Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumHamas Needs New Outlook on Jews
Hamas Needs New Outlook on Jews
By Frida Ghitis / The Miami Herald on Fri, Dec 7, 2012
When watching the continuing tensions between Israel and the Palestinian group Hamas, many have held on to a profoundly mistaken idea. I heard it again just recently from an otherwise well-informed observer. The conflict, this acquaintance confidently declared, will not be resolved until Israel lifts the blockade of Gaza.
The trouble with this line of thinking is that it ignores everything Hamas itself has stated about its goals, beliefs and strategy.
To understand the dispute it is not necessary to listen to a single word Israel says. A good starting point is Hamas’ charter, easily found in many places online.
The covenant explains Hamas in great detail. It makes for a very educational read for anyone with an interest in understanding the tragedy that has befallen the people of Gaza.
For those uninclined to read the document, let me offer some highlights and a brief summary. Essentially, Hamas is committed, in writing, to Israel’s destruction. It opposes negotiations, and it considers Jews, not just Israeli Jews, the enemy.
http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/12/07/opinion/hamas-needs-new-outlook-on-jews.html or
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/11/29/3119493/how-to-start-solving-gazas-problems.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)And Israel is hated by the indigenous people in the area right?
So what is your solution?
King_David
(14,851 posts)Hamas must accept that the only way out is a 2 state solution.
Indiginous? How far back in history makes a people so?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And that the Israeli government is actively working against?
Or is there some other two-state solution, perhaps the famous "Jordan is the Palestinian state!" argument I see so often?
King_David
(14,851 posts)Accuracy is important,and what you posted is NOT accurate.
(from 2009)
By SIMON McGREGOR-WOOD
June 14, 2009
It was billed as the speech of his political life, and it was one in which Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu finally spoke of a Palestinian state, albeit one with very strict limits.
"In my vision of peace," he said, "in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect, each with its own flag and national anthem."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7838189&page=1
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Hamas is frequently criticized for not updating its charter to recognize Israel or a two-state solution, right? Likud's charter likewise has not been updated to reflect a two-state solution, and still calls for the obliteration of any chance of an Arab state west of the Jordan. That hasn't changed. it remains untouched, that is Likud's charter.
Likud's charter also calls for continued expansion into Palestinian territory, based on the premise that Jews just have more rights than Arabs. This vivisection of the West bank, of course, is an enormous obstacle to the idea of a two-state solution. Your article says this;
"We have no intention of building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements. But there is a need to enable the residents to lead normal lives, to allow mothers and fathers to raise their children like families elsewhere." He said. That has been taken as a commitment to continue building homes for so called natural growth.
One, that's obviously a lie, one proven to be a lie several times over in the last three years. Israel is very much interested in continued expansion, and Likud's charter continues to endorse it. Even in his declaration there, he basically says that the settlements are going to expand anyway.
There's of course the Jerusalem situation... And the no armed forces situation... and the no control over borders or airspace situation... All of Netanyahu's "conditions" happen to be conditions which anyone would find unacceptable.
Imagine Meshaal (who has in fact also endorsed a two-state solution) agreeing to recognize an Israeli state with no armed forces, no control of its airspace or borders, Palestinian control of Jerusalem - west and east - and a sovereign right to steal from Jews to give to Arabs, with the understanding that the Jewish "state" really isn't a state. Would this be acceptable? 'Cause that's exactly the sort of "state" Netanyahu is proposing.
There is of course also the note that Netanyahu's speech was considered "going too far" by his political allies... Such as Shas, which abhors the idea of any Palestinian state as much as Likud, and Yisrael beitinu, which supports the idea so long as Israeli Arabs can be expelled into the new state (otherwise no - support for two states is conditional on the right to ethnically cleans Israel)
You choose to not believe Meshaal. Fair enough, he's offered nothing but rhetoric either way. Netanyahu has supported a two-state solution, but with so many attached preconditions that he might as well have just farted into the microphone; and even with htat hyperconditionality, his party has not updated the charter nor shown any effort to achieve the stated goal - in fact they do the complete opposite.
That is to say, while Meshaal might be lying, Netanyahu definitely is.
As for you and Likud, no, I never thought you supported Likud. It's been my experience that no matter what rhetoric they spout, every pro-Israeli person in the world is clearly an ardent supporter of Hadash.
King_David
(14,851 posts)I would of supported Tzipi Livni`s new party, but wouldn't`t you know ...theres some new 'homophobic' thingy happening with her election list at the moment.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Which is strange considering the party's strength in Israel. Everyone who supports Israel says they're all really liberal, progressive, stalwart and left-leaning, you know, "the good guys" so of course they would never support Likud. In fact they're all apparently really, really opposed to Likud. So i figured, well, maybe they all support the Israeli party which is least like Likud.
But you're right. After looking up more on Hadash, I see there's absolutely nothing there for you to support!
The party's platform for the 2009 elections consisted of:.[9]
Achieving a just, comprehensive, and stable peace: Israeli/Palestinian and Israeli/Arab
Protecting workers' rights and issues
Developing social services: health, education, housing, welfare, culture, and sports
Equality for the Arab population in Israel
Eradicating ethnic discrimination in all fields; defending the concerns of residents of disadvantaged neighborhoods and development towns
Protecting democratic freedoms
Equality between the sexes in all fields
Protecting the environment; environmental justice
Eradicating weapons of mass destruction
Looks fucking horrid.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Livni’s Hatnua party fleshes out its Knesset slate ahead of election deadline
http://www.timesofisrael.com/hatnua-party-list-fleshes-out-ahead-of-election-deadline/
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Just saying that all these angelic, liberal-progressive "Israel supporters" who never, under, under any circumstances would even for a moment support anything by Likud, would reasonably be expected to support a highly progressive multiethnic socially liberal and economically socialist party that pretty much stands in opposition to all of Likud's main points.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)A sizable chunk of them are Likud supporters.
On a site like DU, I wouldn't think you would find either.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)After 2006, I met a whole bunch of "independents" and "libertarians" who sounded exactly like Republicans on absolutely everything, but were adamant that htey had no affiliation with the party. Same with those Tea party people, you know, not a one of them are Republicans.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And are you sure such a thing IS happening(I ask that because you put the word "homophobic" in quotes). It genuinely surprises me that such a problem would happen with Livni-I always thought she was from the more secular and socially progressive wing of the Israeli "center".
I hope you'll vote Labor or Meretz, then, or at the least Lapid's party. There's a particularly strong case for rebuilding Labor's strength, because the only real hope of getting Netanyahu and his horrible allies out of power is for a credibly large official opposition party to emerge from this election. Neither Lapid's party nor Livni's seems to have the potential to become such a party.
King_David
(14,851 posts)And I am not Israeli, will not be voting...
'Gay community criticizes Livni's party over Knesset candidate Elazar Stern
Members of the community recall that in May 2001, he closed the IDF newspaper Bamahane for two weeks after it ran a cover story on a reserve colonel who revealed he was homosexual.'
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/gay-community-criticizes-livni-s-party-over-knesset-candidate-elazar-stern.premium-1.485011
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I probably thought you were Israeli because you have posted(IIRC)about living on a settlement some of the time.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)I am pretty sure I do remember the poster above as saying that he lived in a settlement. I guess that's the internet for you.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Had Gay friends who were brought up in religious settlements and that their parents were still tolerant and still loved them.
Not that I grew up on one ...
Phew how's that for a good memory ?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Do the Palestinian People need to recognize the Israelis are not leaving illegal settlements and large swaths of the West Bank as well?
King_David
(14,851 posts)Evacuation, Land swaps ,acceptance ....
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:56 AM - Edit history (1)
Israel is never going to leave the security zone they set up.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/21/1163724/-Netanyahu-America-is-a-thing-you-can-move-very-easily-They-won-t-get-their-way#
"They asked me before the election if I'd honour [the Oslo accords]. I said I would, but ... I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the 1967 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones – as far as I'm concerned the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone ... Why does this matter? ... Because at that moment I actually stopped the Oslo Accord."
~Bibi Netanyahu in 2001
There are 350k illegal settlers living on Palestinian land in the West Bank. What is Israel going to trade the Palestinians for the land that they have stolen from them? Desert? Carbon credits?
And how do you suppose, buddy, that the Palestinians accept that from the Israelis when Israel won't even accept a UN resolution against their actions?
Yeah, acceptance. I guess that it only works one way.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Number of Jewish settlers in West Bank passes 350,000 mark
The number of Jewish settlers in the West Bank has crossed the 350,000 mark for the first time, and most of the growth –- now about 4.5% annually –- is coming outside the major settlement blocs in areas that are not expected to become part of Israel under a two-state solution, according to a report Thursday in the pro-government Israel Hayom newspaper.
At 350,143, the Jewish population in the West Bank has nearly doubled since 2000, when it was 190,206, said the newspaper, quoting data from the Interior Ministry. Over the last year, 15,600 new settlers were reported living in the West Bank.
The figures do not include the nearly 300,000 Jewish residents who have moved into East Jerusalem and large developments around the Jerusalem area.
...........................
Conservative Jewish lawmakers praised the growth. National Union Party Chairman Yaakov Katz, quoted by the newspaper, predicted that the Jewish population in the West Bank and East Jerusalem would reach 1 million by 2016, "at which point the revolution will have been completed."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/07/jewish-settlers-in-west-bank-pass-350000-mark.html
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Thanks for the correction.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)I started with B'tselem and everything that came up for them was at least 10 years old I guess people mostly like to read old stuff 
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I'll come over, shoot your dog, beat the shit out of your family, and evict you from your home at gunpoint. Everything that you weren't wearing when I forced you out is now mine. ALL OF IT. Your neighbors are of course unhappy with the situation, but I'm a better shot than they are, and everyone knows those motherfuckers are just anti-Irish freaks anyway. I have a right to exist, and to defend myself!
(I guess it's a good thing the cops don't come to this neighborhood unless they want to shake down the guy who owns the liquor store down the road, huh?)
Anyway, since I'm such a nice guy, and seeing your family camped out in your neighbor's backyard pains me so, I'll tell you what; We'll negotiate about your situation. You offer me some concessions and I'll allow you some perks - for instance, I'll let you look in the window, or maybe bury your dead dog. But just so there's no confusion, there's got to be preconditions to this negotiation.
1) you have to acknowledge in a binding declaration that I am the owner of my house and that you have absolutely no claim to it.
2) Under no circumstances will you or your family be allowed to return to your home. See, that would be dangerous for me, as it would hurt my demographic position in the house, and just can't be allowed. Maybe you get a piece of the backyard. Unless I need it for something.
