Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Israeli Knesset Members & Pundits Continue to Push Transfer of ALL Palestinians!
The idea of a removal of Arabs - voluntary or otherwise - is almost as old as Zionism itself. Below is the Molodet Party's "Peace Plan" and following that a recent op-ed piece published in the Israeli National News proposing transfer "done gradually" to solve the "Palestinian demographic problem"(Israeli Mein Kampf)
http://www.moledet.org.il/english/index.html
A seven Part Comprehensive Plan
Toward Peace In The Middle East
1. Government Decision: declaring the Palestinian Authority an Enemy.
2. Military Action: Destroy Terror infrastructure by removing all terrorists, weapons and bomb factories from Judea, Samaria & Gaza.
3. Nullify the Oslo Accords and dismantle the Palestinian Authority.
4. Following the cessation of hostilities, negotiations will commence under international auspices to solve the refugee problem through their relocation to Arab countries and the dismantling of refugee camps.
5. Acceptance of two countries for two people on two sides of the Jordan:
the Jordanian – Palestinian state with Amman as its capital, and the Jewish state with Jerusalem as its capital.
6. Arabs remaining in Judea, Samaria & Gaza
become citizens of the Jordanian – Palestinian state.
Arab Palestinians holding Israeli Citizenship will be offered alternate citizenship in the Jordanian Palestinian state.
7. If the Arabs of Judea, Samaria & Gaza breach the terms of this plan, they will be expelled to their state on the other side of the Jordan River
http://www.arutzsheva.org/article.php3?id=2173
Arlene Peck
11 April
I’m too young to be a political pundit, but the fact is that for more years than I care to remember, the thought of transfer - the movement of the Arab population of Israel from their homes to Arab countries - has been criticized as irrational, immoral and impossible to implement. However, after the past two years of living through the horror of sometimes-daily terror attacks, almost fifty percent of the Israeli public supports transfer in some form.
Despite that fact, the only party advocating transfer - in the form of a population exchange - in the Knesset is Moledet. But with only two representatives in the Knesset, they are continuously held back by the political system. Since transfer has gained so much support among the Israeli public, it is unconscionable that the politicians do not reflect that position. Unfortunately, the people’s voice is drowned out by the Israeli political system. A system that, so far, refuses to accept the fact that transfer would eliminate the Arab demographic threat to Israel.
I remember having long dialogues with Rabbi Meir Kahane twenty-five years ago. At that time, he prophesied to me, “At the rate that the Arabs are populating the Jewish state, they won’t beat us with bullets. No, they’ll beat us with ballots. Who but the Jews would put the enemy in power to vote them out? The average Israeli will have two children while the Arabs populate with a dozen.”
Today it is easier to see that transfer would solve that problem immediately: and the Jewish state would no longer have to concern itself with the Arab population doubling itself every sixteen years. At this point in time, the 22 Arab states have 289 million people and their numbers are soaring worldwide daily. By the year 2020, they will have 410 to 459 million. Even now, they are growing up violent and illiterate and taking over much of Europe. Today, so many of the European countries are finding their cultures changed, and churches are being removed and mosques being built in their places.
Do you really think that the Arabs, who walked away from 97% of everything on their ‘wish list’ during the misguided leadership of Ehud Barak, would be satisfied with the land they’ve received from Gaza, Judea and Samaria? Pu-lease. The present day Arab considers the entire state of Israel as “historically Palestinian.” It is interesting how the world sees nothing wrong with uprooting over a quarter of a million people from lands that they have been residing in for almost forty years. Where do they think the Jews living in the ‘settlements’ come from? Did they drop out of a pineapple tree? What about making it possible to have all the Jewish residents of Israel return to the countries they were chased out of? Will any of the Arab countries allow a ´return´ of Jews to claim their property? If the despots in Iraq, Saudi Arabia or any of the surrounding Arabs states had not been keeping the Palestinians as an excuse for their efforts to destroy the Jewish state, they would have resettled their Arab brothers fifty years ago. Instead, they have allowed the Palestinians to grow up for generations in the filth of the ‘Palestinian dream’.
Knowing the Jewish mentality as I do, I am confident that Israel would be the first one to assist in building a Palestinian state on Arab land, helping their neighbors in in terms of agriculture, finance, industry and trade and all the other trappings of statehood. Whereas, if the situation was reversed, the Arabs wouldn’t be happy until every Jew was dead and all of their historical sites renamed after Mohammed.
Despite the claims to the contrary by virtually all of the Arab states, the religious and historical ties of the Jews to their land is basic to their history. Unfortunately, too many have lost their roots and are uncaring or unaware of the actual ‘rights’ to the land. Yasser Arafat and his ilk have been spouting the ‘big lie’ for so long that there has to be an education policy to remind the world, and even the Israelis, of their ownership and birthright.
I don’t blame the ‘Palestinian’ Arabs for wanting to leave the oppression by their own people and move to a place that offers a life they have never had, nor could ever have. A recent report cited figures that show that out of the seven key regions of the world, the Arab region has the lowest freedom score. They are at the bottom of the barrel in political rights, civil liberties, and press and religious freedom. There are no press freedoms. There is no government accountability. Most of the women and a large chunk of the males are totally illiterate. Good Lord, the whole Arab world translates only about three hundred books annually; and their Internet connectivity is just about nil. The Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza need to move out to be among their own people. Maybe a couple of generations of learning about freedom, and democracy, as well as a few generations learning to give up the anti-Jewish hate that they’ve spent the past fifty-four years acquiring, will help them dig out of the hole in which they now find themselves.
That could make a difference. Meanwhile, the answer isn’t in opening the floodgates and setting up statehood for the enemy within the gates of the Jewish state. Sure, the logistics of transfer are difficult. However, it has been done within the Arab communities many times. That’s the way the Palestinians got to where they are in the first place. They were expelled by their brothers in Jordan. I believe that Israel is in a fight for its life; it is a battle that they can’t afford to lose.
Transfer can be done gradually. Each time Hamas or any other of the state-sponsored terrorist groups attack, announcing they will “Kill all of the Jews”, each time a terrorist bombs a restaurant, disco or school, Israel will announce it is annexing ten percent of the land it has previously handed over... and then do it.
--------------------------------------------------------
Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and television talk show hostess. She can be reached at bestredhead [at] earthlink.net.
http://www.arutzsheva.org/article.php3?id=2173
A seven Part Comprehensive Plan
Toward Peace In The Middle East
1. Government Decision: declaring the Palestinian Authority an Enemy.
2. Military Action: Destroy Terror infrastructure by removing all terrorists, weapons and bomb factories from Judea, Samaria & Gaza.
3. Nullify the Oslo Accords and dismantle the Palestinian Authority.
4. Following the cessation of hostilities, negotiations will commence under international auspices to solve the refugee problem through their relocation to Arab countries and the dismantling of refugee camps.
5. Acceptance of two countries for two people on two sides of the Jordan:
the Jordanian – Palestinian state with Amman as its capital, and the Jewish state with Jerusalem as its capital.
6. Arabs remaining in Judea, Samaria & Gaza
become citizens of the Jordanian – Palestinian state.
Arab Palestinians holding Israeli Citizenship will be offered alternate citizenship in the Jordanian Palestinian state.
7. If the Arabs of Judea, Samaria & Gaza breach the terms of this plan, they will be expelled to their state on the other side of the Jordan River
http://www.arutzsheva.org/article.php3?id=2173
Arlene Peck
11 April
I’m too young to be a political pundit, but the fact is that for more years than I care to remember, the thought of transfer - the movement of the Arab population of Israel from their homes to Arab countries - has been criticized as irrational, immoral and impossible to implement. However, after the past two years of living through the horror of sometimes-daily terror attacks, almost fifty percent of the Israeli public supports transfer in some form.
Despite that fact, the only party advocating transfer - in the form of a population exchange - in the Knesset is Moledet. But with only two representatives in the Knesset, they are continuously held back by the political system. Since transfer has gained so much support among the Israeli public, it is unconscionable that the politicians do not reflect that position. Unfortunately, the people’s voice is drowned out by the Israeli political system. A system that, so far, refuses to accept the fact that transfer would eliminate the Arab demographic threat to Israel.
I remember having long dialogues with Rabbi Meir Kahane twenty-five years ago. At that time, he prophesied to me, “At the rate that the Arabs are populating the Jewish state, they won’t beat us with bullets. No, they’ll beat us with ballots. Who but the Jews would put the enemy in power to vote them out? The average Israeli will have two children while the Arabs populate with a dozen.”
Today it is easier to see that transfer would solve that problem immediately: and the Jewish state would no longer have to concern itself with the Arab population doubling itself every sixteen years. At this point in time, the 22 Arab states have 289 million people and their numbers are soaring worldwide daily. By the year 2020, they will have 410 to 459 million. Even now, they are growing up violent and illiterate and taking over much of Europe. Today, so many of the European countries are finding their cultures changed, and churches are being removed and mosques being built in their places.
Do you really think that the Arabs, who walked away from 97% of everything on their ‘wish list’ during the misguided leadership of Ehud Barak, would be satisfied with the land they’ve received from Gaza, Judea and Samaria? Pu-lease. The present day Arab considers the entire state of Israel as “historically Palestinian.” It is interesting how the world sees nothing wrong with uprooting over a quarter of a million people from lands that they have been residing in for almost forty years. Where do they think the Jews living in the ‘settlements’ come from? Did they drop out of a pineapple tree? What about making it possible to have all the Jewish residents of Israel return to the countries they were chased out of? Will any of the Arab countries allow a ´return´ of Jews to claim their property? If the despots in Iraq, Saudi Arabia or any of the surrounding Arabs states had not been keeping the Palestinians as an excuse for their efforts to destroy the Jewish state, they would have resettled their Arab brothers fifty years ago. Instead, they have allowed the Palestinians to grow up for generations in the filth of the ‘Palestinian dream’.
Knowing the Jewish mentality as I do, I am confident that Israel would be the first one to assist in building a Palestinian state on Arab land, helping their neighbors in in terms of agriculture, finance, industry and trade and all the other trappings of statehood. Whereas, if the situation was reversed, the Arabs wouldn’t be happy until every Jew was dead and all of their historical sites renamed after Mohammed.
