Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumMistreating Palestinian Children
Israel mistreats children like adults.
Societies perhaps are best judged by how they treat prisoners, their most disadvantaged and children.
On March 20, Israeli soldiers mass arrested about 30 children. Obama arrived the same day. Every child passing Tareq Bin Zeyad street was seized. They were heading for school in Hebron.
They were taken to Kiryat Arba police station. They were interrogated with no adult present. Israel's Youth Law requires it. Shin Bet pays it no heed. Children are isolated from parents. They're terrorized. It's standard Israeli practice.
Targeted children committed no crimes. An Israeli army spokeswoman said soldiers "operated in the area today in order to contain rock hurling at security forces (following an increase in) rioting."
MORE...
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Mistreating-Palestinian-Ch-by-Stephen-Lendman-130411-963.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)but we need to say loud and clear the behavior from both sides is unacceptable. Aid is going to have to be contingent on honest intentions.
Politically, we need to get some influential right wing Christians to take up the cause of the innocent Palestinians. That would provide cover for insisting Israel do away with illegal settlements. Then we can insist the Palestinians do more rigorous enforcement of those who lob missiles into Israel. We could provide advisers and cash for that and then we could turn back to Israel for some concessions.
Obama Releases Aid To Palestinian Authority
by Anna Lekas Miller Mar 28, 2013 10:45 AM EDT
"....
However, following Obama's visit, forces in Congress are already trying to hinder these funds by introducing a bill titled "The Palestinian Accountability Act," which would cut off all aid to the Palestinian Authority until it formally recognized Israel as a Jewish state."
Well, I suppose it could be called "aid" when it's moneys to a state under the siege of a state that doesn't recognize it, and when the US doesn't recognize it and gives and withholds this "aid" according as, well:
"Like Israel, the U.S. Congress froze $200 million in aid to the PA in 2011 as punishment for seeking statehood at the U.N. When Palestine was admitted as a non-member state last November, Congress once again froze the request for funds."
Let's be clear: The US is not a "fair broker" regarding Israel/Palestine, the US openly and explicitly acts as proxy for Israel. Any meme that the US is a "fair broker" and interested in a fair negotiation process is a flat out lie.
Mosby
(16,309 posts)Do you think President Obama is a liar?
Yes or No?
delrem
(9,688 posts)If Obama also states that the US will act as a "fair broker" in a peace deal, then yes, he's a liar.
Clear enough?
Mosby
(16,309 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)Politicians aren't saints. Not only that but their job requires them to appease groups of people having contradictory demands. Even election campaigns account for this, and politicians are experts at "weasel words" and speaking with carefully designed "outs", so even in cases where it's clear enough that they intended to deceive their supporters can point out the weasel words to deny that intent.
This is why anyone with common sense puts more stock in actual facts, things done, things *not* done after being promised, and so on, than on rhetoric. I do think rhetoric and presentation has value in itself. If Obama and W were identical in every respect, which they're obviously not, I would still overwhelmingly prefer Obama just because his rhetoric, his demeanor, the example of his family, is totally admirable.
Now consider this copy/paste:
"President Obama gave an interview earlier this week to an Indonesian television station in lieu of the scheduled trip to that country which was canceled due to the health care vote. In 2008, Indonesia empowered a national commission to investigate human rights abuses committed by its own government under the U.S.-backed Suharto regime “in an attempt to finally bring the perpetrators to justice,” and Obama was asked in this interview: ”Is your administration satisfied with the resolution of the past human rights abuses in Indonesia?” He replied:
"We have to acknowledge that those past human rights abuses existed. We can’t go forward without looking backwards . . . ."
When asked last year about whether the United States should use similar tribunals to investigate its own human rights abuses, as well his view of other countries’ efforts (such as Spain) to investigate those abuses, Obama said:
"I’m a strong believer that it’s important to look forward and not backwards, and to remind ourselves that we do have very real security threats out there." "
Putting the shoe on your foot this time, how do *you* describe these contradictory responses. Two short sentences ought to be enough.
Response to delrem (Reply #7)
Mosby This message was self-deleted by its author.
delrem
(9,688 posts)
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)mean something terrible about you and your political view, LOL.
It's dumb, but used often when all else fails.
Time wasting.
It's good to know, though, who is "concerned" enough to alert on a word (albeit used as part of an obvious sarcastic sentence) that might hurt a Palestinian's feelings. Esp. good to know how the delicate "complaint" was worded. Gives me an insight into character.