3) Similarly since you and your family fled under no distress, I consider all the property you left behind to be a housewarming present for me. You have no entitlement to it. Nor to reparations.
4) If I magnanimously allow you to have a fringe of the yard for yourself (perhaps where you bury your dog) you have to understand that I still own it. I will control your road access, your water access, your movement on and off of this fringe of land in the backyard, and any violation will be met with swift and overpowering violence against the offender and his family - I.e., all of you.
So long as we understand that nice and clear, I'm ready to hear what you are willing to give up.
Now you may be wondering, "Why the hell should I negotiate for what's mine?!" well, that just shows that I can't count on you to negotiate in good faith, doesn't it? So we're not going to negotiate after all. Hope you enjoy the neighbors' yard.
King_David
(14,851 posts)That's what happens and happened everywhere else in the world...life is not fair...but there is no other way...
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)nope nothing unilateral about that huh?
King_David
(14,851 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Really, you think injustice should be answered by bargaining, compromising, and conceding your way up to a slightly less-oppressed position?
King_David
(14,851 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)What hard sacrifices should the Jews of Hungary be making in order for continued citizenship? I mean they can't expect to get something for nothing, right? It's "not fair," but "that's the way the world works," right Dave? They're going to have to make concessions. Same with the LBGT people of Uganda, they're going to have to negotiate and bargain for the negation of those anti-gay laws that country is working on, don't you think? It's only "realistic."
...
Of course you don't think they should have to make any offers or concessions, they shouldn't have to sell their rights to avoid oppression. It's a fucking abhorrent notion, isn't it? The idea that a person should have to offer to cut off fingers and toes to keep someone else from gouging out their eyes. The notion that an abuser is owed something by the victim is fucking outrageous, Dave, and I hope that you understand that, and wish you could overcome your biases to realize it's just as true for people you hate as for people you love.
King_David
(14,851 posts)And who lives on it currently .
Do you think it's right that in 2012 anyone should be displaced ? I'm talking today .. Not history not 50 , 60,100,150,200,1000,2000 years ago.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The problem is, you can't be "displaced" from a place you have no legitimate claim to. Israel has zero claim to anything beyond the 1948 armistice lines. Palestine is under absolutely zero obligation to respect and recognize the criminal acts of Israel and its citizens as being legitimate. None. legally, Palestine would be completely within its right to evacuate the squatters from its lands, and would owe them absolutely nothing as recompense - in fact they would likely owe Palestine for damages and expenses incurred.
But, interestingly, that's not the route the Palestinians are looking at. They are willing to make a concession on this. They don't have to do so, as I'm pointing out - they are under no obligation at all - but they are. Namely, that the settlements' residents can remain. They would become Palestinian citizens, living in Palestine, subject to Palestinian law, with a guarantee that they will have all the rights and freedoms that Arabs enjoy in Israel - or more.
Since the settlers are all about their love for the land, all about the feel of digging into the earth of their forefathers, surely they find this agreeable, right? What's nationality matter, so long as they keep the land promised to them by god, right? Of course, god's promise doesn't seem to include substantial tax breaks, subsidized housing, water, electricity, or telecommunications...
King_David
(14,851 posts)"PLO ambassador says Palestinian state should be free of Jews"
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-09-13/palestinian-israeli-jews-future-state-israel-PLO/50394882/1
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And there's this...
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/pa-settlers-can-become-palestinian-citizens-1.276727
But of course, it's a moot point; If the Palestinians want a wholesale evacuation of illegal squatters and criminals from their country then that is their right.
Strange that people who support three years imprisonment in the desert for people whose only crime is crossing a border while black, get so sniffy about the idea of actual criminals being repatriated all of five miles back to their parent country.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Can be very reassuring to the Israeli Jews.. They never say anything bad and when they do its always a mistranslation and they never mean Jews just Israelis and they all want to be led by white westerners such as the ISM.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)On behalf of their wily world-controlling Arab puppetmasters
King_David
(14,851 posts)Maybe because I just don't understand it at all.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)What's more, it's showing a clear support for Israeli settlers. Fuck them. They have no right to be stealing land the way they are.
The mindset you display here belongs back in less enlightened times, when people were driven off their land by others who felt they had a right to take it.
King_David
(14,851 posts)But if a new country is born do you think these people should be offered citizenship in the new state or face eviction just because of their ethnicity .
And when Hamas talks about illegal settlers they are talking about Tel Aviv too btw.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You're saying that shoplifters' claims to merchandise needs to be respected, basically. What's more, not only should that claim to merchandise be respected, but the shopkeeper needs to give the thief something else in order to get his goods returned.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)They could be Irish Catholics and they'd still be illegal squatters backed by a nation committing an act of war by allowing and encouraging them.
if the Palestinians want to make some settler-inclusive deal, then that is the Palestinians' right to do so, and is in fact a concession in and of itself - they are not at all obligated to do so. History has shown however that it's not high on the Palestinians' lists of interests. They are 100% within their rights to tell every single invader to fuck off back across that border.
And if they want, yes, they can put up a "no Jews allowed" sign. I understand that they have a neighbor that is very persnickety about Arabs immigrating, so there's regional precedent for such a law, though I personally wouldn't support it any more than I support said neighbor's.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)There is always the war crimes court.
But something you wrote doesn't add up.
"That's what happens and happened everywhere else in the world."
Lot's of bad things happen in the world, and it is the responsibility of Democratic nations to actually stand up to these immoral acts and not ignore them: lest they one day happen to them as well. It is the responsibility of Democracies to obey international law and not make up decrees to divorce a people from their own land and property: just because it suits their wants.
Not only that, but as a member and byproduct of the United Nations Israel, and its supporters, has some responsibly to actually act like they would want to be treated. This isn't the 1500s. It is now, and since Israel is a Democratic state one would believe that modern Democratic states don't act like 16th century Monarchies.
If the roles were reversed I doubt that would you still be writing "life is not fair."
King_David
(14,851 posts)no matter what the charge .. Every time .. I agree with you .
However evacuation of settlements can only be done with Israel's consent .
Negotiation is the best course of action .
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:32 AM - Edit history (1)
Israel is going to have to answer for their actions at some point.
And the Palestinians should have to answer for what they have done as well: rockets, bombings and shootings. Everything on the able. All groups should stop the hostilities.
And yes, evacuation of settlements can only be done with Israel's consent, but the Israeli government seems to be bent on adding more misery with expansion of units within these settlements. It will not punish the Palestinians as much as it could turn Israel into pariah, and I hope they see that it is not in their interest to do that.
To show my reasoning on the above and to be honest, the US should face charges at the World Crimes Court for numerous things. One being the illegal invasion of Iraq on false charges of WMD. Everybody knew that was as crafted lie.
That one misadventure cost thousands of US lives and tens of thousands of wounded soldiers...not to mention the 1 million Iraqi deaths attributed to the invasion: worse than anything that has happened since Israel's inception.
delrem
(9,688 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 24, 2012, 08:46 AM - Edit history (1)
Creative piece there.
Which land was "stolen", in your opinion? The WB and Gaza or Israel, the WB, and Gaza? Hamas (and the PLO in all arabic press) say it's the latter. Do you agree with Hamas and the PLO about those land-thieving, racist european colonists taking advantage of the poor indigenous people?
What's your solution if not negotiation? Total war? Israeli surrender? A theocratic, totalitarian Hamastan replacing Israel?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The rest of the world recognizes the 1948 armistice lines as the boundary between Israel and Palestine. On one side of the line is the nation of Israel. On the other side is the nation of Palestine.
The complication is that Israel has transferred a pretty sizable portion of its population into Palestine, in blatant violation of law. Another similar problem is their "security fence" which as you well know, is placed beyond the armistice line.
As Israel is signatory to several treaties that outright forbid this sort of thing, Israel is obligated to correct the problem. it doesn't get to say "let's negotiate," it doesn't get to decide if it would rather make restitution some other way. It has a legal obligation to remove its nationals and remove the barrier it has erected within Palestine.
Of course, the Palestinian government has stated that if the "settlers" wish to remain, they can do so... as citizens of Palestine, under Palestinian governance and authority. And if Israel feels it still needs a thirty-foot concrete wall on the border, well it can have one... So long as it's built on Israel's side of the border.
Bluntly, there's nothing to negotiate there. The Palestinians do not have to concede anything for Israel to stop breaking the law any more than Israel has to make concessions to stop rocket fire - which is also violation of law. Once Israel follows the law - the treaties that Israel itself has signed - then negotiations can begin for such things as land swaps, refugee status, that sort of thing.
The Palestinians are simply under no obligation whatsoever to make concessions to end a criminal act by Israel. They do not have to "negotiate" for what is already theirs, understand? Belief that a people need to sell off their rights in order to get access to some other rights is something a progressive - fuck, any civilized person - should find abhorrent.
sabbat hunter
(6,834 posts)get the old city? It was supposed to be an international city, under UN control. But the UN long ago abrogatted that right when it did not send troops in to take it from the Jordanians and force them to keep it open to all.
I see no reason why the old city should go to Palestinian politically.
Let it stay status quo, political control to Israel, various religions control the holy sites.
The rest of the boundaries should be along the approximate 1948 lines, with some adjustments in both directions.
shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)by someone who would be later made Prime Minister of Israel Yitzak Shamir
sabbat hunter
(6,834 posts)1) he was assassinated after the initial fighting was over and done. Jerusalem was already in the hands of Jordan. The UN never defended the city from invasion
2) there was a negotiator who was named to succeed him after his assassination
3) the UN never tried to force Jordan to live up to the 1949 armistice agreement
It is tragic that Shamir and the rest of the Stern gang were pardoned and/or never brought to justice, but that does not have anything to do with the fact that the UN failed in its duty, and that the Old City was never supposed to be part of Palestine.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and Folke's successor Ralph Bunche conducted negotiations on the isle of Rhodes he was also one first African Americans to serve in such a post and he recieved the Noblre peace prize for his efforts
sabbat hunter
(6,834 posts)did not actively participate in any fighting.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)"As Israel is signatory to several treaties that outright forbid this sort of thing, Israel is obligated to correct the problem. It doesn't get to say 'let's negotiate,'"
Iran is signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) yet they are being challenged through their pursuit of nuclear weapons, as the West accuses, up to the point of financial-diplomatic pressure to cease such pursuits.
Why is one allowed while the other is sanctioned?
shira
(30,109 posts)...and it doesn't mention Palestinians. Land will be given back and the occupation will end once there's a peace deal.
It also doesn't matter if the rest of the world recognizes armistice lines as borders. They can recognize Santa Clause while they're at it. Armistice lines are not borders and at that time it was made very clear they weren't going to be borders.