Despite the claims to the contrary by virtually all of the Arab states, the religious and historical ties of the Jews to their land is basic to their history. Unfortunately, too many have lost their roots and are uncaring or unaware of the actual ‘rights’ to the land. Yasser Arafat and his ilk have been spouting the ‘big lie’ for so long that there has to be an education policy to remind the world, and even the Israelis, of their ownership and birthright.
I don’t blame the ‘Palestinian’ Arabs for wanting to leave the oppression by their own people and move to a place that offers a life they have never had, nor could ever have. A recent report cited figures that show that out of the seven key regions of the world, the Arab region has the lowest freedom score. They are at the bottom of the barrel in political rights, civil liberties, and press and religious freedom. There are no press freedoms. There is no government accountability. Most of the women and a large chunk of the males are totally illiterate. Good Lord, the whole Arab world translates only about three hundred books annually; and their Internet connectivity is just about nil. The Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza need to move out to be among their own people. Maybe a couple of generations of learning about freedom, and democracy, as well as a few generations learning to give up the anti-Jewish hate that they’ve spent the past fifty-four years acquiring, will help them dig out of the hole in which they now find themselves.
That could make a difference. Meanwhile, the answer isn’t in opening the floodgates and setting up statehood for the enemy within the gates of the Jewish state. Sure, the logistics of transfer are difficult. However, it has been done within the Arab communities many times. That’s the way the Palestinians got to where they are in the first place. They were expelled by their brothers in Jordan. I believe that Israel is in a fight for its life; it is a battle that they can’t afford to lose.
Transfer can be done gradually. Each time Hamas or any other of the state-sponsored terrorist groups attack, announcing they will “Kill all of the Jews”, each time a terrorist bombs a restaurant, disco or school, Israel will announce it is annexing ten percent of the land it has previously handed over... and then do it.
--------------------------------------------------------
Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and television talk show hostess. She can be reached at bestredhead [at] earthlink.net.
http://www.arutzsheva.org/article.php3?id=2173
For more information:
http://www.moledet.org.il/english/index.html
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is well documented. It has been going on since 1948 and continues to this day.
For starters you could read what excellent US author, Edward S. Herman, has to say on the topic. Facts and figures, combined with undeniable research, does not lie.
Or perhaps it's easier to hurl abuse at anyone who mentions this ongoing war crime.
For starters you could read what excellent US author, Edward S. Herman, has to say on the topic. Facts and figures, combined with undeniable research, does not lie.
Or perhaps it's easier to hurl abuse at anyone who mentions this ongoing war crime.
<<< The premise of this "article" is idiotic, ignorant, and not true. Since the birth of Israel, Israeli citizens of every religion can vote and work and do whatever. >>>
Not quite. Non-Jewish citizens are restricted in where they can live. They get fewer educational benefits. In employment, they are for the most part restricted to the bottom level jobs. For instance in the high tech industry, with 70 thousand jobs in 2000, less than 400 of them were occupied by non-jews.
<<< There are muslims in the Israeli government. >>>
But the only members of the Knesset who have been ever been charged for statements they made have been non-Jews (e.g. Azmi Bishara, a Christian Arab Israeli).
<<< Arab countries are the ones that either make it illegal to be jewish at all, or kicked out literall 99% or 100% of their jews. In Saudia Arabia, it's illegal for a citizen to be jewish. >>>
All this proves is that the human rights situation in Isael is better than Saudi Arabia. But it still falls short of Europe, the U.S. or the rest of the Western world that Israel claims to be part of.
<<< In Israel, there are non-jews in the actual government. >>>
But never in the cabinet.
Not quite. Non-Jewish citizens are restricted in where they can live. They get fewer educational benefits. In employment, they are for the most part restricted to the bottom level jobs. For instance in the high tech industry, with 70 thousand jobs in 2000, less than 400 of them were occupied by non-jews.
<<< There are muslims in the Israeli government. >>>
But the only members of the Knesset who have been ever been charged for statements they made have been non-Jews (e.g. Azmi Bishara, a Christian Arab Israeli).
<<< Arab countries are the ones that either make it illegal to be jewish at all, or kicked out literall 99% or 100% of their jews. In Saudia Arabia, it's illegal for a citizen to be jewish. >>>
All this proves is that the human rights situation in Isael is better than Saudi Arabia. But it still falls short of Europe, the U.S. or the rest of the Western world that Israel claims to be part of.
<<< In Israel, there are non-jews in the actual government. >>>
But never in the cabinet.
First things first then
You should spend mroe words complaining about saudi arabia than Israel then.
I could spend all day complaining about how holland and Finland dont have perfect human rights records after fishing through their records with a fine tooth comb but it would make more sense to critisize zimbabwae
You should spend mroe words complaining about saudi arabia than Israel then.
I could spend all day complaining about how holland and Finland dont have perfect human rights records after fishing through their records with a fine tooth comb but it would make more sense to critisize zimbabwae
Western european countries are not dealing with neighbors who have sworn to destroy them and have organizations that spend day after day trying to pull off terrorist attacks.
If Mexico had no proper government, and mexican terrorist organizations spent day after day coming into america, killing american civilians, and leaving, declaring that they will never stop until the "occupation of texas" ends, how do you think the american government would respond? How should they respond? How do you think they would respond if native americans (american indians) started doing that?
The arab world generally supports the lunatics who intentionally kill innocent jewish israelis. Palestinians have yet to figure out that attacking israel only makes israel respond by clamping down harder on palestinians. Palestinians had the 1990's to get their act together and cut out the nonsense, and they failed. They are maintaining an ongoing intifada against Israel, an intifada that began BEFORE ariel sharon was elected into office. Palesitnians wanted to fight. So, ariel sharon was elected into office, and they got what they asked for. They're just lucky ariel sharon doesn't want to kill massive amounts of palestinians, or else he'd be lobbing giant bombs in and killing them by the thousands until they agreed to stop being terrorist lunatic assholes.
But, it figures that in the two sides of this (the side that wants israel to continue to exist, and the side that wants israel to die), you side with the latter.
Because the middle ground on the israeli side just want the former, but the middle ground on the palestinian side want the latter (thus, they side with hamas).
By starting the idiotic, self-destructive intifada, palestinians have made things worse for themselves.
If Mexico had no proper government, and mexican terrorist organizations spent day after day coming into america, killing american civilians, and leaving, declaring that they will never stop until the "occupation of texas" ends, how do you think the american government would respond? How should they respond? How do you think they would respond if native americans (american indians) started doing that?
The arab world generally supports the lunatics who intentionally kill innocent jewish israelis. Palestinians have yet to figure out that attacking israel only makes israel respond by clamping down harder on palestinians. Palestinians had the 1990's to get their act together and cut out the nonsense, and they failed. They are maintaining an ongoing intifada against Israel, an intifada that began BEFORE ariel sharon was elected into office. Palesitnians wanted to fight. So, ariel sharon was elected into office, and they got what they asked for. They're just lucky ariel sharon doesn't want to kill massive amounts of palestinians, or else he'd be lobbing giant bombs in and killing them by the thousands until they agreed to stop being terrorist lunatic assholes.
But, it figures that in the two sides of this (the side that wants israel to continue to exist, and the side that wants israel to die), you side with the latter.
Because the middle ground on the israeli side just want the former, but the middle ground on the palestinian side want the latter (thus, they side with hamas).
By starting the idiotic, self-destructive intifada, palestinians have made things worse for themselves.
fantasy world is just fantasy world.
the palestinian problem is israeli made (zionism). the resistence of palestinians against israel is the same from us citizens against any invading country, should this be mexico or canada.
the continuation of the problem is the IDF. they are bulldozing their homes, destroy human lives: from children to women and old people (i may ask: are they all terrorists). more repression more resistance.
the palestinian problem is israeli made (zionism). the resistence of palestinians against israel is the same from us citizens against any invading country, should this be mexico or canada.
the continuation of the problem is the IDF. they are bulldozing their homes, destroy human lives: from children to women and old people (i may ask: are they all terrorists). more repression more resistance.
<<< Western european countries are not dealing with neighbors who have sworn to destroy them and have organizations that spend day after day trying to pull off terrorist attacks. >>>
No western European country has 3.5 million people within its boundaries who it refuses to either accept as full-fledged citizens or allows to form an autonomous area or state where they dwell. 3.5 million people in the West Bank and Gaza amounts to one third of the entire population within Israel and the Occupied Territories. No western European country makes daily incursions with tanks and air support into residential areas within territory it occupies. No European country keeps one-third of the population witthin its territory under continuous 24-hour curfew, at least not since the 3rd Reich occupied the rest of Europe.
It should be noted that the German occupiers of Belgium, Norway, Holland and France called resistance fighters terrorists.
Only a small minority of Palestinians swear to destroy Israel. Most just want peace, security and freedom in their own homes and land.
You neglect to mention that many Israelis are against Palestinians having any of their land and many claim there is no such thing as a Palestinian.
No western European country has 3.5 million people within its boundaries who it refuses to either accept as full-fledged citizens or allows to form an autonomous area or state where they dwell. 3.5 million people in the West Bank and Gaza amounts to one third of the entire population within Israel and the Occupied Territories. No western European country makes daily incursions with tanks and air support into residential areas within territory it occupies. No European country keeps one-third of the population witthin its territory under continuous 24-hour curfew, at least not since the 3rd Reich occupied the rest of Europe.
It should be noted that the German occupiers of Belgium, Norway, Holland and France called resistance fighters terrorists.
Only a small minority of Palestinians swear to destroy Israel. Most just want peace, security and freedom in their own homes and land.
You neglect to mention that many Israelis are against Palestinians having any of their land and many claim there is no such thing as a Palestinian.
The solution to the german occupation of those countries was WWII and the deaths of millions of soldiers as well as indirect deaths of millions of others. The "terrorists" / "resistance" tactically chose that path as part of the free world choice of that path. They decided that human rights were not an issue and that stoping hitler was NO.1. priority at any cost.
this was not a moral decision as such it was a strategic one made by resistance fighters out of desperation.
I suggest it is a terrible mistake to choose that path in the case of israel. because they will loose and their is another route known as "not killing the jews".
Anyway they do not have that sort of a justification (even if that justification was ever valid moraly speaking). Israel is not NAZI germany.
this was not a moral decision as such it was a strategic one made by resistance fighters out of desperation.