And a bit of a laugh, a relief, from actual I/P issues which can get gloomy, and academic, and both at the same time. If only I could have King_David's approach, which is "Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows, everything that's wonderful is what I feel when I'm in denial. Brighter than a lucky penny when lalala the rain cloud disappears, lalala I feel so fine just to know that lalala "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113439460
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)la la la la la, helps to keep these on too.
delrem
(9,688 posts)and your "coward!" charges when people don't respond in exact terms you demand. I've had "discussions" with you several times where you've diverted the discussion with your "have you the courage to answer?" trick, and where I've responded in a couple of posts, in detail, only to find that as per your demanding standards you wouldn't deign to comment, or even admit that I responded at all, simply repeating your "coward!" rejoiner like a half-trained mynah bird.
Hopefully this time I'm clear enough.
delrem
(9,688 posts)But *maybe* you do. *Maybe* you can pull a response to the "look forward... back" contradiction out of your, uh, nether regions. waiting.
Mosby
(16,309 posts)what i replied to is this turd you dropped in the thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=39463
delrem
(9,688 posts)
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)from the head of Shurat HaDin the group that battempted to sue Jimmy Carter over his book Palestine - Peace not Apartheid
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113439645
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Seeds-of-violence-309716
Jimmy Carter
On February 1, 2011, Shurat HaDin and US attorney David Schoen, Esq. of Montgomery, Alabama filed suit against former president Jimmy Carter and publisher Simon and Schuster for the publication of Carter’s book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.[13] According to the Center's own information page, the book violated New York's consumer protection law.
The plaintiffs, who hope to have the case certified as a class action, are members of the reading public who purchased Carter’s book expecting that they were buying an accurate and factual record of historic events concerning Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. The lawsuit contends that Carter, who holds himself out as a Middle-East expert, and his publisher, intentionally presented untrue and inaccurate information and sought to capitalize on the author’s status as a former President to mislead unsuspecting members of the public. The complaint alleges that the defendants’ misrepresentations, all highly critical of Israel, violate New York consumer protection laws, specifically New York General Business Law § 349, which makes it unlawful to engage in deceptive acts in the course of conducting business. While acknowledging Carter’s right to publish his personal views, the plaintiffs assert that the defendants violated the law and, thus, harmed those who purchased the book.[14]
The plaintiffs dropped the suit on May 3, 2011 with no money changing hands.[15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shurat_HaDin
delrem
(9,688 posts)"Demonization" as in part of a no holds barred propaganda campaign intended to psych a population to start a war or to continue and extend a war.
Such writing has no other purpose.
It's the kind of writing that isn't tolerated in peacetime because it can't be understood as being compatible with prosperity by a psyche intent on peaceful coexistence - it is so easily seen to be intended to incite hate/fear/revulsion of a target population and to disrupt that peace, to end that peace and start war, and so end any possibility of a mutually beneficial cooperation. It's a defining style of writing in wartime and in the buildup to war, and war feeds on it as an essential ingredient - it's the nurturing substance of war.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Who do you think is being demonized, carter or the Palestinians?
The suit had nothing to do with the Palestinians. But are you suggesting the suit was to start a war with jimmy carter. Actually, anything bad was written about the book.
Do you consider all criticism demonization?
delrem
(9,688 posts)Considering your support for ethnic cleansing, including the extreme that Benny Morris suggested would have been best, I have no way of discussing I/P issues with you. Your statements, your justifications and explanations for why you consider ethnic cleansing justified and right, quite literally make no sense to me. I've told you this before - I won't continue trying to discuss I/P matters with you for the above reason.
I of course don't mind if you interject with an opinion, this group is for all, but please don't address questions to me.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)But I certainly never suggested that I support ethnic cleansing. Anyone who says so is doing nothing else but trying to misrepresent my views by lying.
What I said was when faced with a choice between ethnic cleansing and massacres, cleansing is the more ethical choice. Using your logic are we to infer that you then support the widespread killing of civilians. Or the massacre of your own people?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)16. Then you have not really considered the facts.
View profile
Last edited Thu Mar 28, 2013, 11:16 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
But then, you agree with Benny Morris that ethnic cleansing is a good thing, necessary for the existence of Israel,
This is hardly a racist opinion. It is a fact that plan d was crucial to Israel's success in that war and hence, critical for its existence. As Morris said, when a population attacks you they force you to choose between expelling it or destroying it. To choose expulsion is the ethical decision in this case. In the real world one must choose between available options. Ethics is not a yardstick whose measure is locked in stone. It is entirely based on context.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=37698
View profile
I get it. If you call it racist and its motivation an ethnically pure state then it is simple to decry because you've painted a black and white narrative with easily identified good and bad guys.