If the Palestinians didn't need to negotiate anything, there wouldn't be a call for a peace process calling for the exchange of land for actual peace. The UN, EU, USA, and Russia all got behind the Oslo process. If the land were indeed Palestinian, what would be the point?
Finally, and we've been over this before, the WB and Gaza is and remains part of the Jewish homeland according to the LoN and the UN (and that's International Law). That is, until Israel decides to give up all rights to it in exchange for peace.
=======
Did you know that the PLO was established in 1964 (three years prior to the Six Day War) in order to end the Israeli occupation and settlements?
At that time Egypt and Jordan were in control of the territories and the PLO was very clear they weren't interested in taking Gaza (from Egypt) or the WB (from Jordan)? Funny how everyone in the world knows it's Palestinian land. The PLO didn't even believe that when they originated in 1964. They said Palestine was Israel proper and they wanted all of it.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The military occupation is in fact legal, given the lack of a peace accord. Unpleasant as it may be, Israel does have the right to impose military authority so long as formal hostilities remain.
The settlements, however, are another matter and are blatantly illegal under international law. Said law forbids population transfers into occupied territory. "Occupation," contrary to what some very dim members of your club here on DU think, does not equal "conquest."
Further international law recognizes land-grabs as acts of war, the same as... oh say, shooting rockets over a border. What that means is that each of these settlements is an individual, perpetual act of war. If you can't understand why this makes a peace deal difficult (to say the least), then I'm really not sure what to say to you.
shira
(30,109 posts)...was an issue that was to be resolved in a final agreement. If they were considered illegal then, the PA wouldn't have signed on. At the very least, the PA accepted settlement building when they signed on to Oslo. The EU, UN, Russia, and USA all recognized this acceptance (Oslo) back in the 90's; an agreement that allowed for settlements to be a final status issue requring negotiation, like refugees, and even more importantly, borders. It was Israel, after Oslo was signed, that decided not to create anymore new settlements, for the interest of peace.
International Law, like UNSCR 242, actually doesn't forbid conquest of territory. 242 was passed after Israel had already annexed 70 sq. km of E.Jerusalem and it made no mention of the fact, meaning legally 242 recognized the annexation. When considering 242's mention of "secure and recognized boundaries", this makes sense. 242 recognized that annexation of E.Jerusalem meets the requirement of "secure and recognized boundaries", and it allowed for Israel to take more land for that purpose. Later in the 90's, Oslo left borders to be negotiated during final status talks, thereby confirming 242's recognition of Israel's right to secure, recognized boundaries.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Since the PA didn't exist until after everything was signed - Oslo created the Palestinian National Authority.
Settlements were not covered in Oslo I for the simple reason that Oslo was not comprehensive and was not meant to be. Permanent issues such as Jerusalem, settlements, security, borders, refugees, and the like were going to be worked over at a later date. This does not mean that these issues were "accepted," no matter how hard you hold your breath and wish. it means that the creation of a Palestinian administrative body and outlining the issues that would be worked over took priority... Which just makes sense, really.
Oslo II simply centered around refining and defining the details of said administrative body and its interaction with Israel, and tried to tackle that "security" issue. it again shelved the other permanent issues to be discussed at a later date.
Settlements - along with other territory concerns - didn't come up until Camp David, seven years after Oslo I. They came up again in 2001, at the Taba summit. Both discussions failed, because of the same reason; the Israelis demanded to keep their settlements, the Palestinians found that unacceptable. "Unacceptable" is, of course, the antonym of "acceptable," which very strongly implies that there was no acceptance of those settlements.
And you're right, UNSCR 242 doesn't forbid conquest of territory; that forbiddance is in the fourth Geneva conventions (Article 49, to be precise.) 242 does demand that Israel (by name) remove its forces "from territories occupied in the recent conflict." Which is again, exactly the opposite of what you're trying to claim it says. In fact it's so opposite, that the only adjective I have to describe your argument is "perverse."
shira
(30,109 posts)Same people running the PA.
If 242 demanded that Israel remove its forces from all of the territories pre-'67, then it wouldn't also require "secure and recognized boundaries" for Israel. 242 would certainly have mentioned Israel's annexation of E.Jerusalem (months prior). Borders wouldn't even be an issue to be negotiated according to Oslo.
Arafat rejected peace, not necessarily the settlements back in 2000-01. He later regretted it...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/22/israel
He wouldn't have accepted Taba (late) if he had such a problem with those "illegal settlements, thieving land grabs", etc.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I know you're trying, really really really hard here, but no, 242 just does not work that way. End of story.
I have to admit, I'm a little curious about where on earth you even got such a weird idea, though.
shira
(30,109 posts)...then why are borders to be negotiated according to both 242 and Oslo? There shouldn't be anything to negotiate if Israel is just supposed to GTFO and stop "stealing" land.
242 recognized Israel's annexation of E.Jerusalem. How is that possible according to your view?
As to settlements, they are a final status issue. If they were illegal and Israel by law was to GTFO, then why didn't Oslo 1 or 2 just say that? Why didn't it just forbid settlement building from thereon?
===========
You don't have the answers to these questions.
The answer to all these questions is that the territories are disputed land. International Law recognizes Jews also have claim to the land, from as far back as 90 years ago.
It's shameful to keep accusing certain people of being criminals and thieves who have zero rights to that land when you know better.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Oslo I and II did not cover the settlements - or any other territory issue - because the priority was creating an administrative body and handing security issues, respectively. when territory did come up, including the settlements, negotiations broke down because the Israelis were not willing to accept getting the fuck out, and the Palestinians were not willing to accept recognizing swarms of illegal colonies. Unstoppable force vs. Immovable object.
242 did no such thing, and whoever is telling you otherwise is lying to you, and they are lying hard. Maybe they're not counting on it being extremely easy to look this stuff up? Even Israel does not interpret the resolution in such a way.
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/IMG/NR024094.pdf?OpenElement
U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 242
NOVEMBER 22, 1967
The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,
1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
Affirms further the necessity
(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
3. Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
shira
(30,109 posts)Oslo doesn't call for settlements being abandoned and Israel having to get out (100%) of pre-'67 territories. If that were the case, what would be the point to negotiating borders and Jerusalem? According to your view, the borders are pre-'67 and all E.Jerusalem goes to Palestine. Nothing to negotiate. While we're at it, what's the point of negotiating refugees or security?
According to the Palestinians themselves, there's no deal until EVERYTHING is agreed to (borders, security, Jerusalem, refugees, settlements). It's not just settlements that are the biggest obstacle, as you'd like to portray it. Arafat could've rejected Camp David / Taba due to refugees and all other issues. But that's irrelevant as Arafat accepted Israel's offer 18 months later. Apparently, Arafat was okay with Israel's stand on settlements, land swaps, etc.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/22/israel
What I find amazing is all the so-called pro-Palestinians who claim Israel offered scraps. They apparently weren't scraps to Arafat. You guys should all be for that deal or something very similar. As it is, you're more Palestinian than Arafat.
As to 242 and territorial claims...
http://jcpa.org/text/resolution242-blum.pdf
They were rebuffed. The Soviet Union, India, and other Security Council members tried to interpret the resolution as calling for Israel’s total withdrawal, but both Lord Caradon and U.S. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg responded that this was not the purpose of Resolution 242.26 In fact, as late as November 21, 1967, less than twenty-four hours before the resolution was adopted, Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin sent a letter to U.S. President Lyndon Johnson demanding that the resolution explicitly state that Israel be called upon to withdraw to its pre-war positions. Johnson replied that the text was balanced and no changes could be introduced at that stage.27
Two years later, in 1969, an exchange took place in the British House of Commons which reinforced the plain meaning of the text. British Foreign Secretary Michael Stewart was asked if the resolution called upon Israel to withdraw from all the territories. He replied to the questioner: “No Sir, this is not the phrase used in the resolution. The resolution speaks of secure and recognized boundaries. Those words must be read concurrently with the statement on withdrawal.”28
Indeed, the two provisions discussed above must be read concurrently. The recommendation for withdrawal does not stand alone but rather in conjunction with the “secure and recognized boundaries” clause. The provision calling for the establishment of secure boundaries in the resolution would have been meaningless had there been an obligation to withdraw Israel’s armed forces from all the territories captured by it in 1967.
Consider Israel's boundaries pre-67 were not secure. Nor were they recognized by neighboring Arab states as borders. Hence, the need to negotiate exactly for that.
Your POV has too many holes in it.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Oslo doesn't call for settlements being abandoned and Israel having to get out (100%) of pre-'67 territories.
Never said it did. Don't know why you're coming from this utterly irrelevant angle.
According to your view, the borders are pre-'67 and all E.Jerusalem goes to Palestine. Nothing to negotiate. While we're at it, what's the point of negotiating refugees or security?
My view is based on international law and is shared by every nation on earth, save Israel (and Costa Rica, I guess. It's no Palau, but it'll do, I guess!) The Palestinians do not need to negotiate. At all. Period. Israel is in fact 100%, completely, bare-assed wrong on the subject of territory and refugees. That the Palestinians have offered to negotiate at all when they do not need to shows both an amazing level of tolerance, and a willingness to sacrifice for peace. No other nation on earth would do so; Israel certainly wouldn't.
Arafat could've rejected Camp David / Taba due to refugees and all other issues.
But he didn't. The Palestinian negotiation team walked after the matter of territory caused an impasse. At the summits that were supposed to talk about territory.
They apparently weren't scraps to Arafat.
I notice that Israel didn't take him up on taking Israel up on the offer. So why bring it up now as if it were relevant? Also again, note that there was a negotiating team handling the subject, who were (presumably) more aware and in touch with the situation than Arafat (who has been quoted as saying he would be willing to accept a "postage stamp" of land.)
http://jcpa.org/text/resolution242-blum.pdf
That's a tortured reading right there. From a lobby group no less. Penned by a staunch anti-Arab advocate of the invasion and occupation of Lebanon, as well as the "settlements" in the West Bank. Well, at least he has an actual career, unlike the bloggers and hate peddlers you usually source.
He takes an accepted given, provided for in the resolution - that Israel is allowed to keep a military occupation in place until a peace accord is reached... and then twists and mutates it into the idea that this allows Israel to also violate the 4th Geneva conventions. This is even dumber than my own nation's attempt to say torture "doesn't count" if you don't actually call it torture. Neocon sociopaths of a feather, I guess.
Tellingly, he does not include the actual text of the resolution anywhere. Doing so would of course fucking destroy his argument;
Which leads us to...
Consider Israel's boundaries pre-67 were not secure.
