Palestinian children stage hunger strike

[Herschel]

http://www.ndtv.com/template/template.asp?template=Palestine&slug=Palestinian+children+stage+hunger+strike&id=40264&callid=1

"Palestinian children in Rafah in the Gaza Strip have staged a hunger strike in protest against the detention of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons.

Aged between 10 and 15, 45 children began a hunger strike in a tent adorned with pictures of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat.

Palestinians have been demanding the release of relatives by Israel. They see it as a vital condition for the success of a fragile three-month truce declared by Palestinian militant group, as well as the success of a US-backed "road map" peace plan."

I am often shocked to see what some Palestinians will allow for their children. Oh, my.

[patdem]

1. I guess they consider better a hunger strike than a missle strike?

I understand you are a Jewish person, and are probably very submerged in the fight for Isreal...I too want Isreal to exist, just not at the cost of thousands of innocents.

I believe in the two state solution, each acknowledging the other, and even a brisk economic trade between the two states.

I perhaps am ignorant and hopefull, but there is NO reason this cannot happen...even if Isreal has to LOSE ARAFAT....THEN WITH THE VOTE SHARON!

I have hope for both nation states!

[Herschel]

2. I cannot see a two state solution

When Palestinians are riddled with terrorists and terrorist sympathizers, dedicated to the destruction of little Israel.

[patdem]

3. Like I said...if they Lose Arafat....

...maybe terrorism will abate?

What is the alternative to the 2 state solution? Do you have one?

[Herschel]

4. I would have no issue

with a peaceful Palestinian state, under some conditions. I cannot see it happening under current circumstances. Arafat should be lost. We should hope the IDF helps this.

[patdem]

5. What I am saying is all those who oppose Isreal should be

lost. And ONLY those Palestianians aggreing that Isreal has a right to exist should rule. And Ariel Sharon should be voted out...and replaced by someone who will start the withdrawl of the settlements.

This is my opinion. I have no stake in Isreal nor Palestine, except I wish for peace world wide. :hi:

[Herschel]

9. I sense no ill will

in your posting. Palestinians accepting Israel should be in power. We agree. Yet militant groups are offered as peace partners! And weasels like Arafat! This is why I say the occupation does not appear to be ending soon.

[buddhamama]

49. you're good

others may have missed your stealth re-wording and/or your possible meaning behind it but i did not.

patdem(paraphrased) Palestinians who accept Israel's right to exist...

your wording: "Palestinians accepting Israel should be in power"

subtle change but with a completely different meaning.

[Herschel]

80. I mean what I say

"Palestinians accepting Israel should be in power" means Palestinians which accept Israel should be in power. Do not twist my words, please.

[buddhamama]

92. ambiguous

power has not the same meaning as exist. one can exist without power.
generally the term is used to describe those in leadership roles of a country/group,etc,etc.

see what i am saying?
i certainly didn't twist anything? if you noticed a said "...possible meaning."

why don't you spell it out for me so i'm not guessing.
did you mean 'power' to mean exist or 'power' as in power over the Palestinians, power over the region?i'd really like to know.

[Herschel]

101. What is ambiguous?

I mean this. I would like to see Palestinians in leadership roles who recognize Israel's right to exist. That is all. You may imagine what you like. I will leave it at that.

[buddhamama]

102. well that statement isn't ambiguous

thanks for clarifying.

[quilp]

6. You aren't having your country stolen from you!

I'm equally shocked to find what Israelis will "allow" for Palestinian children. Oh my? Desperate people do desperate things. Don't think you in your US protected comfort are in any position to criticize the Palestinians.

[jos]

7. I guess when Martin Luther King

had children stage nonviolent protests to protest segregation in Birmingham, knowing they would be arrested, he was wrong too.:eyes:

The Palestinians resort to violence, many on this board condemn it. The Palestinians resort to non-violence, many on this board condemn it. It seems clear to me that there are many on this board whose real agenda is supporting the continued occupation of the west bank, the illegal settlements, and discrimination against the Palestinians.

[Herschel]

8. Listen you two

Palestinian children are starving themselves. This is not what is meant by non-violent resistance. Martin Luther King did not advocate children starving themselves. Incidentally, he was a great supporter of Zionism. The occupation is taxing on Israel, yet if it must continue for her security, then it must.

[ex_jew]

10. Did MLK live to see a 36-year occupation ?

Obviously not. So signing his name to the whole package post-humously is a little unfair. Maybe he would have sympathized with a people being ground down by overpowering force, since that was more his style.

In any case, I've heard that malnutrition is widespread throught the occupied territories, even without a hunger strike.

Would you please explain to me what form of non-violent resistance you recommend so that the Israelis will see the light and go back to the pre-67 boundaries.

Another thing - putting the command "Listen" in your reply does little to advance your argument. We aren't just children who haven't been paying attention. Nor are you some type of prophet with a message for all mankind.

[patdem]

11. Listen you...being starved by choice vs being starved by edict is the same

starvation. I think the Palestinians are being treated horribly. However I do not live there, I know of no one who lives there, but I bet if I wanted to live there I would choose to live as a Jew in Isreal rather than a Muslim in Palestine? Am I correct?

[jos]

12. It's not?

That's not what Ghandi said or practiced. If King leader were alive today, he'd be speaking out against the occupation and the human rights abuses. Don't forget he was killed less than a year after the '67 war, and before Israel starting colonizing the west bank.

And the occupation has nothing to do with security. It actually makes Israelis less secure. It has everything to do with a desire for a "Greater Israel."

[quilp]

13. Your concern for Palestinian children is touching. I guess next

you'll be claiming they have the right to a country to live in. Like their own country. It's called Palestine. That is why these children are called Palestinians. Last I heard the "taxing" was on US citizens to the tune of $3billion a year.