I suggest it is a terrible mistake to choose that path in the case of israel. because they will loose and their is another route known as "not killing the jews".
Anyway they do not have that sort of a justification (even if that justification was ever valid moraly speaking). Israel is not NAZI germany.
<<< I suggest it is a terrible mistake to choose that path in the case of israel. because they will loose and their is another route known as "not killing the jews".
Anyway they do not have that sort of a justification (even if that justification was ever valid moraly speaking). Israel is not NAZI germany. >>>
I would agree that killing of Israeli civilians is wrong and that Palestinians should not have done it and should stop doing it. But even though Israel is not Hitler's Germany, its actions are having a significant effect on the lives and future of Palestinians.
I think you are failing to see the Palestinian situation from the viewpoint of the the Palestinians themselves. The have witnessed and experienced a mass of foreigners move into their country and claim it for their own. The "foreigners" have resorted to force and violence to take over the land when they could not attain it peacefully.
So far, there is very little indication that Israelis respect the claim of Palestinians, which is at least equal too there own, to the land of Palestine. To many Israelis, the Palestinian claim is invalid.
The Israelis are not willing to agree to a just settlement peacefully, (They never agreed to turn over the whole of the West Bank and Gaza despite what Barak said he did.) and are using force to keep their hold on the land. If the Israelis can use force to enforce their claim, shouldn't the Palestinians have a right to use force too?
Anyway they do not have that sort of a justification (even if that justification was ever valid moraly speaking). Israel is not NAZI germany. >>>
I would agree that killing of Israeli civilians is wrong and that Palestinians should not have done it and should stop doing it. But even though Israel is not Hitler's Germany, its actions are having a significant effect on the lives and future of Palestinians.
I think you are failing to see the Palestinian situation from the viewpoint of the the Palestinians themselves. The have witnessed and experienced a mass of foreigners move into their country and claim it for their own. The "foreigners" have resorted to force and violence to take over the land when they could not attain it peacefully.
So far, there is very little indication that Israelis respect the claim of Palestinians, which is at least equal too there own, to the land of Palestine. To many Israelis, the Palestinian claim is invalid.
The Israelis are not willing to agree to a just settlement peacefully, (They never agreed to turn over the whole of the West Bank and Gaza despite what Barak said he did.) and are using force to keep their hold on the land. If the Israelis can use force to enforce their claim, shouldn't the Palestinians have a right to use force too?
- While they may have tried War criminals after WWII you will noitice they did not thow every soldier in jail. It was therefore not proper punishment or justice it was a show trial to help justify the war after the fact.
It just wasnt practical to go for a goal of fair "justice" or "punishment"
I think you are failing to see the Palestinian situation from the viewpoint of the the Palestinians themselves.
- I can see why charles manson kiled people. I can see why hitler wanted to kill the jews. I also Dont think that means I have to agree with either of them.
So far, there is very little indication that Israelis respect the claim of Palestinians, which is at least equal too there own, to the land of Palestine. To many Israelis, the Palestinian claim is invalid.
- I dont think a race can own land so therefore the israelis claim is invalid also.What we do about it is a matter of practicality.
The Israelis are not willing to agree to a just settlement peacefully, (They never agreed to turn over the whole of the West Bank and Gaza despite what Barak said he did.)
- the issue is not land the issue is right of return. If you allow right of return land is irrelevant. the two parties are not illogical they just have critical differences in their objectives and also an interest in emphasising different things as the "real cause" of failure.
and are using force to keep their hold on the land. If the Israelis can use force to enforce their claim, shouldn't the Palestinians have a right to use force too?
Israel either have the right to use force (If so then they will win --- if it takes more than a few days they are playing nice) or they dont (in which case we can go for a negotiated solution).
It just wasnt practical to go for a goal of fair "justice" or "punishment"
I think you are failing to see the Palestinian situation from the viewpoint of the the Palestinians themselves.
- I can see why charles manson kiled people. I can see why hitler wanted to kill the jews. I also Dont think that means I have to agree with either of them.
So far, there is very little indication that Israelis respect the claim of Palestinians, which is at least equal too there own, to the land of Palestine. To many Israelis, the Palestinian claim is invalid.
- I dont think a race can own land so therefore the israelis claim is invalid also.What we do about it is a matter of practicality.
The Israelis are not willing to agree to a just settlement peacefully, (They never agreed to turn over the whole of the West Bank and Gaza despite what Barak said he did.)
- the issue is not land the issue is right of return. If you allow right of return land is irrelevant. the two parties are not illogical they just have critical differences in their objectives and also an interest in emphasising different things as the "real cause" of failure.
and are using force to keep their hold on the land. If the Israelis can use force to enforce their claim, shouldn't the Palestinians have a right to use force too?
Israel either have the right to use force (If so then they will win --- if it takes more than a few days they are playing nice) or they dont (in which case we can go for a negotiated solution).
<<<< I think you are failing to see the Palestinian situation from the viewpoint of the the Palestinians themselves.
- I can see why charles manson kiled people. I can see why hitler wanted to kill the jews. I also Dont think that means I have to agree with either of them.
>>>>
I don't think you got the point. It is not a matter of seeing the situation through the eyes of some violent fanatic individual. I'm sure you would agree that we should not look at the Israeli situations through the eyes of a Baruch Goldberg or Meier Kahane, or even throught the eyes of a David Horowitz or Richard Perle. There are 3.5 million Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, and another 1.5 million in a Diaspora. Would you call them Charles Mansons or Adolf Hitler's for the crime of aspiring to return to the homes their families were forced to leave, or even to live in a West Bank and Gaza free of Jewish settlements with no occupying army with full control of the land, water resources etc.
It should be noted that the wall that Israel is building in the northern West Bank, five miles inside the Green line, puts on the Israeli side, a large portion of the best agricultural land in the West Bank, could there be something more than security that is driving this endeavor?
- I can see why charles manson kiled people. I can see why hitler wanted to kill the jews. I also Dont think that means I have to agree with either of them.
>>>>
I don't think you got the point. It is not a matter of seeing the situation through the eyes of some violent fanatic individual. I'm sure you would agree that we should not look at the Israeli situations through the eyes of a Baruch Goldberg or Meier Kahane, or even throught the eyes of a David Horowitz or Richard Perle. There are 3.5 million Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, and another 1.5 million in a Diaspora. Would you call them Charles Mansons or Adolf Hitler's for the crime of aspiring to return to the homes their families were forced to leave, or even to live in a West Bank and Gaza free of Jewish settlements with no occupying army with full control of the land, water resources etc.
It should be noted that the wall that Israel is building in the northern West Bank, five miles inside the Green line, puts on the Israeli side, a large portion of the best agricultural land in the West Bank, could there be something more than security that is driving this endeavor?
Do you equate Palestinians with Manson?
Hmm some of the hamas members I think are fairly equivalent.
But my point is that no one is irrational given their experiences since their experiences shape who they are. If "I understand why you did that" is an excuse for comitting a crime then "real" criminals are just people who we are not smart enough to understand - this is obviously a useless definition.
Criminals are just those people that on the whole society must protect itself from.
I am sure the Israelis would like to maintain some good land and some areas that are occupied by settlers. Im sure the palistinians would also like that land. As long as we are just talking about a dispute over exactly where the boarders are we dont have an unsolvable problem. The problem is I dont think that is the issue. I think we all more or less agree on what the final boarders should be. the problem is that the israelis want security and the PLO dont think they can offer it (some hard core members would consider that trechery) and the palistinians want right of return (and therefore israel as a arab state) and the israelis dont think they can offer that.
Hmm some of the hamas members I think are fairly equivalent.
But my point is that no one is irrational given their experiences since their experiences shape who they are. If "I understand why you did that" is an excuse for comitting a crime then "real" criminals are just people who we are not smart enough to understand - this is obviously a useless definition.
Criminals are just those people that on the whole society must protect itself from.
I am sure the Israelis would like to maintain some good land and some areas that are occupied by settlers. Im sure the palistinians would also like that land. As long as we are just talking about a dispute over exactly where the boarders are we dont have an unsolvable problem. The problem is I dont think that is the issue. I think we all more or less agree on what the final boarders should be. the problem is that the israelis want security and the PLO dont think they can offer it (some hard core members would consider that trechery) and the palistinians want right of return (and therefore israel as a arab state) and the israelis dont think they can offer that.
<<< Do you equate Palestinians with Manson?
Hmm some of the hamas members I think are fairly equivalent. >>>
You seem to want to evade the point that it is the viewpoint of the 3.5 million ordinary Palestinians in the Occupied territories that I am speaking about. You seem to want to judge all Palestinians based on the actions of a very small minority while totally ignoring the actions of Israelis (communal) that abuse the rights of Palestinians.
You say that it is not a matter of the land and yet the primary point that Sharon refuses to accept in the "Roadmap to Peace" is a freeze (not even a rollback) on the building of settlements.
Many Israelis are against giving up any significant portion of the Occupied territories. The Jerusalem Post calls them the "disputed territories" as if the Palestinian claim to them is being disputed. Many Israelis make it absolutely clear that they are part of what they view as historical Israel, the West Bank,. Samaria and Judea rather than using current names.
The fact is that it is a matter of the land. Israelis have, for 35 years, refused to make any significant moves toward ending the occupation. Instead, by establishing a systems of settlements, they have increased their hold and control over the territories - and that at the expense of the native inhabitants.
It is to be noted that the number of Israeli civilians killed in Israel by Palestinian militants from the West Bank and Gaza between 1957 and 1967 was 35. Now Israel has full control of the West Bank and Gaza and has steadily absorbed them - at the expense of the Palestinians living there. That is why there is more killing and more violence.
Hmm some of the hamas members I think are fairly equivalent. >>>
You seem to want to evade the point that it is the viewpoint of the 3.5 million ordinary Palestinians in the Occupied territories that I am speaking about. You seem to want to judge all Palestinians based on the actions of a very small minority while totally ignoring the actions of Israelis (communal) that abuse the rights of Palestinians.
You say that it is not a matter of the land and yet the primary point that Sharon refuses to accept in the "Roadmap to Peace" is a freeze (not even a rollback) on the building of settlements.