Border insecurity tends to happen when you invade your neighbors, yeah. Somehow, Israel had managed to go for a good 20 years with its "indefensible" borders (and then some, given their '56 invasion and occupation of Sinai for a time) and has suffered more attacks since 67 gave it "secure" borders. One also questions the wisdom of (illegally) moving civilians to settle in the occupied territories, if the interest is protecting your civilians from harm. Clearly, "security" is in this case a completely meaningless word meant to trigger reaction in the reader; sort of like how bread often has the word "wholesome" somewhere on the bag.
Even were the claim of "indefensible borders" true, Israel is not entitled to conquer land to get what it thinks are "more defensible" borders... By this logic, it's Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine who need better borders, and it's Israel they should be snatching that turf from. I'm sure you support military conquest of Israel's land, just as you support military conquest by Israel, right? Fair is fair.
There's also the problem of larger borders actually being less defensible by their nature. And of the fact that Sirael's land-left creates less-secure borders for the people it steals from, which sort of invalidates the argument you're aiming for here... Among many other things...
Your argument isn't just bullshit; it's pathologically deranged.
shira
(30,109 posts)1. You ignored the proceedings from Nov 1967 at the UN, in which the USSR and Arab nations demanded Israel withdraw from "all territories". They lost that argument. You have no answer for it as you've just ignored it.
2. UNSCR 242 calls for "secure and recognized boundaries". It doesn't matter what you think Israel's security demands are. The UN back then realized the pre-67 boundaries were unacceptable. There were also no recognized boundaries (borders), only armistice lines. If 242 is not a call for a future negotiation of "recognized" and "secure" borders, nothing is. You're assuming the borders were already set when they weren't and still are not recognized. In fact, you're ignoring the history of the cease-fire / armistice lines (which were deliberately not intended to be borders).
3. UNSCR 242 doesn't mention Palestinians. Not even once. It simply doesn't apply to them. Perhaps they weren't mentioned due to the fact the 1964 PLO charter made no claim to the territories (conceding they were Egyptian/Jordanian ruled).
4. Sorry, but Oslo calls for borders and Jerusalem to be negotiated. It seems the Palestinians gave up their "right" (a right you insist they have in 242 to all the territories) once they signed on to negotiate for them. If they didn't have to negotiate anything, or if it were all theirs to begin with, they shouldn't have agreed to negotiate anything.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Because they were making the demand Israel withdraw from all territories since 1948, Shira. The resolution, as passed, still very clearly calls for an Israeli withdrawal from the territory taken in the "recent conflict" (1967.)
No, the UN recognized the need for secure and recognized borders for each state in the nation. This isn't what you are describing, Shira. it is not a proclamation for those states to "take what they need" for secure borders, which is exactly what you are trying to argue. it is in fact the absolute opposite. How so? Because in the conflict that 242 addresses, it was Israel, and only Israel violating borders and htne refusing to recognize such borders existed.
Irrelevant, as 242 calls for Israel to withdraw from territories occupied "in the recent (1967) conflict." Those territories included the West Wank and Gaza, along with Sinai, the Golan, and Shebaa Valley. I think you're trying to make a point in a totally different argument here.
If it weren't all theirs, they would have no authority to negotiate with it, silly-pants. Agreeing to negotiate is not giving up any right, it is simply saying "I'm willing to talk about this." My point is that the Palestinians did not need to do so. Agreeing to offer negotiations over territory was a good-faith gesture in the interests of the peace process.
Discussion of territory in Camp David broke down because the Israelis were asking for more than the Palestinians were willing to give (and were offering sand dunes in exchange, fer chrissakes). Taba had a much more acceptable territory arrangment, but was put on hold for the Israeli election... and the Barak government issued a statement;
Prime Minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak clarified this evening that the ideas which were brought up in the course of the recent negotiations conducted with the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, including those raised at the Camp David Summit and by President Clinton towards the end of his term in office, are not binding on the new government to be formed in Israel.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2001/2/Barak%20to%20Bush-%20Sharon%20is%20not%20bound%20by%20negotiating
shira
(30,109 posts)Can you be more clear?
How could Israel violate borders WRT Gaza and the WB, when those territories were illegally occupied by Egypt and Jordan prior to Israel capturing them? The ceasefire lines were not even borders. How could it be legitimate IHL for Israel to return the territories to Egypt and Jordan (whose occupations were illegal)? WRT the other territories (Sinai, for example) you're right. Not so WRT Gaza/WB land. There wasn't even a Palestinian authority back then making claims to the WB and Gaza. In fact, the PLO charter insisted that the territories were Egyptian/Jordanian, not Palestinian. Palestinians back then were working towards taking all Israel within the green line.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I don't think I can. The Russians et al were asking for broader language that could have been interpreted as applying to all occupied territory - which does in fact include every centimeter of land beyond the borders drawn by Resolution 181 (ridiculous borders they were, but still). What was passed instead spoke only of territory occupied by Israel in 1967.
Because those territories were outside of Israel's borders. It doesn't really matter if what lies on the other side is a state, a tribal backwater, an illegally-occupied-entity, or whatever. it's beyond your borders, so you have zero title to it, and when you cross the border, you are violating another territory.
What, suddenly you're worried about the Palestinians' right to self-determination? Only when it's other Arabs doing the occupying, I suppose
Who the territories would go to is irrelevant. Israel had no more right to be there, and had much less acceptance from the locals than Egypt or Jordan did. if Israel was concerned about the occupation by Egypt and Jordan, maybe it could have filed something about that i nthe Un after removing its own forces.
shira
(30,109 posts)...territories gained in the 1948 war?
You keep saying Israel had borders and what they took outside of those borders is not theirs. The thing is, no one recognized such borders. The boundaries you're referring to were ceasefire lines, not borders, and the ceasefire conditions were crystal clear. They were in no way borders.
You misunderstood my question about returning land to Egypt and Jordan. It wasn't theirs either. There is no law on the books demanding that an LEGAL occupier return land to ILLEGAL occupiers. And it's not that I'm so interested in Palestinian self-determination. That's irrelevant. You, however, say you are deeply concerned about their right to self-determination, but when called to the mat, you just prefer one occupation over another. A significantly more brutal one than Israel's. Maybe you should do some research into the human rights situation in the territories before and after 1967.
It also doesn't matter whether the Palestinians "accepted" Egypt and Jordan's rule over Israeli rule. For one thing, that goes to show human rights are not a part of this equation; but only a smoke-screen. What it shows is that the Palestinians themselves made zero claims to the territories. If they were making zero claims to the territories, how can you say it's theirs by historical right?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The Russians and Arabs were pressing for wording that demanded an Israeli withdraw from all occupied territory. The wording that was passed called for withdraw from the territories occupied in the recent conflict. They were not demanding that Israel pull back to the 181 lines, but the wording they were pushing for could have been used that way - and is probably exactly why they were going for that particular wording.
If Israel has no borders, Israel is not a valid state and is not a legitimate member of the UN, and no one is bound to respect any of its territorial claims. Are you certain you want to make this argument? The armistice lines were accepted as the de facto borders by Israel and the international community for the twenty years after 1948 (in fact those lines are the recognized borders even today, at least for every nation except Israel and - again - Costa Rica.) The 242 resolution plainly considers them as such by demanding an Israeli withdraw from territories occupied in the '67 war which, as we previously covered, includes the West Bank and Gaza.
242 did not call for territory to be returned to anyone. It calls for an Israeli withdraw. What happens after that withdraw is a separate issue.
Also you're conflating the PLO with the people of Palestine. And the PLO at the time happened to lay claim to the entire territory. Ever read their charter of 1964? No, I suppose not, primary sources aren't your thing, are they? Anyway, here you go, have a look.
http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/palestine/pid/12363
The PLO does not claim political authority over the West Bank or Gaza - but it does hold that those are part of an indivisible Palestine, and lays Palestinian claim to them as certainly as the rest of mandate Palestine.
shira
(30,109 posts)The Russians submitted a proposal calling for Israel to "withdraw to the pre war cease fire lines of June 5, 1967". THAT was rejected in favor of the language the Brits used instead.
http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/6_day_war_aftermath_prof_UN_Resolution_242_pt6.htm
Lord Caradon (chief drafter of 242) even admitted:
You're wrong.
Here are more quotes from the drafters of 242:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1267
No amount of propaganda changes the true meaning of 242.
What I meant about borders is that they are not recognized by Israel's neighbors, like Lebanon and Syria for example. They weren't recognized in 1967 by Egypt and Jordan either. BTW, the UN cannot recognize ceasefire lines as borders. To do so gives legitimacy to the illegal Egyptian and Jordanian occupations of land that was not theirs to take.
======
BTW, I think you made a convincing argument WRT article 2 from the PLO original charter.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)What was actually passed through the UN does. It calls for a total withdrawal of Israel from the territories it had occupied. It does not say "except for wherever Israel thinks Israel should stay."
Trying to wriggle out a claim that the resolution means exactly the opposite of what it says - that Israel gets to stay and the nations it's occupying are not entitled to secure borders - is a shameful level of mendicancy.
And really, I cite the UN, you cite CAMERA... this is pretty much the way our discussion ends. Have a good night Shira.
shira
(30,109 posts)They made sure "the" and "all" were eliminated from the language about territories being returned.
They made sure "secure and recognized" borders was part of the resolution. And not only that, they can explain everything in the resolution, from the preamble to the missing "the" and "all", straight through to "secure and recognized borders".
Your anti-zio friends and acquaintances are unable to explain all the language in the resolution.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)I've lost count of the number of times DUers have explained to you that despite the claims of RW extremists, the West Bank and Gaza are not part of Israel (aka Jewish homeland).
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Rainclouds deposit rain
Birds deposit bird poo
Cats deposit cat hair
Mudslides deposit mud
Motors deposit motor oil
Shira deposits Right Wing extremist crap
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)It'll be a thread maybe a few months, maybe a year from now, when someone from Team Israel will insist that none of them have ever claimed that the West Bank and Gaza is part of the 'Jewish homeland' aka Israel, or argued that the settlers have the right to stay where they are because it's 2012 and you just don't kick people off their land apparently, not like 60 years ago. It'll be amusing to watch them tie themselves inside out denying the stuff said in this thread was ever said...
oberliner
(58,724 posts)It's amazing how posters like to invent this kind of nonsense that doesn't exist.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)No "Team Israel," huh?
Fucking surreal.
King_David
(14,851 posts)One presumes if we divided into 2 groups here in the IP forum and one group is "Team Israel" as said above... Then the other is ..
Team Palestine ?