[Herschel]

15. All of you

When I say listen, I emphasize my points. You are not treated as children. I am repulsed by Palestinians turning starvation on their own children for a political point. We all should be repulsed. Martin Luther King embraced a Jewish state. Israel is not going back to 1967 borders. Let it be. The non-violence is dismantling terrorist groups. Is that so horrible? Yes, Jews in Israel live better than Muslims in Palestine. The Palestinians must seek to improve their lot. The occupation is for Israeli security. She defeats far more attacks than she suffers. We do not know what King would speak for today. Did he advocate blowing up buses of innocent whites? What would that have done for him? The cost of the occupation is huge for Israel. Perhaps any new Palestinian state should consider compensating Israel for all these years of occupation.

[tinnypriv]

16. Tom Leher was right

Satire is dead.

[Herschel]

19. Please explain

What do you mean by your reply?

[tinnypriv]

21. Explanation

The Palestinians should pay for the occupation....

is morally equal to:

...Henry Kissinger being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

I was just stealing from a comic genius. :)

[Gimel]

56. They should pay for...

the dozens of buses ripped apart, and the medical bills of all the victims as well as retribution for the deaths. They've stolen hundreds of cars form Israel, and this is documented. They owe plenty for them also. The PA officials are driving around in stolen cars.

[Violet_Crumble]

60. And what should Israel pay for?

Just curious...

[Gimel]

66. paid enough

Although they Palestinians have already submitted an amount, it should be taken into consideration that the conflict was imposed on Israel.

Stay tuned.

[Violet_Crumble]

68. Stay tuned to 'it's never Israel's fault'?

The conflict was NOT imposed on Israel, and as it's an exercise in futility to discuss reparations with someone who places no blame at all on Israel, I'll tune out at this point...


Violet...

[Gimel]

115. Fine with me

We are not negotiating, and no need to "discuss reparations". Obviously, we won't see eye-to-eye on this. Stay tuned for the actual results. Only someone with all the facts and information on both sides would be able to begin to discuss reparations.

[quilp]

18. I'm sorry. I thought you were being serious.

n/t

[Herschel]

20. Completely serious

Perhaps there are things you don't want to hear.

[quilp]

22. If you are serious answer this question

Why are Palestinians called Palestinians?

[Lurking Dem]

33. The only people

called "Palestinians" before 1948 were the local Jews. The Jerusalem Post was then called the Palestine Post.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. The Arabs of Palestine weren't people?

Because prior to 1948 everyone in the British Mandate of Palestine was Palestinian, regardless of whether they were Jewish or Arab...

Violet...

[Cassandra]

36. We've been through this before

The Arabs in Palestine referred to themselves as Arabs prior to 1948. The term, Palestinian, was a reference to Jews only at that time. Some (many?) of the Arabs in Palestine in 1948 were not born there, but in surrounding Arab countries (probably more true of the urban rather than rural population) and moved to the area for jobs (a sensible thing to do). I'd be interested to know what those Arabs born in Palestine and living there for generations, called themselves; whether they distinguished themselves by a community or locality name from other Arabs at that time.

No one said they weren't people. This is a question of self-reference, not person-hood.

[tinnypriv]

42. Mostly correct, except

Most of the population of Palestine was indigenous in the 40's. Economic migration was wave-like, and had minimal impact on the demographic of the country.

[Cassandra]

50. I'm wondering how indiginous.

How much respect for or knowledge of the artificial bounderies set up by the British, and the Ottoman Empire before them, did the Arabs have? And I'm including the bounderies between Palestine and Syria, Jordan, Iraq. When people wander in ways they always have and cross borders they can't see, when they say they are indiginous to the region, they may, in all innocence, mean something different from what you suppose. Normally, I wouldn't bother to nit-pick this sort of thing, but there is endless emphasis on this board, particularly when discussing the right of return, on the generational rights of every single Palestinian. Some of their grandparents may actually have gotten there later than some of the Jews.

edit: spelling

[tinnypriv]

58. The most complete source on that

Is Yehoshua Porath, The Palestinian Arab National Movement, 1929-1939 (1977). He brings in all the earlier history, despite the title.

More recent: Norman G. Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, 2002, (p21-50).

I'm not aware of any (serious) person who says that "every single Palestinian" has "generational rights" to the land of mandate Palestine. Certainly those that lived there for centuries do have as much as a right as you or I have to live in our respective countries. Others have less of a "right", although those numbers are extremely minor, and barely above statistical error.

Regardless, I don't think there is much to be gained from debating who has a "right" to the land. There are claims, which naturally have to be evaluated on their merits.

[Gimel]

81. Except for

the massive Jewish immigration from Europe.

The number of immigrants during the entire Mandate period, legal and illegal alike, was approximately 480,000, close to 90% of them from Europe. The population of the yishuv expanded to 650,000 by the time statehood was proclaimed.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Immigration/Aliyah_during_war.html

[Violet_Crumble]

63. No, it wasn't a question of self-reference...

The person I responded to didn't talk about what *they* referred to themselves as, but what they were referred to as. The term Palestine and Palestinian wasn't exclusively used on only Jews who were indigenous to the area, but to everyone....

There seems to be a myth clung to by some that apart from a small Jewish population, Palestine was nearly empty and there was little to nothing in the way of indigenous Arabs. I'm not at all interested in how many generations from that point back they lived there for, because I think that it's irrelevent, especially considering someone who was Jewish and only arrived there a few years before would have been called a Palestinian and wouldn't have their generational link to the land questioned..


Violet...

[quilp]

65. American Indians didn't call themselves "American Indians".

But they still lived here didn't they? How many Jews in Palestine today were born there prior to 1948?