Many Israelis are against giving up any significant portion of the Occupied territories. The Jerusalem Post calls them the "disputed territories" as if the Palestinian claim to them is being disputed. Many Israelis make it absolutely clear that they are part of what they view as historical Israel, the West Bank,. Samaria and Judea rather than using current names.
The fact is that it is a matter of the land. Israelis have, for 35 years, refused to make any significant moves toward ending the occupation. Instead, by establishing a systems of settlements, they have increased their hold and control over the territories - and that at the expense of the native inhabitants.
It is to be noted that the number of Israeli civilians killed in Israel by Palestinian militants from the West Bank and Gaza between 1957 and 1967 was 35. Now Israel has full control of the West Bank and Gaza and has steadily absorbed them - at the expense of the Palestinians living there. That is why there is more killing and more violence.
"You seem to want to judge all Palestinians based on the actions of a very small minority..."
This "very small minority" of which you speak has the full blessing of the Palestinian leadership. Not to mention the parents of the "very small minority" who strap explosives to themselves and kill children.
This "very small minority" of which you speak has the full blessing of the Palestinian leadership. Not to mention the parents of the "very small minority" who strap explosives to themselves and kill children.
The so-called "Palestinian leadership" is a very small minority of the Palestinians. It by no means leads all of them, or even a majority.
...the fact that 80% of Palestinians support suicide bombings?
>80%
Says who?
>support
What's that mean?
Says who?
>support
What's that mean?
"Asked whether they would support suicide attacks if Israel continues a policy of closure of the Palestinian territories, targeted killings of suspected Palestinian militants and shelling of Palestinian areas, 81.1 percent of respondents said they would, while 10.3 percent would not.
If the Israeli measures cease, 54.8 percent said they would still favor suicide bombings, while 26.7 would oppose them.
The survey was conducted by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, based in the West Bank, was taken Aug. 8-13. The poll had a margin of error of 3 percentage points."
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA017HDYQC.html
"Majority of Palestinians still support suicide attacks
Support among Palestinians for bombings inside Israel has fallen although a majority still backs such attacks, a public opinion poll showed Tuesday.
Support for bombings inside Israel fell to 52 percent from 58 percent in December.
But 86 percent of the 1,317 adults polled in the West Bank and Gaza Strip opposed arresting those behind such attacks, while 67 percent, up from 61 percent in December, believed that armed action was more effective than negotiations."
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=166535&contrassID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0
They'd rather kill Jews than have peace.
If the Israeli measures cease, 54.8 percent said they would still favor suicide bombings, while 26.7 would oppose them.
The survey was conducted by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, based in the West Bank, was taken Aug. 8-13. The poll had a margin of error of 3 percentage points."
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA017HDYQC.html
"Majority of Palestinians still support suicide attacks
Support among Palestinians for bombings inside Israel has fallen although a majority still backs such attacks, a public opinion poll showed Tuesday.
Support for bombings inside Israel fell to 52 percent from 58 percent in December.
But 86 percent of the 1,317 adults polled in the West Bank and Gaza Strip opposed arresting those behind such attacks, while 67 percent, up from 61 percent in December, believed that armed action was more effective than negotiations."
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=166535&contrassID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0
They'd rather kill Jews than have peace.
Actually, they'd rather kill israelis AND lice under Israel's thumb than NOT to kill israelis AND not live under Israel's thumb
No one wants to live under Israel's thumb, ever, for any reason. No one wants to live under anyone's thumb.
If you were a Palestinian, you'd hate Israelis, too. Israelis have been mistreating Palestinians for longer than most Palestinians have been alive. They respond to Israeli oppression exactly the same way the Warsaw Ghetto Jews responded to Nazi oppression. They fight back with every means available. You would, too. So would anybody else with a spine who had to live the way Israelis force Palestinians to live. Israel is a racist, theocratic, apartheid, aggressor, rogue state, and an embarrassment to righteous Jews everywhere. It deserves NO sympathy. What ever ill befalls it, it brought upon itself by acting like the Third Reich. Screw Israel and screw its supporters, both Christian and Jew.
If you were a Palestinian, you'd hate Israelis, too. Israelis have been mistreating Palestinians for longer than most Palestinians have been alive. They respond to Israeli oppression exactly the same way the Warsaw Ghetto Jews responded to Nazi oppression. They fight back with every means available. You would, too. So would anybody else with a spine who had to live the way Israelis force Palestinians to live. Israel is a racist, theocratic, apartheid, aggressor, rogue state, and an embarrassment to righteous Jews everywhere. It deserves NO sympathy. What ever ill befalls it, it brought upon itself by acting like the Third Reich. Screw Israel and screw its supporters, both Christian and Jew.
Israel needs to be insulted. It's a blot on human history and an embarrassment to righteous Jews everywhere.
When Israel puts 6 million people into ovens, you may have a comparison. Until then, you show your contempt for human life and insult the memory of everyone who died under the Nazis, and the 50 million who died worldwide fighting them.
<<< Why is Jordan not enough? Why is a second state of Palestine needed? Why does Jordan escape condemnation when some of its histories are similar to Israel's, while the Independent Media obsesses about the dismantling of the Jewish state, harping on every crime and criticism, real and fabricated? >>>
Why, when the vast majority of people living in the West Bank and Gaza, do so many Israelis, plus many contributors here, believe that all these non-Jews should submit and hand over ownership of the land where they are the vast majority, to another people?
Why, when the vast majority of people living in the West Bank and Gaza, do so many Israelis, plus many contributors here, believe that all these non-Jews should submit and hand over ownership of the land where they are the vast majority, to another people?
Riobard, Jews are still the majority in Israel, even if you include the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza.
True, due to increasing Arab birthrates, this may change in decades to come. But at present, Jews are still the majority in those areas.
Arabs are the majority in the rest of the Middle East. I suppose this could be because they kicked out all the Jews.
But I suppose since Jews are the minority, they should always be at the mercy of whatever government they live in, without a single place in the world to escape persecution?
Actually I don't believe that. Evidently you do.
Which is why I'm a Zionist, and you are not.
True, due to increasing Arab birthrates, this may change in decades to come. But at present, Jews are still the majority in those areas.
Arabs are the majority in the rest of the Middle East. I suppose this could be because they kicked out all the Jews.
But I suppose since Jews are the minority, they should always be at the mercy of whatever government they live in, without a single place in the world to escape persecution?
Actually I don't believe that. Evidently you do.
Which is why I'm a Zionist, and you are not.
<<< Riobard, Jews are still the majority in Israel, >>>
Yes Jews are a majority in Israel, that is Israel within the pre-1967 borders. That was the result of the eviction of hundreds of thousands of non-Jews from that area in 1948 and the repopulation of the area with Jews from the Diaspora over the following 12 years. Many of the non-Jews who were forced out of their homes in 1948 resettled in refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza.
But even in pre-1967 Israel, there are parts where non-Jews are still a majority (e.g. parts of the Galilee).
<<< even if you include the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza. >>>>
The fear of Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza is that Israel wants to include the West Bank and Gaza but wants the majority Arab population there to go away.
<<< True, due to increasing Arab birthrates, this may change in decades to come. But at present, Jews are still the majority in those areas. >>>>
True, the only Jewish groups with high birthrates are the ultra-Orthodox communities.
<<< Arabs are the majority in the rest of the Middle East. I suppose this could be because they kicked out all the Jews. >>>>
Arab speaking people are a majority in the rest of the Middle East. They are of diverse origin, even if they all presently speak the same language. Jews have never been a majority or dominant except in Palestine. And even there, they shared the land with other Semitic groups.
The "kicking out of Jews" is not a simple issue. Actions of Israelis against Arabs in Palestine, such as the massacre in Deir Yassin, had an inflammatory effect, enraging Arab populations elsewhere. Arab countries after WWII were in the process of throwing off the European colonialist yoke. Zionism was seen, rightly or wrongly as a new tool of European Colonialism. In addition, Israel encouraged Sephardic Jews to leave their homes and come to Israel.
<<< But I suppose since Jews are the minority, they should always be at the mercy of whatever government they live in, without a single place in the world to escape persecution? >>>>
Your method assuring a majority status on a particular piece of real estate appears to be self-defeating. You have Israel in the pre-1967 borders that was taken from its inhabitants by force. You are a majority there. Why do you want to absorb the West Bank and Gaza with 3.5 million additional members of the non-Jewish minority? If you claim that land, they only way you can assure a majority is by ethnic cleansing, an act which wil assure Israel a pariah status.
Besides, you don't seem to be doing too badly as a minority in the United States, Canada, Australia New Zealand, Britain and much of Europe.
<<< Actually I don't believe that. Evidently you do. >>>
Actually, I don't believe having a country of one's own is a guarantee of freedom from persecution. It didn't stop Hitler from invading Czechslovakia or Poland.
The real key to security is building alliances and networks of trust with other members of the International community. The present regime in Israel seems to prefer the "go it alone and to hell with the International Community" approach. The present regime in the United States has also adopted this attitude.
<<< Which is why I'm a Zionist, and you are not. >>>
True
Yes Jews are a majority in Israel, that is Israel within the pre-1967 borders. That was the result of the eviction of hundreds of thousands of non-Jews from that area in 1948 and the repopulation of the area with Jews from the Diaspora over the following 12 years. Many of the non-Jews who were forced out of their homes in 1948 resettled in refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza.
But even in pre-1967 Israel, there are parts where non-Jews are still a majority (e.g. parts of the Galilee).
<<< even if you include the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza. >>>>
The fear of Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza is that Israel wants to include the West Bank and Gaza but wants the majority Arab population there to go away.
<<< True, due to increasing Arab birthrates, this may change in decades to come. But at present, Jews are still the majority in those areas. >>>>
True, the only Jewish groups with high birthrates are the ultra-Orthodox communities.
<<< Arabs are the majority in the rest of the Middle East. I suppose this could be because they kicked out all the Jews. >>>>
Arab speaking people are a majority in the rest of the Middle East. They are of diverse origin, even if they all presently speak the same language. Jews have never been a majority or dominant except in Palestine. And even there, they shared the land with other Semitic groups.