But by doing so you serve a fiction. The reality was not what you describe, as your own quotes clearly show.
But beyond that, you have a lot of nerve. To look at a very volatile time of war where nothing was certain and everyone was struggling for an ensured existence, and date assume to judge their moral character?
Read: Without that act, they would not have won the war and the state would not have come into being.
Winning the war so the state could exist. So what is your alternative? Is ethnic cleansing 50,000 wrong if needed to rescue 300,000 lives? Can you condemn those people to death to save the homes if 50,0000?
Look more closely at what Morris is asking and describing.
So I no more want to discuss issues further with you than I'd want to discuss issues with Ernst Zundel, or any other sociopath.
No? Dose someone like yourself who is unable to talk with anyone who holds a different perspective then have any right to ask that Israelis and Palestinians sit down and not merely talk, but negotiate?
Because this disagreement. That's peanuts. That's bupkis. Try tackling east Jerusalem or Hebron. Till then, enjoy speaking to everyone who mirrors your views. Sounds very enlightening.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=36959
IMO calling another DUer a sociopath is also unacceptable
delrem
(9,688 posts)In that instance Shaktimaan was quoting me, but failed to put in quote-marks.
This shows why they are necessary....
I'm going to retract that comparison now. But I don't have any other good comparison to someone who opines that it'd have been a good and beneficial thing, in the long run, for Israel to have *ethnically cleansed* the entire land from the Jordan to the sea while they had the opportunity, and who when asked whether he supports continuing such a complete "cleansing" today says "not at this moment", this being for reasons of practicality, but that he sees circumstances soon in which it can and should be done.
This explains the full horror of it, from an earlie
r post in the same thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=36691
(begin quoting)
Here, I'll (delrem) look up the quote - to enlighten you as to who you (Shaktimaan) are defending.
/quote/
Q:
You went through an interesting process. You went to research Ben-Gurion and the Zionist establishment critically, but in the end you actually identify with them. You are as tough in your words as they were in their deeds.
BM:
You may be right. Because I investigated the conflict in depth, I was forced to cope with the in-depth questions that those people coped with. I understood the problematic character of the situation they faced and maybe I adopted part of their universe of concepts. But I do not identify with Ben-Gurion. I think he made a serious historical mistake in 1948. Even though he understood the demographic issue and the need to establish a Jewish state without a large Arab minority, he got cold feet during the war. In the end, he faltered.
Q:
I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that Ben-Gurion erred in expelling too few Arabs?
BM:
If he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion - rather than a partial one - he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations.
Q:
I find it hard to believe what I am hearing.
BM:
If the end of the story turns out to be a gloomy one for the Jews, it will be because Ben-Gurion did not complete the transfer in 1948. Because he left a large and volatile demographic reserve in the West Bank and Gaza and within Israel itself.
Q:
In his place, would you have expelled them all? All the Arabs in the country?
BM:
But I am not a statesman. I do not put myself in his place. But as an historian, I assert that a mistake was made here. Yes. The non-completion of the transfer was a mistake.
Q:
And today? Do you advocate a transfer today?
BM:
If you are asking me whether I support the transfer and expulsion of the Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza and perhaps even from Galilee and the Triangle, I say not at this moment. I am not willing to be a partner to that act. In the present circumstances it is neither moral nor realistic. The world would not allow it, the Arab world would not allow it, it would destroy the Jewish society from within. But I am ready to tell you that in other circumstances, apocalyptic ones, which are liable to be realized in five or ten years, I can see expulsions. If we find ourselves with atomic weapons around us, or if there is a general Arab attack on us and a situation of warfare on the front with Arabs in the rear shooting at convoys on their way to the front, acts of expulsion will be entirely reasonable. They may even be essential.
Q:
Including the expulsion of Israeli Arabs?
BM:
The Israeli Arabs are a time bomb. Their slide into complete Palestinization has made them an emissary of the enemy that is among us. They are a potential fifth column. In both demographic and security terms they are liable to undermine the state. So that if Israel again finds itself in a situation of existential threat, as in 1948, it may be forced to act as it did then. If we are attacked by Egypt (after an Islamist revolution in Cairo) and by Syria, and chemical and biological missiles slam into our cities, and at the same time Israeli Palestinians attack us from behind, I can see an expulsion situation. It could happen. If the threat to Israel is existential, expulsion will be justified.