[Cassandra]

84. Half of the Jews in Israel today

are native-born, I read recently.

[quilp]

98. All the Palestinian Arabs in Palestine are "native born".

From parents who were also "native born".

[Cassandra]

99. Not Arafat

unless Palestine now extends into Egypt. Many other Palestinians were originally from other Arab countries, or their parents were.

[tinnypriv]

100. It isn't "many"

Those numbers are extremely minor, as I said above.

I gave you a reference to the most authorative source on the topic (in the english language) in my post above. If you choose not to consult it, that is unfortunate. I assumed (in error, clearly) that you were displaying at least mock seriousness about the subject.

[Lurking Dem]

38. Are we not speaking

English here? Read what I posted. Don't read into what I posted.

And thank you for reminding me why I didn't post here any more.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lurking Dem]

74. Yeah yer right.

Thanks for the citations.

Supposedly my Sephardic family members are all from Brooklyn or something anyway.

[Violet_Crumble]

91. I know...

And Tinnypriv provided some links if yr looking for citations, though I would have thought that pointing out that ALL inhabitants of Palestine were referred to as Palestinians was such a basic kind of thing that there'd be no more need for citations than someone insisting that the Allies didn't win WWII and then going 'thanks for the citations' when someone points out that wasn't the case at all...

I don't know what yr Sephardic family members have to do with what's being discussed, but if the family's been in Brooklyn for a few generations, then they DO come from Brooklyn...

Violet...

[quilp]

61. And the local Arabs were called Israelis?

Or,like American Indians, the Palestinians simply didn't exist!

[Violet_Crumble]

64. According to them, they're all Arabs...

Y'know, that vast homogenous group that supposedly has no cultural differences no matter where they were. Apart from this claim that they weren't Palestinians or part of Palestine being used by some to try to pooh-pooh any right of return, it also seems to be used to portray the Palestinians as being people who just hung out in the former British Mandate out of spite, not out of any ties to their land that any other person would have...

Violet...

[Cassandra]

93. You insist on willfully misrepresenting what was said.

No one said there weren't any cultural differences. No one said they weren't in Palestine. I just wanted to know what they called themselves. Just because the rest of the world refers to an area by a particular name, doesn't mean the inhabitants use the same name. And if they saw the region as more fluid than we do now, regional aquires a different meaning.

[Violet_Crumble]

94. Not at all...

I was talking about what Lurking Dem said, which was that only Jews of the area and not the Arabs were referred to as Palestinians. I don't recall saying that Lurking Dem said that there weren't cultural differences or that they weren't in Palestine. It appears that yr now saying I've said that, which of course I haven't. The mindset of many who cling to the 'oh, they weren't Palestinians' etc mob does indeed seem to be what I pointed out in the post yr replying to, and that's what I was pointing out, not whatever it is that yr accusing me of doing...

I'm not all that interested in knowing what any group of people used to call themselves. Who knows or cares what the East Timorese used to call themselves. They're East Timorese, and like the Palestinians they were oppressed and brutalised, and now despite whatever it was they used to be called or what the land they lived on was called, they're now a nation. I do have to wonder at the motive of many who cling so tenaciously to the They Never Called Themselves Palestinians line, though....

btw, if you just wanted to know what they called themselves, this comment of yrs is a funny way of asking: "The Arabs in Palestine referred to themselves as Arabs prior to 1948. The term, Palestinian, was a reference to Jews only at that time." http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=1012&mesg_id=1012&page=#1098

Violet...

[jos]

25. "Israel is not going back to 1967 borders"

Then the violence and resistance will not step. Israel does not need the west bank for its security. The occupation makes it more insecure. Only those in Israel, like the Likud, who seek a "greater Israel" believe otherwise. And with you, the Palestinians are damned if they resist at all. You want them to bow and scrape and say, "Yes boss. We love being occupied."

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. So what you are saying is...

Either the Palestinians get everything THEY want or Palestinian terrorists will continue to butcher innocent men, women and children in Israel.

Sorry, but negotiation DOESN'T work that way. Either the Palestinians negotiate a settlement with Israel that includes reasonable give and take on both sides or there is no peace. Since the Palestinians lack a state, THEY are the ones who are in need of help from the other side.

[jos]

30. No

I was responding to an assertion that Israel will not give up the west bank and gaza. I was simply stating that if that is the case, you can expect continued violence.

[Gimel]

41. Let me see...

violence is kids throwing rocks at "occupying soldiers", right? That's all that's going on here.

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. Then I expec it

Because Israel won't give up Jerusalem nor should it.

[jos]

57. That's right

they should keep Arab East Jerusalem. That makes a lot of sense.:eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

106. Jerusalem

Was once the capital of Israel. It is again.

[jos]

111. Historical Jersusalem

is only a part of what is current Jerusalem. If you want to restrict the capital to 2000 years ago, you'll lose about half of the current city.

Arab East Jersusalem should be the capital of any future Palestinian state.

[Gimel]

124. This issue

has basicly been settled between the parties. The Palestinians will have their capital "Al Quids" in the eastern Jerusalem areas. By letting the issue be set aside, a compromise was found.

The discription of Jerusalem in the 19th century and early 20th has been drawn by many famous authors and intellectuals. Mark Twain (Samuel Clemmens) included his discription in Innocents Abroad.