Interesting that ....there are groups in the west that presume to join and" lead " the Palestinian people , such as the ISM.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Response to delrem (Reply #77)
King_David This message was self-deleted by its author.
delrem
(9,688 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)You seem to have invented a little universe in your own mind that does not exist in reality.
It's really fascinating to watch.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Do you guys sit around eating felafel and and gefilte fish singing David Melech and Am Yisrael Chai in your pajamas together with the rest of the team ?
shira
(30,109 posts)...in posts 54, 57, and 69. If you're right, you shouldn't have any problem addressing the points.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)No matter what the thief responsible might say.
shira
(30,109 posts)The Palestinians in their original 1964 charter made no claims to the territories.
So whose stolen property was it?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Do simple concepts such as property rights confuse you? Is that the problem Shira? Are you like some vagabond anarchist or something, believing that property only belongs to the person using it at any given moment? because the rest of the species seems to have a pretty firm grasp on concepts like ownership versus theft, and you seem to be an outlier.
shira
(30,109 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Think very carefully before you answer.
shira
(30,109 posts)...else they wouldn't have renounced all rights to it in their original 1964 charter. That charter, BTW, is clear that Palestinian land was all of Israel proper within the 1948 green line.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)As for the PLO charter, I've given it to you. Cited Article 2 from it for you. It does not say what you are claiming it says. In fact it says the opposite. At this point, your repeated claims otherwise are lies, rather than ignorance.
I'd suggest it's time you examine a different tack. Maybe it's time for another wild-eyed anti-left rant?
shira
(30,109 posts)So how is it suddenly not part of the Jewish homeland? When did that change?
The clause I'm referring to in the original charter is article 24. Not article 2.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)...Well, okay, resolution 181 made no sense anyway, but the land being claimed is well outside the boundaries of what the UN accepted as the "Jewish" portion of the partition. 181 was the UN's expression of carrying through the Balfour Declaration. And since we've already gone over the Balfour declaration before Shira (remember, you claimed that political rights are not civil rights?) let's spare each other a retread.
And Article 24 simply means that the PLO is not a governing body, and is leaving administration of those two patches of greater Palestine to the administration of the nations currently administering. It doesn't do much good for a revolutionary organization without administrative resources to get into a slapfight with its sponsors over who administers the territory, after all. I understand where your wishful thinking is leading you, but that's all it is - wishful thinking. It's a delegation of administration, not a cession of territory; that much is made very clear, in a much earlier Article.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 3, 2013, 08:34 PM - Edit history (1)
...would it have gone into effect. When the Palestinians rejected it, that did not give them rights to the land already allocated to Jews back in the 1920's. The Jews accepted it, wanting to make peace and taking whatever homeland they could get at the time. If both sides agreed, only then would the 1920's Balfour resolution that the LoN and UN accepted be overturned.
Your claim about the partition being the UN's way of carrying out Balfour is without foundation. And yes, the conditions under Balfour were such that Arabs' civil and religious rights be respected. The land from the 'river to the sea' was the Jewish homeland, where Arabs were not supposed to have political rights. I never said I agree with that. Only that the conditions were such that it was to permanently remain the Jewish homeland.
The original charter states that the Palestinians didn't have much of a problem with Arab occupation. And of course, it did not make any claims to the WB or Gaza. When '67 rolled around, there was legally NO ONE Israel could have given those territories to. Consider that after Sinai was handed over, Israel had already withdrawn from about 90% of all territories gained from the '67 war. A legitimate argument can be made that Israel has already legally fulfilled UNSCR 242. They've even tried giving back the Golan to Syria for peace, as well as trying to give land to the Palestinians for their own state (contingent on peace). It's not Israel's fault that a state of war still exists. There is no partner on the other side out there that desires peace. They see Israel the same way it was viewed in 1948. All of it illegal.
Bottom Line:
1. It's still International Law from 90 years ago that gives Jews rights to the land from the river to the sea.
2. It's still International Law that makes the ceasefire armistice lines just that. Not borders.
3. UNSCR 242 makes no mention of Palestinians. It doesn't even demand Israel return the WB and Gaza to its former illegal occupiers.
4. These are basic facts you shouldn't deny, ignore, and deflect from.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)here is a copy of that
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/PLO_Covenant.html
now in answer to your question the land was 'stolen' from Jordan and Egypt if that makes it better but in the original UN partition those areas were not nor were they ever considered part of Israel
seems you deny the right to exist for a Palestinians state?
shira
(30,109 posts)Hmmm.
The original UN partition didn't mention Palestinians.
And unlike you, I'm genuinely for 2 states. I'm for Israel renouncing its rights to almost all the territories in exchange for peace.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)next ........
oh and do not presume to know my mind or state it for either I was polite enough to ask you a question
shira
(30,109 posts)It was a non-binding UNGA resolution. The Arab League rejected it, as well as the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee.
If you were for 2 states, then you wouldn't be for Arafat's phased plan based on RoR.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)when did you become prescient or are you just stating your opinion as if it were fact again?
shira
(30,109 posts)How about refugees in Lebanon and Syria? Are you suddenly for their return to Gaza and the WB?
Are you now for the build-your-own-home program that would have taken refugees out of camps?
FYI, Hamas and the PA are rejecting taking in desperate refugees from Syria right now. They say they don't like the political ramifications regarding RoR.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-pa-reportedly-refuse-to-take-in-palestinian-refugees-from-syria/
My bet is you agree with the PA and Hamas and that the refugees should "just suck it".
Am I wrong?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:14 PM - Edit history (1)
and that stuff yet again huh? well that is not exactly what Abbas said he said automatically become citizens, my bet is that had he said any different we'd be hearing shrill cries about Abbas allowing terrorists to return
but thanks for yet another example of damned if they do damned if they don't when it comes to Palestinians
shira
(30,109 posts)Abbas never said that eventually, after some time, the refugees would become citizens of a future Palestine. You'll note that he never blasted his ambassador in Lebanon for saying that refugees there would never become Palestinian citizens.
Seriously, with all your views on refugees, it's obvious you're for RoR.
I've never seen you come out against it either.
--------
And enough of this damned if they do or don't nonsense. You are clearly capable of stating you are against RoR but also against the Zionists turning such a situation around to make it appear the Palestinians want terrorists in the West Bank.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and if I do not state I'm against something that automatically means I am for it? wow
and yes I am stating that fault will be found with Palestinians no matter what they do
sorry I waited to reply but I found your dissertation on the current legitimacy of the proclamations of the League of Nations British Empire and Balfour quite entertaining from a 21rst century POV
shira
(30,109 posts)Every post about RoR goes to show your position on it isn't any different than the PA's or Ma'ans position.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)last I said that at least those Palestinians that actually lived in what is now Israel should be allowed to return and seeing as how they are at minimum 64 and average life expectancy of Palestinians is a bit over 70 there shouldn't be much problem
shira
(30,109 posts)...about all their offspring (in the millions) and why you seemingly have no problem with all of them rotting in refugee camps for who knows how long. I'd imagine a pro-Palestinian advocate like yourself would demand that these millions of Palestinian refugee descendants should at least have a choice as to whether they wish to remain refugees or not.
Hell, the originals should have that choice too rather than rot away...
So what gives?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:09 PM - Edit history (2)
...they wish to remain in refugee camps rotting away, becoming citizens if they were born there, or going to some other country that would take them in. The point is, you'll have none of that. I've never seen you once state in all our discussions that they should have those choices, NOW. In your view, they should all rot as refugees for another 64 years if need be.
And you're right. I've stated repeatedly the originals should be given that choice as to whether they want to go to Israel or not. But here's the thing. You've admitted here you're for full right of return...
http://election.democraticunderground.com/113412453#post36
Why the bullcrap denial all this time that you weren't for it? That was just 6 months ago.
shira
(30,109 posts)Why deny it for the past week?
Or did you just forget you're for it?
http://election.democraticunderground.com/113412453#post36
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)lol shira lets see here
View profile
Last edited Sat Jun 23, 2012, 02:11 PM USA/ET - Edit history (4)
Your position is hopelessly contradictory, and that's why you're being called on it.
yes I've said that I am for full RoR it goes along with what I have also said about Palestinian refugees being given choices and according to you Palestinian have equal rights in Israel and allowing Palestinian refugees Ror is part of some nefarious Arab plot to destroy Israel
I have never said Palestinians refugees should have no choice to live in Lebanon seems are you confused? and as I have pointed out they should have choices that is plural you do understand plural right? As to Lebanon the bigotry there against Palestinian runs quite deep as it does in Israel where even Palestinians with Israeli citizenship are considered a 5th column by 'some' and in Lebanon Palestinian refugees are still widely considered to be responsible for Israel's invasion and occupation of that country which left 25,000 Lebanese dead, however if they wish to stay then they should be able to as citizens if thy wish, even though Lebanon has come close to civil war quite recently and the violence from Syria seems to be "spilling over" in to Lebanon
ps shira I've also said that Israel will never ever allow a single Palestinian RoR that's reality funny how you couldn't be bothered to dig that up
shira
(30,109 posts)Just like all the anti-zios.
Why deny it?
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)Also, yr claim was that the Jewish homeland aka Israel is the West Bank and Gaza, and Israel has rights to it. It doesn't have any right to territory that's not part of Israel proper. That sort of extremist rubbish is ugly stuff that's little different than the we'll have it all thanks extremism if said about a Palestinian state taking in all of Israel.
shira
(30,109 posts)It wasn't Jordan's or Egypt's.
The Palestinians made no claims to it in their 1964 charter.
So the land was never Egypt's or Jordan's. And for that matter, not even Palestinian.
============
You write about Israel proper. What is that? You mean within the ceasefire lines, which were just that (only ceasefire lines) as made clear in the 1948 armistice agreement?
============
There's also nothing extreme about my views. I'm in favor of Israel renouncing its claims to most of that land, in the interests of peace.
What's extreme is a view like yours, for 1-state. A state that would come into being followed immediately by a very bloody civil war. A theocratic, totalitarian state that would install sharia as the basis of all their laws. A state that would deliberately persecute its women, gays, and religious minorities.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The PLO made no claims of political administration of the West bank and Gaza for itself, but very clearly counts them - along with Israel - as "Palestine," territory to be liberated and recognized as a free and independent Palestinian state.
As for you being in favor of Israel renouncing its "claims," I would find that easier to believe if you weren't spending all your time on this thread defending those very claims. Just as you do in every other thread.