The "kicking out of Jews" is not a simple issue. Actions of Israelis against Arabs in Palestine, such as the massacre in Deir Yassin, had an inflammatory effect, enraging Arab populations elsewhere. Arab countries after WWII were in the process of throwing off the European colonialist yoke. Zionism was seen, rightly or wrongly as a new tool of European Colonialism. In addition, Israel encouraged Sephardic Jews to leave their homes and come to Israel.
<<< But I suppose since Jews are the minority, they should always be at the mercy of whatever government they live in, without a single place in the world to escape persecution? >>>>
Your method assuring a majority status on a particular piece of real estate appears to be self-defeating. You have Israel in the pre-1967 borders that was taken from its inhabitants by force. You are a majority there. Why do you want to absorb the West Bank and Gaza with 3.5 million additional members of the non-Jewish minority? If you claim that land, they only way you can assure a majority is by ethnic cleansing, an act which wil assure Israel a pariah status.
Besides, you don't seem to be doing too badly as a minority in the United States, Canada, Australia New Zealand, Britain and much of Europe.
<<< Actually I don't believe that. Evidently you do. >>>
Actually, I don't believe having a country of one's own is a guarantee of freedom from persecution. It didn't stop Hitler from invading Czechslovakia or Poland.
The real key to security is building alliances and networks of trust with other members of the International community. The present regime in Israel seems to prefer the "go it alone and to hell with the International Community" approach. The present regime in the United States has also adopted this attitude.
<<< Which is why I'm a Zionist, and you are not. >>>
True
Wow. Riobard actually responded to my comments rather than just calling me a Zionazi. How astoundingly rare on Indymedia.
Well, then I am obligated to return the favor, for I believe in dialogue and I must hold up my side of it.
<<Yes Jews are a majority in Israel, that is Israel within the pre-1967 borders. That was the result of the eviction of hundreds of thousands of non-Jews from that area in 1948 and the repopulation of the area with Jews from the Diaspora over the following 12 years. Many of the non-Jews who were forced out of their homes in 1948 resettled in refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza. >>
Well, so here's the question. Do you want to go back to 1948 or not? Perhaps we can go back farther than 1948.
There's so much revised history that is just patently wrong that most dialogue is deadlocked from the very beginning.
In 1948 the newly formed United Nations voted to divide the remnants of mandatory Palestine (remember, two thirds of it was already given to the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan) and to divide
it between Jews (Israel) and Arabs (Palestine).
It is here where the different sides diverge on their historical versions.
I think you're probably of the camp that believes the Jews attacked Arabs and forced them out of their part of Palestine, and the Arab nations came in to defend their Palestinian brethren, only to be soundly defeated by the Jews.
It is my belief that the Arabs refused to allow a Jewish state in the area, and declared war on the new state of Israel. The Arabs, caught in the crossfire, fled to neighboring countries. The Jews, with literally no place to run to (especially since Europe just finished the Holocaust) fought like cornered rats and won.
It is also my belief that had the Arab nations destroyed Israel then, there would still be no state of Palestine; the area would have been divided between Egypt, Syria, and possibly Jordan and Saudi Arabia as well. But this is just convecture.
You mention Deir Yassin, and though I will not pretend to know the truth of this event (you no doubt would say it was a massacre, while I think the truth, given conflicting reports, is not knowable) you would say that the Jews should have fought... perhaps more kindly.
But being that neither you and I were there, it seems to me that they only way we judge any of the ethics is heavily slanted by our other biases.
Also, yes, many Palestinians were sent into refugee camps in the West Bank (which was Jordan's) and the Gaza Strip (Egypt). They were forbidden to assimilate, were not granted immigration, citizenship, and their Arab brethren refuse to allow them in, to this day (with the exception of Jordan)
Why? It seems to me that some of the great violators of Palestinian civil rights came not from Israelis, but from their Arab brothers... brothers who prefer the Palestinians miserable, so they can fight Israel. It is a terrible manipulation, but I don't know if they even wish to cut the strings.
<<But even in pre-1967 Israel, there are parts where non-Jews are still a majority (e.g. parts of the Galilee). >>
Indeed. The United Nations division of Mandatory Palestine left Arab communities in Jewish Israel, and Jewish communities in Arab Palestine.
You may say that the Middle East has been a victim of British or European dominance and colonialism. Perhaps so. But I would add that the Jews have been vicitimized by this process just as much as the Arabs. During the Holocaust, Britain allowed unrestricted Arab immigration, while using a white paper to severely reduce Jewish immigration to Palestine.
Had Britain not issued the white papers, perhaps a million Jews would have been saved from the Holocaust. It is yet another tragedy we can thank the British for.
<<The fear of Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza is that Israel wants to include the West Bank and Gaza but wants the majority Arab population there to go away. >>
Probably also true. The Israelis also fear that the Palestinians will not be satisfied with any treaty unless Israel is eliminated.
No doubt there is fear and mutual distrust. And no doubt this will continue when then the communities are divided and our paranoid stories of the "other" are not subjected to the light of reality checks.
Which is why when I was a student at San Francisco State University, I considered it particularly tragic that the Palestinian students always refused, on principle, to hold any dialogue with jewish students. It merely allowed suspician, fear, paranoia and hatreds to increase. And this was 6,000 miles away from the Middle East, in "open minded San Francisco."
No doubt its worse there.
<<True, the only Jewish groups with high birthrates are the ultra-Orthodox communities.>>
This is true, but your tone sounds a little snide to me. I hope its my imagination.
<<Arab speaking people are a majority in the rest of the Middle East. They are of diverse origin, even if they all presently speak the same language. Jews have never been a majority or dominant except in Palestine. And even there, they shared the land with other Semitic groups. >>
Jews have had a majority in Jerusalem even when it was ruled by the Ottoman Empire. Yes, Arabs are a majority. They have not treated minority groups very well, unfortunately. There is black slavery in Sudan, the copts in Egypt, the Kurds, and other minority groups whose rights are still denied.
<<The "kicking out of Jews" is not a simple issue. Actions of Israelis against Arabs in Palestine, such as the massacre in Deir Yassin, had an inflammatory effect, enraging Arab populations elsewhere. Arab countries after WWII were in the process of throwing off the European colonialist yoke. Zionism was seen, rightly or wrongly as a new tool of European Colonialism. In addition, Israel encouraged Sephardic Jews to leave their homes and come to Israel. >>
We may never know the truth about Deir Yassin. But I don't think it was the source of the Arab inflammation.
In the 1920's, the Arabs in Hebron rioted on the baseless rumors that the Jews had plans to destroy the Al Aqsa mosque and build the third temple there. The rumor was false, but all the Jews in Hebron were killed and forced out during the rioting.
Perhaps they saw Zionism as a colonial force. This is far from the truth, but when it comes to propaganda, the veracity of a stratement has little to do with its effectiveness in mobilizing opinion.
Many Jews in the Arab world faced harsh discrimination from their governments, even those who were there for centuries. Many had to flee while leaving all their possessions behind. These are also people who can show you the keys they've had to houses ffity years ago.
But Israel brought them in. The Arab world kept their refugees, the Palestinians, out.
Also, please do not assert that Zionists were somehow resposnible for forcing Jews out of Arab nations. That statement is a myth, and is disrespectful to the Jewish refugees who fled Arab anti-Semitism. They were not just captivated by Israeli PR. They did go to Israel, because Israel let them come in, and it was nearby. And in doing so, Israel saved their lives. There was no second holocaust in the Arab world, because this time the Jews had a place to go to.
<<Your method assuring a majority status on a particular piece of real estate appears to be self-defeating. You have Israel in the pre-1967 borders that was taken from its inhabitants by force.>>
But Israel did not start that war, though no doubt you believe they did.
Nor did the early Zionists take land by force. They paid good money for it at exuberate rates.
<<You are a majority there. Why do you want to absorb the West Bank and Gaza with 3.5 million additional members of the non-Jewish minority? If you claim that land, they only way you can assure a majority is by ethnic cleansing, an act which wil assure Israel a pariah status. >>
After the Six Day War, Israel found itself with boarders that were easier to defend (prior to 1967, Israel was only about seven miles wide at its narrowest point). They also had territory which they believed could be used as bargaining chips for peace settlements. They never imagined they'd still have it over thirty years later.
But though they tried to negotiate a peace treaty, the Arab nations congregated and gave their three No's to Israel: No recognition, no negotiation, and no peace.
As time went on, Israel forged a peace treaty with Egypt and Jordan, gave back the Sinai and other territories, but neither Egypt or Jordan wanted Gaza or the West Bank returned. It is my private belief that they're afraid of inheriting the Palestinians.
Some say that Israel should give the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians for their own indendent state of Palestine. This was supposed to happen at Oslo. Barak tried to give them to Arafat. Arafat turned him down, for he still dreams of conquering all of Israel in blood and fire. The Palestinians have suffered under this man for decades.
After the intifada, as israelis begin to fear that no amount of negotiation will be enough, they fear (as I do) that if a state of Palestine were established, it would provide nothing but the staging point for yet another Arab-Israeli war. The continous attacks of terrorism only water this fear.
And as you point out, if Israel does annex the territories, they will be left with millions of Palestinians that could put the state's Jewish nature in question. And transferal is not a popular option among anyone.
So what's the answer? On one hand, Israel's afraid that an independent state of Palestine will be a viper at their breast, rather than a friendly neighbor. Acts of terrorism reinfoce the former, rather than the latter. Perhaps they think its better for many small skirmishes than a large war that will kill far more Israelis and Palestinians than the intifada, if the intifada lasted twenty more years.
On the other hand, neither Jordan nor Egypt want the territories back.
And on the third hand, keeping them isn't such a great option either.
I've heard a number of creative solutions to this problem.
But I don't see much point in discussing them, because one problem remains, and that's the hostility towards Jews and Israel from the Arab world, and, I'm afraid, people like yourself.
Though I hope this isn't the case. Hatred is a stumbling block that prevents all solutions.
Attacks on Israeli citizens must cease if Israelis will ever trust having a state of Palestine next to them. And Palestinian activists groups who "refused to question the methods used by their brethren in the middle east" our doing their brethren a disservice.
<<Besides, you don't seem to be doing too badly as a minority in the United States, Canada, Australia New Zealand, Britain and much of Europe. >>
Actually, anti-Semitic hate crimes have recently spiked in France, Britain, Europe, and yes, even the United States. I'm sorry you didn't know this.