Theodore Herzl wrote:
In his book "Altneuland" ("Old New Land"),
published in 1902, Herzl discusses the
shabbiness and neglect of Jerusalem that he saw
during his visit to the city in 1898: "Pilgrims
from all the religions are harmed, without
noticing, to the depths of their hearts when
they arrive after a long and arduous journey to
this destination of their soul's desire and
yearnings, and how foul the scene their eyes
behold in those very streets - scenes of
neglect and banality." But further along in his
book, Herzl tries to convince the Jews that the
Zionist movement is vital for the revival of
the Jewish people. The neglected and miserable
city becomes, in Herzl's vision, an important
national and international center; the way in
which the city develops and is built as well as
its urban character express a combination and
connection between tradition and progress, as
in a modern European city.


also:
During 400 years of Ottoman rule, Jerusalem was
a provincial town far from the center and
despite its past, it won no recognition and
atrophied. In the Old City remained poor
neighborhoods and ramshackle markets. The new
neighborhoods that began to go up outside the
walls at the end of the 19th century were
isolated and cut off, without infrastructural
systems - even though these were already
developed in many cities abroad
read more
wrote Prof. Boris Schatz.

On edit: spelling correction

[GabysPoppy]

29. I have a question for you Mr. jos

As a side issue, are you including the Golan Heights in your description of the "1967 borders" in your definition of security?

A few years after the 1967 war I sat in one of those bunkers in the Golan Heights looking down at a kibbutz. I also visited that same kibbutz and saw the walls of the building where the children slept and it was riddled with marks from bullets.

If you have ever heard the expression "easy as shooting fish in a barrel" it would accurately define the situation. So if your description of the 1967 borders does include the Golan Heights as I believe it does, you are not the "security expert" you portend to be.

And on the chance I am wrong about your interpretation of the Golan Heights, what then do you think "adequate" security precautions should abound. Your answer of "Yes boss. We love being occupied." besides being demeaning is hardly an intelligent thought out theory.

[jos]

31. Golan is a separate issue

Totally separate. I believe Israel has legitimate security issues there that can be addressed, and were nearly compelted under both Netanyahoo and Barak, in a peace agreement.

Israel's security is tied to peace. As long as Israel continues occupying the west bank and gaza, and refused to agree to a viable Palestinian state, there will be no peace. Israel is capable of ensuring its security after that time, should such a need arise.

[GabysPoppy]

32. And the Camp David agreement wasn't viable?

Please explain that one to me. And if it wasn't viable when originally tendered, why then did Arafat come back and express an interest in it after months and months of terrorist attacks?

As I recall the Palestinians were offered at least 95% of the land they were seeking. I would venture to say that at the time of Arafat's refusal he was still hopeful of pushing all of Israel into the sea. Do you think Arafat was wrong to walk away from Barak & Clinton? My next question to you is what do you think are reasonable measures for Israel to use to insure its security?

And to make sure we are on the same page, do you presently think that regardless of who the Palestinian Prime Minister happens to be this week or next week that anyone other than Arafat is the person in power?

[jos]

35. The agreement

did not provide for a contiguous state. As it was, as I'm sure you know, the parties resumed negotiations and were close to an agreement at Taba. Thus, the "Arafat walked away" is not accurate. Then Sharon was elected and the rest is history.

Arafat was elected by the Palestinians, and I assume is still the real power. I don't believe he has been an effective leader for his people.

[GabysPoppy]

37. He did not walk away? Then he must have accepted it.

Taba negotiations continued despite the beginning of the 2nd Intefada so if you want to take that as the point of Arafat walking away so be it.

Arafat helped elect Sharon IMO by his actions. If he were making an honest and determined effort at a peace, at that was discerned by the Israeli people, Sharon would not have been elected.

Was the Intefada an intelligent decision by Arafat? I am still awaiting your answer to what would be acceptable security measures by Israel.

[jos]

39. Define

what you mean by "acceptable security measures."

I don't disagree that the second intifada helped Sharon get elected. Since it was his trip to the temple mount that was the spark, I guess it's only right that he benefitted. But Barak was in trouble even before that. That's why he was so desperate for the Camp David conference. If you recall, it was Arafat who didn't believe the situation was right for a "final" conference.

[GabysPoppy]

40. Let us use your definition

"Israel is capable of ensuring its security after that time, should such a need arise."

I used the word acceptable to allow you the freedom of answering.

I have another question for you now that we have thrown in the "Temple Mount" card.

Was the Al-Aksa mosque built on the Temple Mount or was the Temple Mount built beneath the mosque?

You also might want to tell me how Sharon's visit besides not being the best time, was an afront to the Palestinians? Did he desecrate the area in some fashion? Considering that the Temple Mount is also important for religious reasons in Jewish history, should it also be off limits to those who wish to worship there similiar to places like Hebron or Rachel's tomb or Joseph's tomb?

[tinnypriv]

44. You obviously

Know absolutely nothing about the Temple Mount. It was not considered important until some pretext was needed for not allowing the Palestinians sovereignty over occupied East Jerusalem. Just look at the history.

[GabysPoppy]

46. I won't even dignify that response with an answer.

[Cassandra]

52. If you really believe the Temple Mount ...

was not important until recently, than you are obviously too ignorant of the facts to have jumped into this part of the discussion. Who wrote the history you think you know?

[tinnypriv]

69. Pu-lease

Go look for "Temple Mount" in the Beilin-Mazen plan, and see what it says.

I am talking about Israel's declaration of sovereignty over the area. Obviously it is religiously significant (first, second temples in a Jewish context and Sharif for Muslims etc). If that wasn't clear, that is my error. Those adamant sovereignty declarations only occured very recently (circa Barak era). Like I said, take a look at the record.

[Darranar]

72. Ridiculous...

The Temple Mount has always been extremely important to Jews, as the site of the two destroyed holy temples.

[jos]

45. Since you

refuse to define your terms regarding security, I refuse to answer.

And let me ask you a question, how many Muslims are there in the world compared to how many Jews? If you believe it is acceptable to go out of the way to provoke the Muslim world, then you reap what you have sewn.

