wrote: »

Mainly because they all moved to the Jewish State.

Many of the Jews were expelled from these countries in response to the creation of the state of Israel. This is as reprihensible as the expulsion of the indigenous population from Palestine. Ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing.

Ping Chow Chi

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Careful with the moral relativism now.
I didn't use one instance to justify any of Israel's policies on Gaza or the West Bank so you can ease off with the sanctimonious diversion there.

You asked a question, and I had a guess at the answer. If you have a problem with it I suggest you have a word with the mods rather than have a pop at me thankyou.

Boston

The Saint wrote: »

So it seems your definition of apartheid as needing to be within a state doesn't seem to stand up according to the International Criminal Court.

That's your interpretation. The part you quoted which references Israeli was tacted on at the end, and not part of the actual Article

Frankie Lee

The Saint wrote: »

Many of the Jews were expelled from these countries in response to the creation of the state of Israel. This is as reprihensible as the expulsion of the indigenous population from Palestine. Ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing.

Fair enough I see the error of my ways but I just find it a bit ridiculous for your man to point out the drop in population of Jews in arab countries since the start of the 20th century without mentioning the drop in population of european Jews around the same time.

Getting off topic now I know.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Manic Moran

thecornerboy wrote: »

You've ignored my reply in it's entirety. I've made substantial points which have just been completly ignored.

Forgive me, I can't respond to everyone. However, since you asked so nicely, I just went back over all 20-something pages of this thread to find your post to reply to specifically (for that personal touch), only to discover that you have not posted in this thread at all. Indeed, since you only have just over a dozen posts on boards, I've read all your posts in all the fora, just in case you accidently cross-posted to a different thread. Sadly, I have been unable to find anything remotely appropriate to this thread that you have written to reply to.

NTM

The Saint

Serenity Now! wrote: »

You know there will be a limit and this limit will never be reached in a point of agreement between both sides. Sad but true.
By the way, Syria lost their little bit as a result of losing a war they were quite happy to start. They'll never get a cm back.

Well Israel and Syria have previously been in indiect negotiations with each other to resolve the issue up until quite recently.

During US-brokered peace talks in 1999–2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak allegedly offered to withdraw from most of the Golan in return for a comprehensive peace structure and security arrangements. The disagreement in the final stages of the talks was on access to the Sea of Galilee.

According to media reports, the main sticking point was that Syria wanted Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967 line, while Israel wanted to use the 1923 international border. The dispute centers on the place where the old international border lies ten meters to the east of the shore of the Sea of Galilee, completely enclosing it within Israel. The 1967 line gives Damascus control of this northeastern shore.

A bit more than a centimeter. So the disagreement was about access to water resources. So Syria was offering full peace in return for Israel implementing its international legal obligations. Sounds fair but Israel wanted complete control over one of the largest water resources in the region.

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Again with the one eyed "but they..." :rolleyes:
It is not only Israel breaking peace agreements.

Nope, I never said that. Both side are in contravention of the Geneva Conventions.

Serenity Now! wrote: »

"Negligible" was it? lol
Why do you think the higher ranks in the British Mandate were given this as a condition by the Arabs (ie. it was to be ceased) when in negotiations for what to do with the region?

Well I've provided the evidence. Not quite sure what you're trying to say here anyway.

Hamas being pragmatic is about as likely as Israel (or any party involved actually) giving up on Jerusalem.[/QUOTE]

I'm going to agree with the former Israeli foreign minister and renouned historian on this one if you don't mind.

The Saint

Boston wrote: »

That's your interpretation. The part you quoted which references Israeli was tacted on at the end, and not part of the actual Article

(h) "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;

1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a) Murder;

(b) Extermination;

(c) Enslavement;

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

(f) Torture;

(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;

(j) The crime of apartheid;

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/STATUTE/99_corr/2.htm
Care to tell me how you might interpret otherwise in regard to the occupied territories? There is no restriction that this needs to take place within a single state.

The Saint

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Fair enough. Maybe I'll just start talking about the price of tea in China.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dudess

I believe you're saying the murder of over 300 civilians is justifiable.

dresden8

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Indeed, a lot of people are going to be severely disappointed with Obama.

He has a long way to fall.

Manic Moran

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In fairness, he should. Bush is still President for now. It's bad form to undermine the boss, and I'm sure when it's his turn in four or eight year he'll expect the same courtesy from his replacement.

NTM

wes

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nonsense, I quote an Israeli law mate. The law says Israel is a Jewish state, not me. I just point it out.

Also, other states having a official religion doesn't change Israel laws for a second or justify them in anyway. You made a claim and I showed you a Israeli law, that says otherwise. Insisting that you are correct, when Israel own laws say they are a Jewish state and anyone who wants it to be a state of all its citizen can't stand for election. This is what there own laws states and not me.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

More nonsense. The actions of other state have nothing to do with Israel.

Israel is not a democratic state, the law I pointed out tells a different story, which you ignore for some odd reason. The law state Israel is a Jewish state and democratic. How thats possible, is beyond me. You can't be a state for one ethnic/religious group and be a democracy, this goes for Israel and a lot of its neighbors.

So you can ignore Israels own laws all you want, but they prove me right.

**EDIT**
Oh and Israel Prime Ministers seems to be aware of the discrimination you are ignoring:

Fron Haaretz:

Olmert: Israeli Arabs have long suffered discrimination

By Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondent

Tags: Ehud Olmert, Israel News

Outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Sunday said that Israel's Arab population has long faced discrimination and urged an improvement in relations between all the country's citizens.

"There is no doubt that for many years there has been discrimination against the Arab population that stemmed from various reasons," Olmert told a group of Israeli Arab leaders.

Click here for the rest

Of course the sad thing is that the only reason he can say this is that he is a lame duck, who is not going for re-election.