And Jews in Germany were doing quite well indeed before the Holocaust.
This is the real reason for Zionism. Our history has taught us that though life in the diaspora sometimes does go well for periods of times, there can still be resurgences of anti-semitism, that have spiked up through history. And as Jews are the minority, they were powerless to defend themselves from these outbreaks.
Israel may have her enemies, but at least she is able and willing to defend a Jews, a task Europe has shirked throughout her history, not just during the Holocaust.
The United States has not reached the levels of European anti-semitism. I hope it never does. Even so, it did not permit fleeing Jews to enter its boarders during the Holocaust, so even the U.S. doesn't always come through as a reliable refuge.
<<Actually, I don't believe having a country of one's own is a guarantee of freedom from persecution. It didn't stop Hitler from invading Czechslovakia or Poland. >>
War will end any and all security. No one is secure in any country, because a war can always topple it.
However, a country has resources for defense that scattered ethnic minorities in ghettos have no access to.
Such as an army.
It is possible t(God forbid) that someday Israel will be defeated by military force. But at least she'll defend herself with all her resources. When France was invaded by the Germans, many of the French became complicit, quickly betraying and turning in their Jewish neighbors to be destroyed by the Nazi machine.
At least the Israelis will not be subject to such betrayal.
<<The real key to security is building alliances and networks of trust with other members of the International community. The present regime in Israel seems to prefer the "go it alone and to hell with the International Community" approach. The present regime in the United States has also adopted this attitude>>
Israel is still the member state of the UN forbidden to sit on the United Nations security council, due to a mix of Catch-22's.
It is also the subject of routine hostility, mostly to placate her Arab enemies, who outnumber her and the U.S.
Israel does have some allies. She's been forging good relations with India, for instance, and of course, there's the U.S.
But no country has such critics as the entire Arab world has been to Israel, some of who still advocate her destruction, and use their propaganda against her in their newspapers daily.
Israel is actually a great boon to these Arab states. She's a distraction so their people don't turn their anger towards the despots who rule them.
But there's the question: "Is it possible that you're the only one who's right and the entire world can be wrong?"
If you're a Jew, and the Holocaust is your history, you know the answer is yes.
Well, then I am obligated to return the favor, for I believe in dialogue and I must hold up my side of it.
<<Yes Jews are a majority in Israel, that is Israel within the pre-1967 borders. That was the result of the eviction of hundreds of thousands of non-Jews from that area in 1948 and the repopulation of the area with Jews from the Diaspora over the following 12 years. Many of the non-Jews who were forced out of their homes in 1948 resettled in refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza. >>
Well, so here's the question. Do you want to go back to 1948 or not? Perhaps we can go back farther than 1948.
There's so much revised history that is just patently wrong that most dialogue is deadlocked from the very beginning.
In 1948 the newly formed United Nations voted to divide the remnants of mandatory Palestine (remember, two thirds of it was already given to the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan) and to divide
it between Jews (Israel) and Arabs (Palestine).
It is here where the different sides diverge on their historical versions.
I think you're probably of the camp that believes the Jews attacked Arabs and forced them out of their part of Palestine, and the Arab nations came in to defend their Palestinian brethren, only to be soundly defeated by the Jews.
It is my belief that the Arabs refused to allow a Jewish state in the area, and declared war on the new state of Israel. The Arabs, caught in the crossfire, fled to neighboring countries. The Jews, with literally no place to run to (especially since Europe just finished the Holocaust) fought like cornered rats and won.
It is also my belief that had the Arab nations destroyed Israel then, there would still be no state of Palestine; the area would have been divided between Egypt, Syria, and possibly Jordan and Saudi Arabia as well. But this is just convecture.
You mention Deir Yassin, and though I will not pretend to know the truth of this event (you no doubt would say it was a massacre, while I think the truth, given conflicting reports, is not knowable) you would say that the Jews should have fought... perhaps more kindly.
But being that neither you and I were there, it seems to me that they only way we judge any of the ethics is heavily slanted by our other biases.
Also, yes, many Palestinians were sent into refugee camps in the West Bank (which was Jordan's) and the Gaza Strip (Egypt). They were forbidden to assimilate, were not granted immigration, citizenship, and their Arab brethren refuse to allow them in, to this day (with the exception of Jordan)
Why? It seems to me that some of the great violators of Palestinian civil rights came not from Israelis, but from their Arab brothers... brothers who prefer the Palestinians miserable, so they can fight Israel. It is a terrible manipulation, but I don't know if they even wish to cut the strings.
<<But even in pre-1967 Israel, there are parts where non-Jews are still a majority (e.g. parts of the Galilee). >>
Indeed. The United Nations division of Mandatory Palestine left Arab communities in Jewish Israel, and Jewish communities in Arab Palestine.
You may say that the Middle East has been a victim of British or European dominance and colonialism. Perhaps so. But I would add that the Jews have been vicitimized by this process just as much as the Arabs. During the Holocaust, Britain allowed unrestricted Arab immigration, while using a white paper to severely reduce Jewish immigration to Palestine.
Had Britain not issued the white papers, perhaps a million Jews would have been saved from the Holocaust. It is yet another tragedy we can thank the British for.
<<The fear of Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza is that Israel wants to include the West Bank and Gaza but wants the majority Arab population there to go away. >>
Probably also true. The Israelis also fear that the Palestinians will not be satisfied with any treaty unless Israel is eliminated.
No doubt there is fear and mutual distrust. And no doubt this will continue when then the communities are divided and our paranoid stories of the "other" are not subjected to the light of reality checks.
Which is why when I was a student at San Francisco State University, I considered it particularly tragic that the Palestinian students always refused, on principle, to hold any dialogue with jewish students. It merely allowed suspician, fear, paranoia and hatreds to increase. And this was 6,000 miles away from the Middle East, in "open minded San Francisco."
No doubt its worse there.
<<True, the only Jewish groups with high birthrates are the ultra-Orthodox communities.>>
This is true, but your tone sounds a little snide to me. I hope its my imagination.
<<Arab speaking people are a majority in the rest of the Middle East. They are of diverse origin, even if they all presently speak the same language. Jews have never been a majority or dominant except in Palestine. And even there, they shared the land with other Semitic groups. >>
Jews have had a majority in Jerusalem even when it was ruled by the Ottoman Empire. Yes, Arabs are a majority. They have not treated minority groups very well, unfortunately. There is black slavery in Sudan, the copts in Egypt, the Kurds, and other minority groups whose rights are still denied.
<<The "kicking out of Jews" is not a simple issue. Actions of Israelis against Arabs in Palestine, such as the massacre in Deir Yassin, had an inflammatory effect, enraging Arab populations elsewhere. Arab countries after WWII were in the process of throwing off the European colonialist yoke. Zionism was seen, rightly or wrongly as a new tool of European Colonialism. In addition, Israel encouraged Sephardic Jews to leave their homes and come to Israel. >>
We may never know the truth about Deir Yassin. But I don't think it was the source of the Arab inflammation.
In the 1920's, the Arabs in Hebron rioted on the baseless rumors that the Jews had plans to destroy the Al Aqsa mosque and build the third temple there. The rumor was false, but all the Jews in Hebron were killed and forced out during the rioting.
Perhaps they saw Zionism as a colonial force. This is far from the truth, but when it comes to propaganda, the veracity of a stratement has little to do with its effectiveness in mobilizing opinion.
Many Jews in the Arab world faced harsh discrimination from their governments, even those who were there for centuries. Many had to flee while leaving all their possessions behind. These are also people who can show you the keys they've had to houses ffity years ago.
But Israel brought them in. The Arab world kept their refugees, the Palestinians, out.
Also, please do not assert that Zionists were somehow resposnible for forcing Jews out of Arab nations. That statement is a myth, and is disrespectful to the Jewish refugees who fled Arab anti-Semitism. They were not just captivated by Israeli PR. They did go to Israel, because Israel let them come in, and it was nearby. And in doing so, Israel saved their lives. There was no second holocaust in the Arab world, because this time the Jews had a place to go to.
<<Your method assuring a majority status on a particular piece of real estate appears to be self-defeating. You have Israel in the pre-1967 borders that was taken from its inhabitants by force.>>
But Israel did not start that war, though no doubt you believe they did.
Nor did the early Zionists take land by force. They paid good money for it at exuberate rates.
<<You are a majority there. Why do you want to absorb the West Bank and Gaza with 3.5 million additional members of the non-Jewish minority? If you claim that land, they only way you can assure a majority is by ethnic cleansing, an act which wil assure Israel a pariah status. >>
After the Six Day War, Israel found itself with boarders that were easier to defend (prior to 1967, Israel was only about seven miles wide at its narrowest point). They also had territory which they believed could be used as bargaining chips for peace settlements. They never imagined they'd still have it over thirty years later.
But though they tried to negotiate a peace treaty, the Arab nations congregated and gave their three No's to Israel: No recognition, no negotiation, and no peace.
As time went on, Israel forged a peace treaty with Egypt and Jordan, gave back the Sinai and other territories, but neither Egypt or Jordan wanted Gaza or the West Bank returned. It is my private belief that they're afraid of inheriting the Palestinians.
Some say that Israel should give the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians for their own indendent state of Palestine. This was supposed to happen at Oslo. Barak tried to give them to Arafat. Arafat turned him down, for he still dreams of conquering all of Israel in blood and fire. The Palestinians have suffered under this man for decades.
After the intifada, as israelis begin to fear that no amount of negotiation will be enough, they fear (as I do) that if a state of Palestine were established, it would provide nothing but the staging point for yet another Arab-Israeli war. The continous attacks of terrorism only water this fear.
And as you point out, if Israel does annex the territories, they will be left with millions of Palestinians that could put the state's Jewish nature in question. And transferal is not a popular option among anyone.
So what's the answer? On one hand, Israel's afraid that an independent state of Palestine will be a viper at their breast, rather than a friendly neighbor. Acts of terrorism reinfoce the former, rather than the latter. Perhaps they think its better for many small skirmishes than a large war that will kill far more Israelis and Palestinians than the intifada, if the intifada lasted twenty more years.
On the other hand, neither Jordan nor Egypt want the territories back.
And on the third hand, keeping them isn't such a great option either.
I've heard a number of creative solutions to this problem.