Yes, the timing was bad. And Sharon was doing it for purely intra-Likud, political reasons. It was a craven and cynical move that ultimately paid off.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jos]

53. You misconstrue

As a pragmatic matter, when you're, in effect, surrounded by billions of people, an overwhelming majority of whom are moslem, it is impolitic to go out of your way to offend their sensibilities.

[Gimel]

71. One reason

With all the Muslim nations, there's a good reason for one Jewish nation. We won't be offending their sensibilites, and they not ours. Obviously, the two cultures don't mix. If being in a minority world-wide makes you docile, shouldn't that be afforded to Jews in their own land, to reamin a majority?

[Violet_Crumble]

67. That's a sweeping stereotype...

Would you like to reword that so it's accurate? The vast majority of Muslims as with any other group, aren't enraged at the existance of Jews. The only folk who do are religious fundies (and that isn't unique to Islam), neo-Nazis, and other tiny groups of human effluent. To claim that Muslims hate Jews is very inaccurate...

Violet...

[Gimel]

47. The terror

is the key, as to why the talks failed. Terror is the key to why Barak lost the majority in the Knesset. The threat of terror continued. Increased security did not always mean quiet. Threats and attempted attacks continued. Also, there was the abduction of three Israeli soldiers by Hizbolla, an umbrella organization, which supports terror attacks in Israel. Increased violence on the north and conflict in the territories. This is not an atmosphere of trust for implementing peace. Everyone in Israel knew that the West Bank was a hot bed of terrorism, since the redeployment from Areas A, areas like Jenin, Kalkilye and Nablus.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0cc40


Arafat was just itching for an excuse to let them loose. The Intifada was waiting to happen. An Israeli soldier was killed by sniper fire on Sept 28, 2000. A definate act of war. All you human rights people think that a soldier has no right to life, especially an Israeli soldier. That soldiers life was has valuable as Sharon's or Arafat's life. His duty was to protect Israeli civilians. that's what led up to Sharon's election.

[jos]

48. The settlements

Nor was adding 200,000 "settlers" after Oslo conducive to the "atmosphere for peace."

[tinnypriv]

43. Whatever you think of it

Barak walked away from Taba. Fact.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

55. Fact?...

...

On the other hand, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the
Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States,
does not mention the right of return in an
interview with Elsa Walsh in The New Yorker
(March 24, 2003). In the interview, the
ambassador attacks Palestinian Chairman Yasser
Arafat in the sharpest tone. He refers to a
meeting between Arafat and president Bill
Clinton in January 2001, at which Bandar was
pressuring the Palestinian leader to accept
Clinton's proposals. This offer, Bandar says,
gave the Palestinians 97 percent of the
territories, all of Jerusalem - excluding the
Jewish and Armenian quarters and the right of
Jews to pray at the Temple Mount - and $30
billion in a "compensation fund."

Pressuring Arafat, Bandar tells him: You won't
get anything better. Bandar asks whether the PA
chairman would prefer Ariel Sharon to Barak -
in light of the upcoming elections in Israel -
and then he presents Arafat with an ultimatum:
If you do not accept the Clinton offer, this
means "we go to war"; no Arab state will rally
to support you.

When Arafat does not contact Bandar after his
meeting with Clinton - contrary to their
agreement - the ambassador waits for three
hours and goes to Arafat's hotel to meet him.
Arafat lies through his teeth and does not tell
the Saudi ambassador that he refused the
Clinton offer, but Bandar recognizes the look
on the faces of the Palestinian aides and knows
the truth. Despite his promises to Bandar,
Arafat refused the generous offer of the
president, and Bandar unloaded his rage. But he
did not make his knowledge public, fearing that
he would look like "Barak's defense attorney."

...

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=312414&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

[tinnypriv]

62. Eh?

What does that have to do with the FACT that Barak broke off the talks at Taba?

See 'Barak halts talks until election', Associated Press, Reuters, January 28/29 2001.

I said nothing about the content of the talks.

[Gimel]

86. Taba talks

Following a meeting in Cairo between Foreign Minister Ben-Ami and Chairman Arafat, marathon talks between Israeli and Palestinian delegations were held in Taba from January 21-27, 2001, ending in a joint statement.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0itv0
The text of the statement:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0j7o0


Prime Minister Ehud Barak has decided today (Sunday), Jan 28, 2001, not to continue the diplomatic contacts with Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat and his people until after the elections in Israel. The security contacts regarding a relaxation on the ground, the cessation of violence and counter-terrorism - will continue.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0j8c0

As the Taba talks were an effort to salvage the failed Camp David II agreement, which was rejected by Arafat, they only wound up the talks. A summary is given by the EU Special Representative to the Middle East Process, Ambassador Moratinos:
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=130196

It is not so much that Barak walked out of Taba, but the people of Israel walked out on Arafat.

[tinnypriv]

90. Thanks for making my point

n/t

[Gimel]

109. Interpretation

That's a matter of interpretation.

[Gimel]

76. The 1948 partition

offered the Arabs a contiguous state. Israel was to be in two pieces. The Arabs now live primarily in Gaza and the West Bank. The population in villages in the Galalee was land originaly given to the Arabs. They rejected this proposal. I can't see them accepting anything less than all the land of Israel and the land Judea and Samaria.

[Violet_Crumble]

88. Who's 'they'?

They rejected this proposal. I can't see them accepting anything less than all the land of Israel and the land Judea and Samaria.

If yr talking about the Palestinian people, then what you see and what reality is are two very different things. Why do you call those areas Judea and Samaria? That's coming across as though you think Israel owns those areas...

Violet...