There is nothing you have said - ever - that would be out of place coming from Michael Ben-Ari. I don't know if you even realize this, maybe you've been so steeped in hasbara horseshit, for so long, that your perceptions are permanently fucked. But, yeah, you come off as a crazy person, Shira.
shira
(30,109 posts)As is your claim that the territories had to be liberated in 1964. Had they hinted at that, Egypt and Jordan would have mass slaughtered them. Seriously, where do you get this shit from?
I keep defending those claims because folks like yourself would rather deflect and label their opponents as extremists rather than argue the points. I don't have a problem with any peace plan, from Camp David to Taba, from Geneva to Olmert. I want peace and for Israel's enemies to permanently f*ck off.
I don't even know who Michael Ben-Ari is. I suppose I could google him, but I've never heard of him.
And as for crazy people whose perceptions are permanently fucked, that's how I see anti-zionist 1-staters. I've never seen you come out in favor of any peace plan that would give the Palestinians their own state, free of occupation and settlements. I've never seen you denounce RoR or come out against the rocket attacks prior to the last war. I can only assume you're one of those 1-staters. Which makes you about as extreme in your views as any other anti-Israel rejectionist in favor of Israel's destruction and in favor of a sharia state over a pluralistic liberal democracy. It doesn't get more extreme than that.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)Oh-kay. That speaks volumes, imo...
As for this: 'And as for crazy people whose perceptions are permanently fucked, that's how I see anti-zionist 1-staters.....Which makes you about as extreme in your views as any other anti-Israel rejectionist in favor of Israel's destruction and in favor of a sharia state over a pluralistic liberal democracy.'
Great work there calling another DUer a crazy person. Do you think that sort of nasty behaviour wins yr cause any friends? It's bad enough that you pop up all over the place in this thread making false accusations about the views of anyone who dares to disagree with yr hardline views on the conflict, but then you call them crazy people?
I want peace and for Israel's enemies to permanently f*ck off.
I think this attitude sums up perfectly what the problem is. Most people who participate in this forum do care about both Israelis and Palestinians and want peace for both of them. They don't want either to just fuck off. But not you. It's all about Israel for you and stuff everyone else...
shira
(30,109 posts)Knowing who he is has nothing to do with knowledge of I/P.
And if you're so concerned about nasty behavior, maybe you should have also commented on what I was responding to...
As for peace and Palestinians' best interests, that's a pipe dream at this time. Maybe a few generations from now. I know that pretty much all Zionists wish there was peace and that Palestinians would democratize, go secular, and prosper. The more that happens, the safer Israel would be (as well as more cooperative with Palestine). But it's not happening in our lifetime or our children's. Both the Western far Left and far Right are seeing to that.
I wouldn't say I'm all about Israel and stuff everyone else.
I'd say that describes the far, extreme political Left and Right. It's all about hating Israel and wanting it destroyed, and of course, stuff everyone else.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)So, what do you know that pretty much all Palestinians want?
I wouldn't say I'm all about Israel and stuff everyone else.
I would. What was it you said again only a post or so back? 'I want peace and for Israel's enemies to permanently f*ck off.' Or were you trying to say something else and it just came out as that?
shira
(30,109 posts)Polls show around 10% of Palestinians are for a secular democracy. About 2/3 are for 2 states becoming one state (phased plan). Over 70% are in favor of the Hadith to kill Jews. The more secular liberals live in fear of Hamas and PLO goons. Most would be fine, I believe, with 2 states, peace, and prosperity. However, none of that will ever happen with their current leadership, which will keep the vast majority radicalized as long as possible.
What do you know about them?
=========================
You're assuming Israel's enemies are only confined to Palestinians. It includes radical leadership throughout the region and all those who share their views WRT Israel (both within the mideast and outside it, like extreme western Leftists and Rightists) They all need to f*ck off permanently.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)Did I miss something and someone in this thread told you that yr views were similar to hers? Or is this some knee-jerk 'anytime someone brings up one of Nutty's extremists, I'll throw an Arab into the mix as a See!! Talk about this instead! tactic'? Either way, the care factor is about zero.
What I'm assuming, and correctly at that, is that when you made the comment 'I want peace and for Israel's enemies to permanently f*ck off.' you don't give a fuck about what happens to the Palestinians and it's all about Israel. But you actually meant all the Arabs, not just Palestinians, so that makes you someone who's got a very balanced view on I/P with a demostratable level of caring deeply about the Palestinian people. My apologies for getting that so very much the wrong way round!!
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)What's undisputable is that the West Bank and Gaza have been/are under occupation by Israel, and that the territory is occupied territory.
I think where yr getting confused is that when it comes to the Palestinian people, the right to self-determination seems to be missing. See, it doesn't matter whether the territory that's being occupied is or ever has been a state, and I'll point to East Timor and West Papua as good examples of territory that was/is occupied where they were never a nation before. So what? Does that mean the people who live there and aren't citizens of the occupying power have no rights of self-determination?
Israel proper is the state of Israel within its current borders. Greater Israel is the wet dream of extremist types which would encompass all of Israel, as well as the West Bank and Gaza...
Sorry, but I do feel yr views on the conflict are extreme, and the reason is because you spend an inordinate amount of energy trying to 'argue' that Israel has a right to the West Bank in particular, and demonising the Palestinian people. There is no peaceful or fair solution if we were to follow yr view to its conclusion, because a view like that where the Palestinians are constantly portrayed as incapable of having their own state, bloodthirsty antisemites, etc, is a paternalistic one where a people have to behave to a certain standard that's not demanded of Israel in order to be magnamaniously granted a kind of statehood where Israel still controls most of everything that's not local services.
A correction that I've made many, many times. I support a two-state solution. I've explained why one binational democratic state (which is the opposite of what yr claiming I said I support) isn't realistic or fair to either Palestinians or Israelis. So I'm not sure why you keep on insisting that I do support it.
shira
(30,109 posts)I'm not claiming the Palestinians have no right to self-determination. You should deal with what I say rather than what you mistakenly believe my position is.
Both sets of people have a right to self-determination in the mideast. The Jews do have legit claims to the WB and Gaza. THAT is a right guaranteed under International Law (Balfour / LoN / UN).
I don't demonize Palestinians. I criticize their leadership and those who want Jews dead. That's not demonization. Apparently you're against any legit criticism of Palestinian leadership and lay people hellbent on wanting Jews dead or out of sight.
And it's not just my view that the Palestinian leadership is incapable of making peace. They say they don't want it. Not just Hamas but the PLO too. They are still for the phased plan via RoR. Their maps show Palestine replacing all of Israel. They've rejected one peace plan after another b/c it's not their own state they want (they could have had that many times over). Rather, it's Israel's demise they want more.
You wrote you were for one binational state...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=371216&mesg_id=371361
Am I to take from that you really support both situations? One state and Two-state? Because what that tells me is if a 2 state solution fails, you're fine with one-state and the nightmare that would be.
But it's not only what you said, it's your advocacy. You're FAR closer in your views to anti-zionists than to zionists. You prefer the 1-state advocates from the ISM, FGM, BDS, PSC, Mondoweiss, and Electronic Intifada over PeaceNow and J-street.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)When someone blatantly ignores the right to self-determination of the people who have been living in the territory prior to it being occupied, they are ignoring their right to self-determination.
The Jews do have legit claims to the WB and Gaza. THAT is a right guaranteed under International Law (Balfour / LoN / UN).
Shira, you need to stop referring to Israel and Israelis as Jews to try to imply that anyone who opposes the Occupation is antisemitic. Israel does NOT have a legitimate claim to the WB and Gaza, and you repeating again and again the same rubbish about international law giving Israel that right doesn't make it correct all of a sudden. This is ridiculous. It's an incredibly extreme, hardline view espoused mainly by RW types. I don't understand why this is being peddled at DU...
Apparently you're against any legit criticism of Palestinian leadership and lay people hellbent on wanting Jews dead or out of sight.
I'm safe in the knowledge that people who actually bother reading my posts and see my criticism of Palestinian leaders (I do recall dropping some in over the past few days, in fact) know that's not the case. You can keep on pretending though. It doesn't bother me...
<snipped out the monotonous Palestinians are incapable of being peaceful, hate Jews demonisation>
You wrote you were for one binational state...
This has already been explained to you, and I'm starting to think you do this deliberately and it's not a misunderstanding on yr part. Despite yr regular claims to the contrary, I do support a two-state solution, and have said so constantly in my ten years at DU. Strange how you don't have seem to have noticed all those posts, but fixate on one sarcastic post out of frustration at the lack of progress in negotiations. So, pay attention, Shira, because I'm getting sick of having to repeat this to you. I do support a two-state solution and anyone who says I don't is being dishonest or hasn't read what I've got to say. While one binational state would be great in an ideal world, it's not a solution that either Palestinians or Israelis would accept, so why force something like that on them?
For anyone who does click on yr link, I hope they read the replies from me, where I did explain to you that I do support a two-state solution. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=371216&mesg_id=371363
Why is it so hard for you to accept that I do support a two-state solution? To ignore what yr being told by someone when it comes to telling you about their views and then claiming they believe something else is a dishonest debate tactic and reflects very poorly on the person doing it, imo...
Clear enough for you?
But it's not only what you said, it's your advocacy. You're FAR closer in your views to anti-zionists than to zionists. You prefer the 1-state advocates from the ISM, FGM, BDS, PSC, Mondoweiss, and Electronic Intifada over PeaceNow and J-street.
That seriously makes no sense. You need to stop inventing what you want people to think and listen to what they say to you. I support the ISM, I boycott any Israeli company that supports the occupation, and I have no problem with Mondoweiss, EI, Peace Now or J-Street. I'm not sure how some sort of twisted thinking turns that into me preferring one state advocates, or what any of that has to do with you yet again being misleading about what my views actually are...
Oh, and if I were you I'd be very careful in the 'logic' yr using there. It might just get turned back on you if you insist on going down that path...
shira
(30,109 posts)....of the Jewish homeland, what do you do with the LoN mandate saying it was? Or the UN, which adopted it? Or the ceasefire agreement that was very clear the lines were just that - ceasefire lines - not borders?
This should be interesting.
======================
If you don't have a problem with criticism of Palestinian leadership, then why portray mine as demonization?
======================
I'm glad to see you're no longer for a binational state.
But that brings up questions. Like why do you still support the ISM, FreeGaza, BDS, Mondoweiss, Electronic Intifada, and the PSC? They're all anti-zionists for the destruction of Israel and for that unworkable 1-state solution.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)1. There's nothing interesting, endearing or progressive in watching you try to argue that the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel. I don't know why you think it is. You've fired off another barrage of questions, yet I'm not seeing what they have to do with the post you were replying to. Help me out here and explain what the logic yr using is...