But I don't see much point in discussing them, because one problem remains, and that's the hostility towards Jews and Israel from the Arab world, and, I'm afraid, people like yourself.
Though I hope this isn't the case. Hatred is a stumbling block that prevents all solutions.
Attacks on Israeli citizens must cease if Israelis will ever trust having a state of Palestine next to them. And Palestinian activists groups who "refused to question the methods used by their brethren in the middle east" our doing their brethren a disservice.
<<Besides, you don't seem to be doing too badly as a minority in the United States, Canada, Australia New Zealand, Britain and much of Europe. >>
Actually, anti-Semitic hate crimes have recently spiked in France, Britain, Europe, and yes, even the United States. I'm sorry you didn't know this.
And Jews in Germany were doing quite well indeed before the Holocaust.
This is the real reason for Zionism. Our history has taught us that though life in the diaspora sometimes does go well for periods of times, there can still be resurgences of anti-semitism, that have spiked up through history. And as Jews are the minority, they were powerless to defend themselves from these outbreaks.
Israel may have her enemies, but at least she is able and willing to defend a Jews, a task Europe has shirked throughout her history, not just during the Holocaust.
The United States has not reached the levels of European anti-semitism. I hope it never does. Even so, it did not permit fleeing Jews to enter its boarders during the Holocaust, so even the U.S. doesn't always come through as a reliable refuge.
<<Actually, I don't believe having a country of one's own is a guarantee of freedom from persecution. It didn't stop Hitler from invading Czechslovakia or Poland. >>
War will end any and all security. No one is secure in any country, because a war can always topple it.
However, a country has resources for defense that scattered ethnic minorities in ghettos have no access to.
Such as an army.
It is possible t(God forbid) that someday Israel will be defeated by military force. But at least she'll defend herself with all her resources. When France was invaded by the Germans, many of the French became complicit, quickly betraying and turning in their Jewish neighbors to be destroyed by the Nazi machine.
At least the Israelis will not be subject to such betrayal.
<<The real key to security is building alliances and networks of trust with other members of the International community. The present regime in Israel seems to prefer the "go it alone and to hell with the International Community" approach. The present regime in the United States has also adopted this attitude>>
Israel is still the member state of the UN forbidden to sit on the United Nations security council, due to a mix of Catch-22's.
It is also the subject of routine hostility, mostly to placate her Arab enemies, who outnumber her and the U.S.
Israel does have some allies. She's been forging good relations with India, for instance, and of course, there's the U.S.
But no country has such critics as the entire Arab world has been to Israel, some of who still advocate her destruction, and use their propaganda against her in their newspapers daily.
Israel is actually a great boon to these Arab states. She's a distraction so their people don't turn their anger towards the despots who rule them.
But there's the question: "Is it possible that you're the only one who's right and the entire world can be wrong?"
If you're a Jew, and the Holocaust is your history, you know the answer is yes.
"Why? It seems to me that some of the great violators of Palestinian civil rights came not from Israelis, but from their Arab brothers... brothers who prefer the Palestinians miserable, so they can fight Israel."
The right for a people to return to their homes after a war is greater than the right for them to get refugee status in neighboring countries. While one can see the unwillingness for neighboring countires to take in Palestinians to be an effort to make the situation worse, one can also see it as a refusal for those countries to effectively support Isreali ethnic cleansing. Thats said, the number of Palestinians in Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc.. is very high and much of the support for Palestinian militants in the West Bank and Gaza comes from the many Palestinian refugees in those countries.
Israel's occupation is unique in terms of length of time and lack of status change. While Tibet is a longer occupation China has attempted to assimilate the Tibetans wheras Israel wont allow Palestinians to have rights as Irsaelis or rights as an independent state. The same is true of Turkish Kurds. South African aparthied really is one of the few possible comparisons and Israel's ethnic immigration policies speak to the belief in a desire for the ethnic purity of the Israeli state. The West Bank and Gaza also looks a little like Serbia's attitude towards Bosnia (settlements, bulldozing of nonJewish buildings etc...)
The right for a people to return to their homes after a war is greater than the right for them to get refugee status in neighboring countries. While one can see the unwillingness for neighboring countires to take in Palestinians to be an effort to make the situation worse, one can also see it as a refusal for those countries to effectively support Isreali ethnic cleansing. Thats said, the number of Palestinians in Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc.. is very high and much of the support for Palestinian militants in the West Bank and Gaza comes from the many Palestinian refugees in those countries.
Israel's occupation is unique in terms of length of time and lack of status change. While Tibet is a longer occupation China has attempted to assimilate the Tibetans wheras Israel wont allow Palestinians to have rights as Irsaelis or rights as an independent state. The same is true of Turkish Kurds. South African aparthied really is one of the few possible comparisons and Israel's ethnic immigration policies speak to the belief in a desire for the ethnic purity of the Israeli state. The West Bank and Gaza also looks a little like Serbia's attitude towards Bosnia (settlements, bulldozing of nonJewish buildings etc...)
<<The right for a people to return to their homes after a war is greater than the right for them to get refugee status in neighboring countries. While one can see the unwillingness for neighboring countires to take in Palestinians to be an effort to make the situation worse, one can also see it as a refusal for those countries to effectively support Isreali ethnic cleansing. >>
I'm sorry, but that's bullshit.
After World War II, many people found themselves exiles, or were resettled in different countries.
And there are other historical examples of exchanges of population, such as India and Pakistan.
Jews were driven out of Europe and the Arab world. There is zero effort to repopulate them to the countries which expelled them. In many ways the Nazis have succeeded; Poland and much of Europe is now effectively "Judenrein."
And there were many other refugees, from many nations, after World War II who were effectively resettled.
Let's reflect again on your statement:
<<one can also see it as a refusal for those countries to effectively support Isreali ethnic cleansing. >>
So in other words, we need to keep these people on refugee camps because otherwise it would look like the Jews actually won?
Sorry, that's crap. Like I said earlier, the Arabs are using the Palestinians as political pawns. They could accept them in at any time, but they're keeping them out, so as to as you put it "not look like they support Israeli ethnic cleansing."
Furthermore, the whole term of "ethnic cleansing" is inappropriate. That's generally used for genocide, and though you no doubt would accuse Israel of genocide, it is a false charge if you have any sense of reality.
Israel is not under any obligation to accept a hostile population. Again, that's not pretty. But if the Palestinian remain dedicated to the destruction of Israel, why in God's green Earth should Israel be obliged to grant citizenship to people with such hostilities?
Especially for a war they did not start. I know, you believe Israel started the 1948 war, but I disagree with you.
At least Israel's justification for not allowing the Palestinians is due to the fact that they would pose an existential threat. If you were honest, you would agree with this. If the Palestinians returned now, you would have even greater ethnic warfare. Would you prefer that? But what's the Arabs excuse?
<<Thats said, the number of Palestinians in Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc.. is very high and much of the support for Palestinian militants in the West Bank and Gaza comes from the many Palestinian refugees in those countries. >>
Some countries have permitted Palestinians in, but only Jordan granted citizenship. Kuwait used them to work the oil fields, and expelled them after the first Gulf War. Lebanon's laws make it illegal for Palestinians to pursue over 80 different professions, in an effort to keep them impoverished.
I suppose Palestian refugees support the terrorists and militants of the West Bank and Gaza, as does much of the Arab world. Should they? I believe it only harms their own interests in the end. But they'll support what they will.
<<Israel's occupation is unique in terms of length of time and lack of status change. While Tibet is a longer occupation China has attempted to assimilate the Tibetans wheras Israel wont allow Palestinians to have rights as Irsaelis or rights as an independent state. The same is true of Turkish Kurds. South African aparthied really is one of the few possible comparisons and Israel's ethnic immigration policies speak to the belief in a desire for the ethnic purity of the Israeli state. The West Bank and Gaza also looks a little like Serbia's attitude towards Bosnia (settlements, bulldozing of nonJewish buildings etc...)>>
First of all, Israel is not nearly as ethnically pure as the states no one here complains about, say, Saudi Arabia, which is 100% Moslem. But let's stick that aside.
Yes, Israel grants a right of return to Jews, for being a Jewish refuge was the whole point in its establishment.
But Christians, Arabs, and other non-Jews are not forced out. Some can come in. And some can be citizens. It's more similar to the policy of other countries, which all have their own immigration laws. No country lets everybody in.
There are Israeli Arabs and non-Jews who are citizens, vote, and have seats in the Israeli Knesset. It is not an apartheid system, though its enemies love to portray it as such. And if you try to represent Israel as some sort of Jew-only supremacist state, there is no point in this discussion, because I cannot possibly converse with people who's beliefs are so widely removed from reality.
I explained in the previous post the problem with establishing a Palestinian state. In this one, I explained the difficulties of granting wide-spread citizenship to the Palestinians in the territories. If the Palestinians want to use their state to be a platform to have a larger war against Israel, then of course Israel will prevent it. If they want citizenship to sneak into Israel and be more effective in suicide attacks, Israel will prevent that as well.
And unfortunately, the violence has been long enough that there is no trust.
As for comparing it to the other occupations, I do not believe that the other occupied nations (Tibet, Lebanon, Chechyna, what have you) have been offered their own state as often as the Palestinians, who have consistently turned it down as recently as 2000.
No doubt you'll argue that the 2000 Camp David treaties was somehow invalid due to "Bantustans" are such stuff (though the geography of Gaza and the West Bank make a connection between the two impossible without making Israel bantustan- though I don't suppose that would bother you) but again, we'll be disagreeing there no doubt....
Not as much as you hate Jews.
Thank you for your immently deep-thought, well disclosed statement. it has advanced human rights everywhere as well as the intellectual knowledge of mankind.
Dimwit.
Thank you for your immently deep-thought, well disclosed statement. it has advanced human rights everywhere as well as the intellectual knowledge of mankind.
Dimwit.
I think a major difference between us comes from interpretation of events and their impact.
I am not against the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine. However, I believe that must happen only after a consensus that evolves out of development of trust and out of respect for the rights and customs of all parties. The ongoing settlement of the conflict in Northern Ireland is a model for how that can come about.
Some comments on individual points.
<<< Although Jews have been victimized in many ways, colonialism wasn't one of them.
- romans..... remember them? how about egyptians/ persians arabs.. also anything that happened to their native countries (wherever they had lived for a thousand years or so) >>>
This can be taken to absurd lengths. The Romans themselves were once colonized by the Etruscans, Arabs by the Romans, and more recently by the Turks, etc.
<<< - sometimes it is PC to assume that everyone is reasonable.. sometimes there are influential groups who are not reasonable and somehow that has not stoped them from holding power. >>>
The Northern Ireland experience is a good lesson here. If you don't offer any future to the moderate groups, the extremists will always prevail. We are waiting for Sharon to buy into the "Roadmap", but he is against abandoning the settlements, even if there is peace.
<<< You could disagree with an eye witness such as Meir Pail (see above) and continue to view history as you wish it, but that does not change things.
- Sometimes people Lie.. I dont know if he is or not.. jsut saying that sometimes it happens. If youwere at an event you might fell justified in lying because "the other side is evil" and "they didnt do it here but I KNOW they did it else where" or some other such thought. >>>
There is ample evidence from authoritative wtnesses, both within Israel and among American and European journalists and diplomats. The close proximity of Deir Yassin to Jerusalem meant that what happened there was impossible to hide.
<<<- the best offer you can offer IS a "Generous Offer" it is not a myth.. the fact that the arabs did not accept it is because they have certain non negotiable differences. Anyway if Arafat made a deal with Israel he would run a good risk of being killed by militants >>>
The "Generous Offer" left the Palestinian area in four separate zones. It left most of the settlements in place with bypass roads connecting them to Israel. It left the border with Jordan in the hands of Israel. The Palestinian state would have been entirely surrounded by the state of Israel. I would have left 80% of the West Bank water and 50% of the Gaza water resources under Israeli control.
There were very tangible reasons why the Palestinians would have rejected it. Also, the proposal worked out by both sides at Taba in December of 2000 did get a consensus and could have been made the basis of a solution. However by that time Israelis were no longer in the mood for negotiating.
<<< And what was arafat offering again? The deal is Israel give them somthign and they er take it and give israel some form of recognition. they could back out on the security part any time they felt like it and renegotiate since suicide bombings are just as morraly abhorant either way. >>>
Palestinians wanted return of the entire West Bank and Gaza. Suicide bombings did not occur until after the situation descended into violence and after hundreds of Palestinians were killed by the IDF and settlers.
<<< Anti-Arab hate crimes have spiked even more.
- You are wrong, I am surprised you would say that since it is obviously not the case. >>>
I beg to differ with you. Check the published statistics on hate crimes. In California there have been more incidents against Arabs and Muslims than against Jews. Included was the destruction of a Syrian Orthodox church in Los Altos near here by an arsonist. Hate crimes against anyone are abominable. But you cannot turn a blind eye to crimes against any particular group and be fair.
I am not against the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine. However, I believe that must happen only after a consensus that evolves out of development of trust and out of respect for the rights and customs of all parties. The ongoing settlement of the conflict in Northern Ireland is a model for how that can come about.
Some comments on individual points.
<<< Although Jews have been victimized in many ways, colonialism wasn't one of them.
- romans..... remember them? how about egyptians/ persians arabs.. also anything that happened to their native countries (wherever they had lived for a thousand years or so) >>>
This can be taken to absurd lengths. The Romans themselves were once colonized by the Etruscans, Arabs by the Romans, and more recently by the Turks, etc.
<<< - sometimes it is PC to assume that everyone is reasonable.. sometimes there are influential groups who are not reasonable and somehow that has not stoped them from holding power. >>>
The Northern Ireland experience is a good lesson here. If you don't offer any future to the moderate groups, the extremists will always prevail. We are waiting for Sharon to buy into the "Roadmap", but he is against abandoning the settlements, even if there is peace.
<<< You could disagree with an eye witness such as Meir Pail (see above) and continue to view history as you wish it, but that does not change things.
- Sometimes people Lie.. I dont know if he is or not.. jsut saying that sometimes it happens. If youwere at an event you might fell justified in lying because "the other side is evil" and "they didnt do it here but I KNOW they did it else where" or some other such thought. >>>
There is ample evidence from authoritative wtnesses, both within Israel and among American and European journalists and diplomats. The close proximity of Deir Yassin to Jerusalem meant that what happened there was impossible to hide.
<<<- the best offer you can offer IS a "Generous Offer" it is not a myth.. the fact that the arabs did not accept it is because they have certain non negotiable differences. Anyway if Arafat made a deal with Israel he would run a good risk of being killed by militants >>>
The "Generous Offer" left the Palestinian area in four separate zones. It left most of the settlements in place with bypass roads connecting them to Israel. It left the border with Jordan in the hands of Israel. The Palestinian state would have been entirely surrounded by the state of Israel. I would have left 80% of the West Bank water and 50% of the Gaza water resources under Israeli control.
There were very tangible reasons why the Palestinians would have rejected it. Also, the proposal worked out by both sides at Taba in December of 2000 did get a consensus and could have been made the basis of a solution. However by that time Israelis were no longer in the mood for negotiating.
<<< And what was arafat offering again? The deal is Israel give them somthign and they er take it and give israel some form of recognition. they could back out on the security part any time they felt like it and renegotiate since suicide bombings are just as morraly abhorant either way. >>>
Palestinians wanted return of the entire West Bank and Gaza. Suicide bombings did not occur until after the situation descended into violence and after hundreds of Palestinians were killed by the IDF and settlers.
<<< Anti-Arab hate crimes have spiked even more.
- You are wrong, I am surprised you would say that since it is obviously not the case. >>>
I beg to differ with you. Check the published statistics on hate crimes. In California there have been more incidents against Arabs and Muslims than against Jews. Included was the destruction of a Syrian Orthodox church in Los Altos near here by an arsonist. Hate crimes against anyone are abominable. But you cannot turn a blind eye to crimes against any particular group and be fair.
I believe that must happen only after a consensus that evolves out of development of trust and out of respect for the rights and customs of all parties. The ongoing settlement of the conflict in Northern Ireland is a model for how that can come about.
- Sure no problem there. (except saying "only" is not a good thing in politics personaly i just want a viable better solutiuon whatever it is)
This can be taken to absurd lengths. The Romans themselves were once colonized by the Etruscans, Arabs by the Romans, and more recently by the Turks, etc.
- I suggest taking it back beond the actual individuals who origionaly lost their land (etc) is the point of absurdity.
This is the only way to make a solution practical. the statute of limitations cant be "whenever they stop resenting it".
We are waiting for Sharon to buy into the "Roadmap", but he is against abandoning the settlements, even if there is peace.
- I thought he said publically that he would disband some. I like most other people agree that they should be strongly discouraged But I can also see there is a issue with the taking back of their homes and the basic reason why they must be taken back is the "jews arent allowed in our country" aspect to the settlement issue.
In Nthern Ireland i doubt that all the prodestants were forced to move out of Independant ireland (is that Eire?) and into Nrthern Ireland. Ideally you would jsut be able to place them under Palistinian soverignty and expect them not to start killing the settlers.
The "Generous Offer" left the Palestinian area in four separate zones.
- I know basically what they offered. the Israeli pathways etc are premised upon the need for security - one would assume when security was no longer an issue they would not need those pathways. Until then The palistinians should have taken what was effectivly a "land for nothing": deal
- Palestinians wanted return of the entire West Bank and Gaza.
exactly they have nothing to offer ie a deal is taking stuff and not giving anything.. it seems insane to refuse such a deal.
I beg to differ with you. Check the published statistics on hate crimes.
- Somehow it has become "cooler" to talk about anti arab discrimination than anti jewish discrimination particularly in the UN.Even though Jews are practically "not welcome" in many many countries to this day as well as reciving significant discrimination in most of the others.
"the most recent poll of Palestinians by the JMCC
demonstrates that only a small minority of Palestinians (15.2%) believe that
a violence free approach best serves the Palestinians. "
this opinion is reflected in country after country around the world particularly but not exclusively muslim countries. Ie everyone except this small percentage support killing israelis (suicide bombers etc)..
Anti sematism is all over the world.. if israelis are relitively safe in california then it is just about the only place that they are.
- Sure no problem there. (except saying "only" is not a good thing in politics personaly i just want a viable better solutiuon whatever it is)
This can be taken to absurd lengths. The Romans themselves were once colonized by the Etruscans, Arabs by the Romans, and more recently by the Turks, etc.
- I suggest taking it back beond the actual individuals who origionaly lost their land (etc) is the point of absurdity.
This is the only way to make a solution practical. the statute of limitations cant be "whenever they stop resenting it".
We are waiting for Sharon to buy into the "Roadmap", but he is against abandoning the settlements, even if there is peace.
- I thought he said publically that he would disband some. I like most other people agree that they should be strongly discouraged But I can also see there is a issue with the taking back of their homes and the basic reason why they must be taken back is the "jews arent allowed in our country" aspect to the settlement issue.
In Nthern Ireland i doubt that all the prodestants were forced to move out of Independant ireland (is that Eire?) and into Nrthern Ireland. Ideally you would jsut be able to place them under Palistinian soverignty and expect them not to start killing the settlers.
The "Generous Offer" left the Palestinian area in four separate zones.
- I know basically what they offered. the Israeli pathways etc are premised upon the need for security - one would assume when security was no longer an issue they would not need those pathways. Until then The palistinians should have taken what was effectivly a "land for nothing": deal
- Palestinians wanted return of the entire West Bank and Gaza.
exactly they have nothing to offer ie a deal is taking stuff and not giving anything.. it seems insane to refuse such a deal.
I beg to differ with you. Check the published statistics on hate crimes.
- Somehow it has become "cooler" to talk about anti arab discrimination than anti jewish discrimination particularly in the UN.Even though Jews are practically "not welcome" in many many countries to this day as well as reciving significant discrimination in most of the others.
"the most recent poll of Palestinians by the JMCC
demonstrates that only a small minority of Palestinians (15.2%) believe that
a violence free approach best serves the Palestinians. "
this opinion is reflected in country after country around the world particularly but not exclusively muslim countries. Ie everyone except this small percentage support killing israelis (suicide bombers etc)..
Anti sematism is all over the world.. if israelis are relitively safe in california then it is just about the only place that they are.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$110.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network