[Gimel]

95. "they" refers to

the preceeding proper noun "Arabs" There were no "Palestinians" in May of 1948, as far as referring to an ethnic group or identity. The names of the areas in many official documents are Judea and Sameria. Some refer to the West Bank as including Jerusalem, and I wanted to be more specific. I am giving my opinon as to what I see, as I was scareful to note. By what authority do you speak for the Palestinians in this and in other recent posts? How do you know how they feel? How can you speak oftheir personal feelings? Are you actually a Palestinian yourself? Are you a leader of Palestinians?

[Violet_Crumble]

97. So you were making a sweeping generalisation then?

...about all Palestinians. By what authority do YOU speak for the Palestinians in this and other recent posts? How do YOU know how they feel? How can YOU speak of their personal feelings? and on and on and on. I was merely pointing out to you that yr opinion that the Palestinian people want to take Israel is not borne out by the facts...

Everyone who was a native living in the British Mandate of Palestine was a Palestinian, though for all I care you can call them anything you like, as long as you don't make the mistake that someone else did in this thread and say that while the Arab population weren't referred to as Palestinians, the Jewish population was...

I'm not really interested in what the Likud party or other right-wing Israeli parties refer to the West Bank as. Judea and Samaria are names used for it by right-wing zealots who make the false claim that Israel owns that land, and I can't recall any progressives referring to it as Judea and Samaria just cause some 'official document' calls it that...


Violet...

[Gimel]

103. No

It's an historical fact.

[Violet_Crumble]

113. What's a historical fact?

Yr OPINION which lumps all Palestinians together as wanting to destroy Israel? Yr earlier incorrect claim that there were no Palestinians prior to 1948? The opinion I gave you about yr opinion WAS based on fact, btw...

Violet...

[Gimel]

118. UN Resolution 181

this is the historical fact that I was referring to:

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 called for the partition of the British-ruled Palestine Mandate into a Jewish state and an Arab state. It was approved on November 29, 1947 with 33 votes in favor, 13 against, 10 abstentions and one absent (see list at end of document).

The resolution was accepted by the Jews in Palestine, yet rejected by the Arabs in Palestine and the Arab states.

http://www.ariga.com/treaties/part181.shtml

[Gimel]

85. Confusion...

Some call them refugees. If they live in their own country, why are they called "refugees"? Also, why do they need to enter Israel and get Israeli support, employment, welfare, insurance, social benfits, etc?

I'm glad to hear that they have their own country, but actually, it's only a parasitic entity. The Hamas and IJ, PFLP and Al-Aqsa Brigade groups want to destroy the hand that feeds them, while the people are suffering and the world blames Israel.

[Gimel]

73. No Israelis in PA jails

Yes, I know that seems like they must be saints, but the fact is, they murder any Israeli without trial, if he or she happens to enter their restricted areas. They want, however, free and unfettered entry into Israel (which they believe is their land) so that they can murder whomever they please. No trial. That takes to much trouble. As for torture, look at the wounded with shrapnel throught their bodies. It's a medical horror.

[Darranar]

14. Finally...

non-violent resistance. If they can keep it up, the violence might dissipate.

[tinnypriv]

17. Maybe you're unware

Of the first Intifada, for the most part, non-violent.

[Gimel]

28. First Intifada

While not as many casualties resulted from the first Intifada, it was also violent.

The intifada was violent from the start. During the first four years of the uprising, more than 3,600 Molotov cocktail attacks, 100 hand grenade attacks and 600 assaults with guns or explosives were reported by the Israel Defense Forces. The violence was directed at soldiers and civilians alike. Between December 9, 1987, and the signing of the Oslo accords (September 13, 1993), 160 Israelis were killed, including 100 civilians. Thousands more were injured.3
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf19.html#b

As in the second Intifadea, the largest number of deaths was in the civilian population.

[Tinoire]

23. Starhawk has your answer

One of the agonies in the current crisis is that nobody seems to have much hope or vision of how to resolve it. We can see where the road leads, but we don't know how to step off of it.

"If only the Palestinians would practice nonviolence, embrace the principles of Gandhi and King," I hear from some of my Jewish allies.

Of course, there are Palestinians, and Israelis, and many others who have stepped forward to be a nonviolent presence in refugee camps, who have accompanied ambulances and attempted to deliver medical supplies, who have written their own eyewitness accounts and spoken their truth.

But I find myself thinking "Wouldn't it be quicker if Gandhi or King reappeared among the Israeli leadership and their supporters? Are they not in an even better position to change this situation?"

If the Israeli leadership were to abandon the idea that force will resolve this conflict in any positive way whatsoever, the solution becomes stunningly, obviously clear. Any mind not clouded by fear or hate or self righteousness or utter religious certainty can see it in ten minutes of serious thought:

The Palestinians need their own state. And it needs to be a viable, coherent state with the potential for prosperity and beauty, not a Bantustan, not a few scraps of unwanted land the Israelis have decided to discard. A Palestine of milk and honey, of bread and roses, of the vine and the fig tree, of olive groves and red anemones, of health clinics and universities, of a new renaissance of Arabic culture, science, learning and art. Anything less will be an eternal festering sore, and there will be no peace.

An Israel that gave up the delusion that force will win all of Israel's demands while conceding the Palestinians nothing might recognize that a flourishing and happy Palestine would be Israel's best security measure, might even become her closest trading partner, best friend. Such a Palestine would offer its youth a better future than becoming human bombs. It is utterly in the best interests of Israel to nourish and support and foster the creation of the Palestinian state, to be surrounded by friends instead of enemies. And while that might seem impossible at the moment, consider the friendly relations between the U.S. and our former deadly enemies, Germany and Japan.

Those who love and care for Israel need to stand with her true interests now, by demanding an end to the occupation, the dismantling of the settlements, by calling for the intervention of a neutral, peacekeeping force, and by pressuring the United States government to stop covertly supporting and funding Israeli aggression.