'If' I don't have a problem? Hello? Have you tried actually reading my posts? I'm critical of the Palestinian leadership and the posts aren't hard to find. I suggest you go have a look, though I'm surprised yr not up on everything I say seeing you seem to like trying to link to things I say in sarcasm and frustration from years ago...
How about you explain what the difference between legitimate criticism and demonisation is. I'd be interested to see how you define the difference and whether it's something that's consistent or changes dramatically depending on whether it's Palestinians or Israelis yr talking about...
I'm glad to see you're no longer for a binational state.
Is that the best I'm going to get when it comes to an apology? You saying something that's not even right still? My views on a binational DEMOCRATIC state (I notice you insist on omitting the word democratic) are the same as they've always been. If this were an idealistic world, it'd be a great solution, but we're in a world where Palestinians and Israelis don't want to live in a binational democratic state, so why force it on them?
But that brings up questions. Like why do you still support the ISM, FreeGaza, BDS, Mondoweiss, Electronic Intifada, and the PSC? They're all anti-zionists for the destruction of Israel and for that unworkable 1-state solution.
I do it to annoy you clearly. btw, at the risk of setting off a barrage of long posts linking to all sorts of partisan and biased drivel, yr last line is very questionable, seeing as how I see you accusing just about anyone who disagrees with you in this group of being anti-zionists who want to destroy Israel...
In conclusion, why do you support the Israeli government and the settler movement? They're all anti-Palestsinians seeking the destruction of Palestine and for that unworkable 1-state solution. 
shira
(30,109 posts)...about 90 years ago. Jewish settlement in all the land from the river to the sea became International Law. It has not been changed since then, AFAIK. If it has, what law overturned it? What year?
You stated I demonize Palestinians. How so? Are you conflating them with their leadership?
The ISM, BDS, PSC, FreeGaza, Mondoweiss, and Electronic Intifada not only collaborate with one another but they share the same goals. They all support RoR. Not the partial kind either. They support 1 state. But you support them. Why?
I support Israel, not necessarily the government. Do you know the difference between the two? You may as well ask me if I'd support the Israeli government were Meretz/Labor were in charge. In that case I'd support the government. I support Israel and the will of its people. As for the settler movement, I don't support them. Though I refuse to demonize the movement. Do you see that as support?
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)I'm not interested in pathetic attempts to try to bolster the claim that the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, I'm still not interested. Just the same way as I'm not interested in any extreme view peddled to me that Israel is part of a future state of Palestine. Both views are RW, extreme, and come from the same dank place of sheer ugliness that brings out the people who want to ban abortion, who love their guns so bad it hurts and can't see why they can't swagger around armed to the teeth when they go shopping or to church, who supported the US invading Iraq, who think that workers, women and LGBT folk should have restricted rights, amongst others. Those are views I don't expect to find on a LW forum like DU, but unfortunately have seen more than a few times over the years. I'll express my disgust with all those views, but I prefer not to debate them, because that can have the effect of giving the person waving around those ugly views a sense that their arguments have some legitimacy because they're being seriously debated. They're nothing but ugly extremist RW crap and don't deserve any legitimacy...
Now for the rest of yr post:
You stated I demonize Palestinians. How so? Are you conflating them with their leadership?
I mentioned one example earlier. Comparing Palestinian society to Nazis back at DU2. I can go grab the thread if yr going to deny that...
The ISM, BDS, PSC, FreeGaza, Mondoweiss, and Electronic Intifada not only collaborate with one another but they share the same goals. They all support RoR. Not the partial kind either. They support 1 state. But you support them. Why?
Already answered in the post yr replying to.
I support Israel, not necessarily the government
Uh-huh. Years ago someone used to post here who also took a very hardline stance against the Palestinians and believed Israel had every right to the West Bank and Gaza. They told everyone that they were indeed critical of the Israeli government, and when pressed on what exactly they were critical of, it turned out to be that they thought Israel was too light in the way it treated Palestinians and should have been bulldozing more Palestinian homes and building more settlements after suicide bombings....
As for the settler movement, I don't support them. Though I refuse to demonize the movement. Do you see that as support?
Yeah, in the case of yr posts over time at DU, it is support. And seeing the settler movement is one of extremism and hatred of Arabs, why would anyone refuse to criticise them? Because that's the thing. If you've ever criticised them, I've missed seeing that and you'll have to point me to the post. What I have seen many times is arguments making out that extremist settlers weren't responsible for some attacks on Palestinian civilians, that settlers have every right to be in places like Hebron and other parts of the West Bank, and other things that a merely misguided soul who doesn't support the settler movement, but won't demonise them wouldn't say.
It is very telling that you refuse to demonise those poor misunderstood extremist settlers, yet spend an inordinate amount of time demonising people on the Left like fucking Robert fucking Fisk and his fucking minions.
sabbat hunter
(6,834 posts)of Jerusalem
Who should rule it politically in your opinion. If both are to rule it politically, that will only lead to endless conflict.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)Do you want me to go grab a link? Each time I've said it should be an international city.
But back to the post I was replying to, I'm wondering if you share Shira's opinion that the West Bank and Gaza are part of the Jewish homeland and Israel has rights to it etc etc? It's just that each time extreme hardline stuff like that comes out, I don't see anyone objecting, even though people notable in their absense are the first to provide multiple posts of outrage if there's even a slight hint of anyone being too extreme in their pro-Palestinian stance...
shira
(30,109 posts)I don't deny that Palestinians have rights to the territories as well. I believe they do have rights to them. But so do Jews. The LoN and later, the UN agreed all that land from the river to the sea was land designated to be the Jewish homeland.
Now here's the thing...
Even if I say I believe Jews have exclusive rights to the territories, I'm still in favor of Israel renouncing rights to most of the land in exchange for a 2-state peace deal. What's extreme about that?
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)Israel has no right to the West Bank and Gaza, and while it's undoubtedly an extremist view to claim that Israel has a right to the West Bank or Gaza or to try to claim that they're part of Israel, it's amazing that here on a left-wing site like DU, I'd see an argument put up that being opposed to the Occupation is an extremist viewpoint. Because that's what yr arguing...
Here's what I suggest. This is the Israel/Palestine group. The discussion is about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Why not refer to Israel as Israel? It's just that it does kind of come across when people start talking about Jews when they mean Israelis etc that they're trying to make out that anyone who disagrees with what Israel is doing to the Palestinians in antisemitic...
shira
(30,109 posts)International Law (not Shira) says the LoN and UN adopted the Balfour plan, giving Jews rights to a homeland from the river to the sea.
International Law mandated ceasefire lines in 1948 that were in no way to be seen as borders.
It is what it is, Violet.
No laws have changed that.
There's no sense denying reality. Because if that's what you wish to keep doing, then I might as well be debating a dining room table.
========
Israel is the Jewish state, like it or not. That's also reality. The LoN and UN recognized such a state. It's International Law. If you do not wish to acknowledge it as such, then it's clear you're not for a genuine 2 state solution. Israel is only calling for the Palestinians to recognize Israel for what it truly is (and why it was founded).
Denying what is is a recipe for more war and strife. It gives Palestinian extremists the belief they will one day destroy Israel (phased plan). They don't have that right under International Law. Morally and ethically they shouldn't have that right.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)Though I am touched that you look up to me and try to emulate me, even if it does all run off the tracks...
International Law (not Shira) says the LoN and UN adopted the Balfour plan, giving Jews rights to a homeland from the river to the sea.
International law says nothing of the sort. I don't know where you get the idea that international law is something that says things like 'in August 2007, the UN said...' is international law. It's just someone trotting out a bit of info.
Also, the Balfour Declaration didn't give anyone a legal right to anything, let alone specify territory. And the League of Nations is long gone, as is the British Empire, who were the ones who wrote the Balfour Declaration.
International Law mandated ceasefire lines in 1948 that were in no way to be seen as borders.
I'm not following you. Are you confused about what is part of Israel right now and what isn't? That's what it's coming across as...
It is what it is, Violet.
No laws have changed that.
There's no sense denying reality. Because if that's what you wish to keep doing, then I might as well be debating a dining room table.
Sorry, but I don't think extremist wetdreams of Greater Israel or Israel having some right to the West Bank that gives them the right to allow settlers to move there and terrorise Palestinians is reality. What I've seen is what appears to be massive confusion as to what is international law, and also a tendency to grasp 'international law' as something to be respected when in the past you've derided it as being 'anti-Israel' etc. Though I expect a dining room table isn't going to do that annoying thing where it points out where and how yr wrong, so maybe you should give it a try!
Israel is the Jewish state, like it or not. That's also reality.
Huh? Point me to the bit of any post where I denied Israel was the Jewish state. I haven't. What I was objecting was something very different to that and it was how you refer to Israel as 'the Jewish homeland' after telling me that the West Bank and Gaza is part of the Jewish homeland, which is an extremist and hardline view...
'Finally, and we've been over this before, the WB and Gaza is and remains part of the Jewish homeland..'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=26776
shira
(30,109 posts)1. You disagree that 90 years ago, the LoN adopted the Mandate for Palestine (based on San Remo and Balfour) and Jews had a right to settle in their homeland? If we go back 90 years ago, you maintain Jews had no right at all to settle in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank? Yes or No? Do you also deny that the UN adopted everything from the LoN, including this Mandate? The argument is that this Jewish homeland where Jews had the right to settle was and still is International Law.
2. Or is it you agree with #1 above, but over time all that was nullified somehow? If so, when? In 1947 with the Partition Plan? Before that? After?
3. Do you disagree with the argument about the armistice lines? The armistice agreement was and still is United Nations International Law. It's quite clear the agreement was such that the cease fire line should in no way be recognized as a border. Are you denying this?
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)I don't know why yr trying to argue whatever it is you think yr arguing now, but I'm sensing tangents emerging and I'm not all that interested in flinging myself down those rabbit holes. I counted at least ten questions in that post. You want me to sit there and answer all of them when they don't have anything to do with the point I initially picked you up on, which was the hardline stance of believing that the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel?
It's an absolute fact that the West Bank and Gaza aren't part of Israel. For someone who claims to support a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, you spend an awful lot of time trying to persuade people that the Occupied Territories are actually part of Israel. That's a morally bankrupt and extreme viewpoint that is every bit as bad as if it were someone claiming that Israel is part of Palestine.
shira
(30,109 posts)...the Jewish homeland that became International Law 90 years ago, thereby legalizing Jewish settlement there?
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)No.