/unquote/ "
(end quoting)
Shaktimaan's direct response is here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=36706
For my part I just can't accept the truth of the idea that Benny Morris isn't
1. describing an ethnic cleansing that in fact occurred (Morris is explicit that he *chose* the term 'ethnic cleansing' to describe the acts;
and
2. a.describing how, in his, Benny Morris' opinion, this ethnic cleansing ought to have been 100% completed at the time of the Nakba; and
b. positing that the cause of today's troubles are in large part due to that failure to complete the cleansing; and
c. opining that soon (5 or 10 yrs) will come a practical opportunity to finally complete it.
It's fairly clear here that Benny Morris is looking for a convenient future war to act as pretext or cover, so it can be argued that the act is acceptable (morally).
Since in every argument Shaktimaan defends Morris and he concludes that
"Nothing he wrote was remotely racist or evil. In fact, I agree with most of it. Almost all, in fact. Nowhere does he excuse his actions on the basis of race."
I have no choice but to deal with Shaktimaan as I would deal with any person who so explicitly affirmed, as being also their own, those exact opinions as Benny Morris asserted.
But it's pretty damn hard to find a "politically correct" comparison, simile, to someone who holds such opinions.
shira
(30,109 posts)Of course, if all you're here for is to defame and dehumanize Zionists, then I understand why you won't engage in an honest, constructive dialogue.
delrem
(9,688 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)as shakti had separated his comments from delrem's
delrem
(9,688 posts)Else I wouldn't continue to bring it up. After all, Morris is just one person. But the Morris interview covers the entire gamut of one point of view regarding a Palestinian's right to return to his or her native land - and their right to live in their own native land in peace with their family, their loved ones, in a state of equality with their neighbors.
I can't imagine anyone defending Morris, even when someone says they agree that "Nothing he wrote was remotely racist or evil. In fact, I agree with most of it. Almost all, in fact." the arguments surrounding such a statement take on an air of mystery to me in that I cannot, for the life of me, understand how such a person can think their arguments in favor of such extreme views are defensible. After all, once voicing such an agreement all their arguments explaining that agreement redound to defending it.
For one thing, to make sense such arguments would have to be very deep indeed, covering the field of human rights, the origin of the underlying concept of equality of persons before the law, and so on, so as to justify such an extreme breach. After all "the cleansing was a product of war and was required to accomplish the kind of victory that the war was intended to produce" (paraphrased) is hardly a justification for it. Since the cleansing happened and the victory was achieved, it's an established fact. But "IMO the cleansing wasn't complete enough, given the opportunity and intention, and should have been 100% complete from Jordan river to the sea" (paraphrased) isn't a *fact*, it's a political opinion meant, in context of a published interview of a very public persona, to influence and *reinforce* public opinion. The rest of it including a barely concealed wish for a pretext (war), soon, to accomplish such a 100% cleansing, just extends that political opinion.
There's of course no way to put a notion of RoR for Palestinian refugees in context of such arguments - nor in context of any argument in the entire gamut. Such a notion is by definition simply denied.
Yet such an argument does in fact exist under international law since the Geneva Conventions.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Then why are you misrepresenting the facts and the quotes, along with their meanings?
Else I wouldn't continue to bring it up. After all, Morris is just one person. But the Morris interview covers the entire gamut of one point of view regarding a Palestinian's right to return to his or her native land - and their right to live in their own native land in peace with their family, their loved ones, in a state of equality with their neighbors.
Well no right actually exists. But besides that, Israel offered to allow over a hundred thousand Palestinians return right after the war. Their only requirement asked for was peace. The Arabs refused. So there wasn't any assurance that returning Arabs would live in peace and equality. Had there been then they likely wouldn't have started the war to begin with.
Actually it is. Especially when "the kind of victory that the war was intended to produce" was survival. Self defense is a very convincing justification.
And the reason it isn't any kind of ethical challenge is because there is no "underlying concept of equality of persons before the law" between opposing sides during a war. The very thought is quite unethical in fact. A state's allegiance, first and foremost belongs to its people. Treating the enemy's people, (soldier or civilian) as equal to your own is to be objective in all matters, even those that directly pit the welfare of either people against one another... Like a war.
I think he made a serious historical mistake in 1948. Even though he understood the demographic issue and the need to establish a Jewish state without a large Arab minority, he got cold feet during the war. In the end, he faltered.
Q:
I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that Ben-Gurion erred in expelling too few Arabs?
BM:
If he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion - rather than a partial one - he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations.
Q:
I find it hard to believe what I am hearing.
BM:
If the end of the story turns out to be a gloomy one for the Jews, it will be because Ben-Gurion did not complete the transfer in 1948. Because he left a large and volatile demographic reserve in the West Bank and Gaza and within Israel itself.
Q:
In his place, would you have expelled them all? All the Arabs in the country?
BM:
But I am not a statesman. I do not put myself in his place. But as an historian, I assert that a mistake was made here. Yes. The non-completion of the transfer was a mistake.
------------
You are simply misrepresenting me, Benny and the meaning of these comments. Why do so if your argument is SOOO STROOONG?
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)The interview never mentioned anything regarding ror. Why even bring it up as a topic at this point?
Your POV is one that assumes full ror is the natural policy to support despite its lack thereof in reality.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)I agree. Totally unacceptable.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)so the women and children that were driven from their homes were a threat?
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Such was the crux of plan d. Individually, no of course not. But villages collectively provided shelter, aid, camouflage, storage, etc, allowing an unbroken line of support staff for the active fighters.
Most weren't thrown out though. They were prevented from returning. A critical difference.
Israel did not want to allow the return of a large population of people who directly opposed the existence of their state.
So what about that post is unacceptable? What would you have done in Ben Gurion's place?
delrem
(9,688 posts)One who is unapologetic about it.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)I could only be classified as a proponent if ethnic cleansing in situations that present it as the least harmful option available.
Choosing one bad option when presented with only bad options does not in my opinion make one a proponent of said option.
You never did answer my question as to what action you would have found preferable. I expect I'll just hear some kind of weak cop out response instead about how you can't even talk to me because you don't get my POV. Yet you see no hypocrisy in demanding the Israelis and Arabs negotiate a treaty.
delrem
(9,688 posts)You support it. It's you, who supports this inhumanity, who has decided that it's "least harmful" for your purposes.
Don't give me any shit about how there were no "options" other than ethnic cleansing. That argument is fucking well disgusting.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)What actions would you have taken in its stead?
The conundrum here is that war is inherently unethical. And if your enemy refuses to limit themselves by rules then applying rules yourself handicaps you. The yishuv routinely held to a quite strict code of ethics though.
But facing annihilation what else would you choose if not ethnic cleansing?
delrem
(9,688 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Which would you have chosen?
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Besides, BM never said anything like that.
He said, very clearly, that from the POV of a historian, it seems like Ben Gurion might have made a mistake in not cleansing everyone. Morris feels that Israel might have been able to avoid a great deal of the strife it endured for the past few decades had the ethnic cleansing been more thorough. It seems reasonable to me to consider that this may very well be true. To think so is in no way racist.
He was super clear about this as well as the fact that he did not think it ethical or beneficial to do such a thing now.
He could only see it being a thing he'd support in the event that the Palestinian population of Israel rose up and engaged Israel militarily as part of a joint engagement with the non-Israeli Palestinians. Essentially, only in the event that they make a choice to abandon their allegiance to the state of Israel in favor of siding with Palestine in a very non-abstract, clear-cut, political AND violent fashion in conjunction with non-Israeli Arabs.
This isn't in any way presented as something Morris desires or wish fulfillment. He was answering a direct question. The only way one could imagine it that way would be if you came to the table with such a strong desire to see something specific that you twisted his words in order to come out with an entirely separate meaning.
This is more than proven by your constant "paraphrasing" where you entirely change what Morris said in order to fit an untrue narrative. You are quite plainly forced to lie in order to present evidence of your theory.
Here is a tip. If you are unable to refrain from being untruthful to make your case then you might want to revisit your presumptions. Or, in your case, prejudices.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)I'm still waiting for your alternate actions that the Yishuv should have taken IYO.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)is quite good enough for me 
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 14, 2013, 11:09 AM - Edit history (1)
For example, as a country under assault, Israel has to act militarily at times. The army and government have no interest in wasting credibility and resources by injuring Palestinians for fun or out of pure meanness. Yet this is how Israeli behavior is often portrayed.
Similarly, Israel has lots to gain from peace since, if secure and lasting, it would provide such benefits as fewer deaths, less time and money spent in the military, beneficial trade with neighbors and higher living standards, etc. To believe Israel doesn’t want peace is to believe it is aggressive and has devious ends.
And again, if Israel really doesn’t face an existential threat—or only an easily defused one—then its acting otherwise is psychotic behavior.
http://rubinreports.blogspot.co.il/2013/02/not-mistake-misunderstanding-or-well.html