<snip>

A third friend, a deeply spiritual woman and longtime ecofeminist ally, sends me a copy of a letter she wrote to President Bush entitled, "Standing Firmly With Israel."

In no way can I stand with her. And yet I cannot simply stand against her, either.

I cannot stand with an Israel that tortures prisoners, an Israel that has mounted a restrictive and dehumanizing occupation, that assassinates political leaders as a matter of policy, that has cut down ancient olive groves to destroy the livelihood of the Palestinians, that is daily committing war crimes: refusing medical care to the wounded, firing on journalists and peace demonstrators, bombing civilians, destroying homes. Nor can I stand in the bloody remains of the Seder meal, among the corpses in the café, the restaurant. Yet to say, "both sides are wrong, both sides should give up violence" is to ignore the reality that one side, the Israeli side, is the fourth largest military power in the world. That the suicide bombs are a direct response to calculated political assassinations and to a brutal occupation that has made life untenable for the Palestinians. That for over fifty years, the State of Israel has failed to guard and cherish the Palestinians' rights, aspirations, and hopes for an independence that could lead to peace and prosperity.

It is, on the one hand, incomprehensible to me that my friend could stand with such a regime, that the Jewish community as a whole, composed of people I know to be caring, compassionate and good, can stand behind the tanks, the bombs, the brutality.

<snip>
http://www.starhawk.org/activism/activism-writings/heresies.html

Copyright (c) 2002 by Starhawk. All rights reserved. This copyright protects Starhawk's right to future publication of her work. Nonprofit, activist, and educational groups may circulate this essay (forward it, reprint it, translate it, post it, or reproduce it) for nonprofit uses. Please do not change any part of it without permission. Readers are invited to visit the web site: www.starhawk.org.

[Gimel]

70. Tsk, Tsk, Starhawk

Wouldn't it be wonderful. Yes, just extend a little paradise pre-fab.

not a few scraps of unwanted land the Israelis have decided to discard

It seems many are claiming that Israel wants this land that is to be "discarded"(?)

In the meantime, they are fervently trying to destroy the country that Israelis have built (also with Palestinian labor - paid labor). that is perhaps the behavor commonly seen in sibling rivalry. But let us assume the Israelis want peace and are willing to sacrifice hundreds of civilians for the sake of giving the Palestinians some land. Move over for every terrorist strike, give them 200 dunams. How's that? Soon they're on their way to Tel Aviv. How ever you divide this land, it doesn't produce milk and honey without good solid work effort. The territory they have (and maybe don't want) is beautiful country. But like a jealous sibling, they want their land and our's too. They'll destroy the one the covet if they can't have it on a silver platter.

That the suicide bombs are a direct response to calculated political assassinations and to a brutal occupation that has made life untenable for the Palestinians.

This is absolute nobless noblige fantacy.

[quilp]

79. The "territory" the Palestinains occupy is an Israeli concentration camp

The "country Israel built" is on someone elses land. Taken from them by the same "terrorist" means that Palestians are using to get it back. At least anti-semites have the guts to say the poison they believe. What I can't take is the pious pretentions of Jews that they have the welfare of the Arab Palestinians at heart. And if only these mis-guided would give up the struggle they can trust Sharon and the Israelis to do the right thing.

[Gimel]

108. Pious pretention

I don't think "the pious pretentions of Jews that they have the welfare of the Arab Palestinians at heart" enters the hearts of the right wing in Israel. That's asking too much.

[Darranar]

75. Oh, please...

BOTH sides are responsible for the violence. The Palestinains are more responsible, but taht is another story. I agree that the Palestinian state should not be a poor wreck, but that does not justify suicide bombings. Assasinations of militants planning attacks on Israel is right, as it protects innocent civilians.
The Palestinians have hardly respected the lives of Israelis, either. Many of the Arabs attacked their Jewish neighbors and slaughtered them, and that is hardly respecting their rights. Neither is it respecting their rights to attack a hardly viable state just after its creation, an act of plain and obvious anti-semitism. Many Palestinains have no desire for plain independence-they desire all of the Jews in Israel to be massacred and slaughtered, their homes razed, and their holy sites desecrated. That is not a direct result of Israel's occupation; rather, it is another example of blatant anti-semitism.

[Tinoire]

24. You make me want to weep

Is this the humanism that made Judaism such a great religion?

Is this the type of arrogance with which Palestinians are treated and seen? This type of reasoning makes me seethe and realize that peace between Israel and Palestine may be more elusive than I thought.

:mad:

[jos]

26. This is how

Zionism has perverted Judaism. It is also a lesson against basing a state on religion, and why there should always be separation of church and state.

[Gimel]

77. As there is in Israel

Basic principles


1. Fundamental human rights in Israel are founded upon recognition of the value of the human being, the sanctity of human life, and the principle that all persons are free; these rights shall be upheld in the spirit of the principles set forth in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00hj0

[jos]

78. Separate of church and state in Israel?

Israel is, by definition, a state based on religion. Inherent in that definition is that those who are not that religion, are second-class citizens.

[Gimel]

82. Freedom of religion

The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel (1948) guarantees freedom of religion for all. Each religious community is free, by law and in practice, to exercise its faith, to observe its holidays and weekly day of rest and to administer its internal affairs. Each has its own religious council and courts, recognized by law and with jurisdiction over all religious affairs and matters of personal status such as marriage and divorce. Each has its own unique places of worship, with traditional rituals and special architectural features developed over the centuries.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00vz0

There is no 'State Church' in Israel. Judaism does not have a central authority, such as the Catholic or Anglican church.

[quilp]

83. Who is the "central authority" of the Anglican church?

Unless you mean the Queen of England? I take it EVERYBODY of the Jewish faith subscribes to this "Declaration"? Zionists, Hassidic, conservative, orthodox, the illegal settlers etc.