I'm not sure what you think yr achieving by continuing to try to argue that the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel and that the settlers are justified in being in the West Bank. That sort of extremist argument would be warmly accepted elsewhere on the internet, but I think you'll find on LW forums like DU, that the vast majority of posters who identify themselves as pro-Israel don't agree...
sabbat hunter
(6,834 posts)The UN will defend it against attacks that might come? They haven't done so before and I do not trust them to do so if the situation arises again.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)I'll repeat what I asked you: But back to the post I was replying to, I'm wondering if you share Shira's opinion that the West Bank and Gaza are part of the Jewish homeland and Israel has rights to it etc etc? It's just that each time extreme hardline stuff like that comes out, I don't see anyone objecting, even though people notable in their absense are the first to provide multiple posts of outrage if there's even a slight hint of anyone being too extreme in their pro-Palestinian stance...
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That is hilarious coming from you.
sabbat hunter
(6,834 posts)the West bank and Gaza are part of the Jewish homeland and that Israel has rights to it, with the exception of the old city of Jerusalem.
The border to Israel/Palestine, should be approximately along the Green line, but some adjustments can be made (small ones with equal land compensations) along the immediate border. All of the settlements should be withdrawn.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)I really wish regulars in this group who are all over any extremism aimed at Israel would step up and speak out against it when the extremism is on the pro-Israel side of things. Yr not one of the ones who are among the culprits, and yr just in the wrong place at the wrong time in this case...
I'm in agreement with you on everything but Jerusalem, as the Old City's in East Jerusalem. If it were up to me, I'd bang heads together and tell them if they can't share, it's going to be taken off them and they can both go and sit in the naughty corner. That's why I'm not a diplomat, and working out what happens to Jerusalem is going to be the messiest and most complex part of any future negotiations, imo...
King_David
(14,851 posts)Ha,that is going to turn out to be one of the most pragmatic views you will ever see.
Can you name one Jewish Israeli political Party or USA Jewish organization ( the 2 most important Jewish communities in the world , or even an Australian Jewish organization ) that will be willing to cede the old city ?
''On Jerusalem, 78% of the Jewish respondents said they would vote for another party if the one they intended to vote for expressed willingness to return land in the capital.''
http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=297977
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)Because that's what was being claimed. It's every bit as ugly and extreme as those views that say that Israel belongs to the Palestinians.
Do you also believe that the West Bank and gaza are part of Israel?
King_David
(14,851 posts)Honestly , I can say with 100% certainty it will never happen. {Reality)
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)So until you say otherwise ill assume you believe the West Bank and gaza are part of Israel. That's a disgusting extremist RW stance that seems to be gaining popularity at DU3.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)I hadn't seen that as it wasn't there when you'd been evading answering. I'm unsure as to why you couldn't have just fnswered the question when u were asked it
I'm really getting the feeling that quite a few here don't find that viewpoint extreme even if they don't hold that view themselves.
King_David
(14,851 posts) Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)Thanks for the reply btw 
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)And that same question goes to any other 'supporters' of Israel that are reading this thread. Because I'm really not understanding why an extreme viewpoint that believes that the West Bank and Gaza is part of Israel is more acceptable to them than someone expressing the equally extreme viewpoint that a Palestinian state will include Israel...
King_David
(14,851 posts)And I think most of it,as per the Geneva Accord should be relinquished as part of a comprehensive peace agreement,with security in mind.
BUT , I can Guarantee you , that the Old City will not be included by any government of Israel,ever.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Where did YOU study history?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Bedouin, Yazidis, Mandaeans, Samaritans, Druze, and Circassians as indigenous to the area. Do you?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(We can all question Hamas' tactics and its rhetoric, but let's be clear about who that organization does and does NOT have a quarrel with)
I don't think they have beef with Jewish people as an overall group, especially those in the Diaspora, or anybody else who aren't Israeli citizens or Israeli residents.
Also, It's dangerous and demagogic to imply that the terms "Jewish" and "Israeli" are interchangeable.
Israel is a state that self-identifies as officially Jewish(and fine, that state has the right to claim such an identification if it wishes to do so). It is not "the Jews", and it is not synonymous with everyone and everything Jewish on the entire planet.
Insisting on that synonymity, as some do, is dangerous both to Israelis and to Jewish people in the Diaspora.
Be careful with such usage.
King_David
(14,851 posts)"...the Jewish faith does not wish for peace nor stability, since it is a faith that is based on murder: 'I kill, therefore I am'... Israel is based only on blood and murder in order to exist, and it will disappear, with Allah's will, through blood and Shahids [martyrs]."
(Dr. Yussuf Al-Sharafi, Hamas representative, April 12, 2007; as reported by Palestinian Media Watch, April 23, 2007)
many more nuggets here to digest,
http://www.adl.org/main_israel/hamas_own_words.htm
And from the OP :
'For those uninclined to read the document, let me offer some highlights and a brief summary. Essentially, Hamas is committed, in writing, to Israel’s destruction. It opposes negotiations, and it considers Jews, not just Israeli Jews, the enemy.'
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/11/29/3119493/how-to-start-solving-gazas-problems.html#storylink=cpy
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And don't get me wrong...I have no use for Hamas...and have never been, contrary to some disgusting slurs posted against me here by someone else, one of their "enablers"...it's just that, to end this whole conflict, their cooperation is needed to at least some degree, because it's clearly not possible to end this by crushing them militarily(if it were, the IDF would already have done so, no matter what the world thought of the human cost).
The fatal flaw in the long-term Israeli government fixation with displacing Fatah, and then Hamas, as the leaderships they would have to deal with is that, even if they were able to find someone else to sign an agreement, that agreement would be worthless without the cooperation of the existing representatives of what they call, in Northern Ireland, the "physical force party"-because WITHOUT having some sort of "buy-in" from the Hamas or Fatah cadre, those cadre would simply overthrow whatever non-Hamas, non-Fatah leadership Israel were to come to an agreement with...thus starting the war all over again if indeed it had ever stopped. So it's actually pointless, in practical terms, for Israeli leaders to try to impose THEIR choice of Palestinian leadership.
Do you have any major quarrels with that analysis?
shira
(30,109 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)That's the only way...Hamas can't survive in a time of peace and reconciliation.
We KNOW that more military action against Gaza can't get rid of them.
We KNOW that putting obsessive denunciation of them before everything else can't get rid of them.
The way to get rid of them is to change the way Palestinians are treated.
No oppression, no Hamas. No poverty, no Hamas. No hopelessness, no Hamas.
Get rid of them by recognizing the humanity of the people of Palestine and the people of Gaza.
That is the only thing that can work.
shira
(30,109 posts)Neither withdrawal led to Hamas or Hezbollah becoming irrelevant.
They became far more popular.
Your theory is wrong.
Israel offered Palestinians a state, the end of occupation & settlements, half of Jerusalem, a shitload of $$$ for refugees, and they got Intifada II.
So much for your theory of making the extremists irrelevant.
I know, I know.......you'll claim what Israel offered wasn't enough. But it was enough for Arafat as he accepted it later. The same offer that led to Intifada 2 turned out be enough for Arafat:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/22/israel
You're wrong.
What else do you have?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Where a person has to prove to YOU that they aren't either an apologist for terror or a bigot.
It isn't a legitimate form of debate and it achieves nothing.
All you are trying to do is silence dissenting voices, and nothing good has ever come to the I/P situation of dissent being silenced and people being made to feel that they have to back one particular set of conclusions, which I will list below:
A)That the status quo in the West Bank-including the continued construction of settlements, MUST be continued until the Palestinian leadership changes;
B)That the whole problem is due solely to the actions of the Palestinian leadership and of the other Arab countries, all of which are motived solely by Arab hatred of Jews, and that Palestinians have NO legitimate grievances at all against anyone on the Israeli side of the conflict(or at most, too trivially few grievances to be taken seriously as causes of the conflict);
C)That the Israeli government, the military that follows its orders, and the settlers movement that government created out of nothing in 1973 are blameless for anything in the situation;
D)That everyone on the entire planet to take the Israeli side in the conflict, and that anyone who isn't an active partisan of the Israeli side, no matter why, is a bigot;
You think everyone has a moral obligation to agree with you on all of those points, and that anyone who deviates from your views on them IN THE SLIGHTEST is motivated not by honest differences in opinion, but by either moral blindness or by active support of earthly evil;
Points A through D and the paragraph that follows them are a precise summary of your entire approach to this group...you've used different terms, you've quoted varying sources...but the points I listed above are your whole meta-argument in a nutshell. And it's an argument based on demagogy.
The point of your overall strategy is NOT to work for solutions to the I/P situation-it is simply to pressure and badger people into accepting YOUR views and your "line". Frankly, it's a waste of effort on your part to try to impose conformity to your views on the DU I/P group. We aren't all that important in the great cosmic scheme of things. We don't have the potential to corrupt the youth of Athens like some modern-day Socrates...so we aren't worth the hemlock.
If you don't to hear open discussion of issues involved with the I/P, why don't you just STOP participating in the I/P group?
shira
(30,109 posts)Israel ended occupations in both Lebanon and Gaza. The extremists (Hezbollah and Hamas) became even more powerful. Settlements were abandoned in Gaza. Israel also abandoned some settlements in the W.Bank for good measure at the time of the Gaza withdrawal. The extremists didn't become irrelevant. Israel offered the Palestinians a state in 2000-01, with half of Jerusalem, compensation for refugees, and a permanent end to settlements and occupation. Intifada 2 resulted.
You're wrong about Israel making extremists irrelevant when Israel makes the right moves toward peace.
But rather than admit it, you complain that I argued something else entirely.
If you're hear to openly discuss I/P, then why don't you do that, rather than make up straw men & toss out red herrings?
tell us some other factoids.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I have a strong distaste for the lie of culture and tradition. Just seems like a really stupid reason for us to mistreat each other.
Israel is imaginary.
Hamas is imaginary.
The US is imaginary.
These things don't exist outside of human imagination. There are no laws. There are no masters. It's all an illusion. There's just people hurting other people.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)JoDog
(1,353 posts)seem to lose sight of the main point of the OP. Under the current Hamas charter, no amount of Jewish pull back from settlements, no amount of military stand down, no amount of political freedom will satisfy its goals. Its stated primary goal is the end of the state of Israel.
So, let us shift the question: is it even possible for Israel to seriously negotiate with a group whose opening position is the death of Israel? Because, as far as Hamas is concerned, that is what we are looking at here.
And for the record, I believe in a second 2-state solution. It is the only outcome that will be fair and ensure the majority of the people involved. In fact, I believe in a 3-state solution: Gaza, the Fatah-controlled territories and Israel.
PDJane
(10,103 posts)It's long past time to stop blaming the Palestinians for their own subjugation.
King_David
(14,851 posts)