[Gimel]

116. Cental Authority

Yes, the Crown of England held both the legal power and the religious power for hundreds of years. The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Perhaps you know that there is no Anglican Church in the US.Anyone who bows to the Queen, bows to the Head of State and the Head of the Anglican Church.

This fact led the "pilgrims" who founded the US and the framers of the US constitution to clearly define the separation of Church and State.

[Aaron]

87. That site you linked says that there are special rules for Jews

'Law of Return' or something like that where Jews and Non-Jews are classified for immigration purposes with Jews receiving special consideration of some kind. That would seem like the favoritism that the previous poster, if I am reading correctly, suggested.

[Gimel]

107. Law of Return

This law is based on the historical precedent, that the Jewish people originated in the land of Israel. Therefore, the gentile would not be considered "returning" to a homeland. Just as descendants of Ferench, German or American nationals have the right to return to the land their parents and/or grandparents came from. It does not seem discriminatory to me, but does have a bases in history and international law.

[Aaron]

112. How is it not discriminatory?

If the French do as you suggest and allow descendants of French people freely but not others that would be discriminatory as they're discriminating on the basis of French ancestry. It may be part of international law/history but it's still an act that requires the discrimination against some subset of people, in this case non-French people. Whether or not that's bad, legal, or historically accurate I couldn't say, but certainly it would appear that there is some judgement that requires discriminatory review of prospective immigrants for a particular trait, in this case family history in the country in question - thus the practice is discriminatory. I am unclear from your reply whether Israel's "return right" applies to to all descendants of Jews, or only descendants of Jews who profess belief in Judaism. I am somewhat new to I/P issues, so if I've misconstrued something it is unintentional.

[Gimel]

114. Would it be more so?

I assume that you are an American (US) citizen (your name symbol relates this). Therefore, if you left the US and became a citizen of another country, you would still have the right "to return" to the land you were born in. Not only that, and of your children born outside the US would have that right as well, and your grandchildren, even though they had never set foot on US soil. It has nothing to do with having to practice or profess belief in a religion.

In such matters as citizenship, there is always some discrimination. Citizenship, and the rights of citizens and their descendants are a sub-group of individuals. No doubt about it. Of course, not everyone else can apply and gain citizenship without a lengthy process.

To gain Israeli citizenship, a person whose mother was Jewish is according to Jewish religious law, as Jew. No other proof, or established religious practice is necessary. all Jews who arrive in Israel has the possibility of applying for citizenship. Usually a three year provisional residence status is granted. After that, those of draft age are required to report for army duty, and also, those over 18 are eligible to vote.

[Aaron]

121. Good info - TY (n/t)

[jos]

89. So?

The Israeli government is the "state church." The Israeli flag is the "state church." To paraphrase the decision in Brown v. Board of Education, a state based on religion is inherently unequal. Those not of the religion the state is based upon are inherently second-class citizens.

[quilp]

96. Some are more equal than others. n/t

n/t

[Gimel]

104. So what?

Israel is not the US so the US S Court rulings do not apply.

[jos]

110. That's not the point

and you know it.

[Gimel]

117. Definitely related

My point is that Israel is allowed, as is every nation and people, it's own history. You don't have to project the US cultural pattern on Israel in order to validate the Israeli constitution. Separation of Church and State grew out of the fusion of Church and State in England.

Whatever your point is, it sounds like you are saying that this American concept, with all relevant legal decisions, has to be transported to Israel. US Supreme court rulings are now going against any mention of G-d in schools or in government institutions. Soon they'll have to take the motto "In God we trust" off the dollar bills. It is becoming totally sanitized of recognition that there is a higher power. This is an influence of athiests and their legal challenges. However, Supreme Court rulings don't always stand forever either. It may be overturned in the future. It is not universal law.

There is no Church in Israel. There are two "head" Rabbis, one Sephardi and one Ashkenazi. They are leaders in the sense that they perform ceremonial duties, etc. Everyone is free to choose his or her own religion or not to follow a religion.


It is against the law to drive a car on Yom Kippur (except for medical emergencies). I think that in the US Christmas day is a legal holiday. Maybe that has yet to be challenged and outlawed.

[jos]

119. Separation of church and state

is one of the foundations of any democratic society. It is not just for the U.S. That's like saying free elections is just for the U.S.

[Gimel]

120. No church

Yes, I agree that the concept is good. But I object to applying every Supreme Court ruling to the situation and the relationship between religion (not a church) and state in Israel. There is no strong centralized "Church" or religious institution in the Judaic culture. There are several leading religious groups in Israel, some of which have their centers in the US. (Chabad for example has headquarters in Brooklyn). The rulings of the rabbis are not considered legal rulings for the secular government.

The legal "law of return", for example includes the rights of persons whose have a Jewish parent or grandparent, and is not concerned with the religious "halachic" requirement that the mother be a Jew. In other words, a person with a Jewish father, whose mother is a gentile, would be eligible under the state definition of "law of return" but that individual would have to go through a conversion process to be considered a Jew by the religious definition.

I object to the assumption that your standards for determining what constitutes "separation of church and state" are the same as for the Israel culture and the structure of the Jewish religion.

[bemildred]

105. I just want to say ...

a.) This seems far better than blowing your ass up in a
bus or pizza parlor full of Israelis, so maybe we should
encourage it.

b.) This seems consistent with the Ghandi-like approach that I
see advocated here from time to time, so maybe the fact that
they are teaching the kids to pursue non-violent means to seek
redress of grievances is progress.

[Cassandra]

122. I agree with you on both points

I just wish that Arafat was setting a good example by joining them.

[bemildred]

123. Yeah.

I can just see him sitting with the kids holding
hands in a circle singing kumbyah.
:thumbsup: