Hamas deputy leader says resistance to 'occupation' will continue-Haaretz

[Coastie for Truth]

A prominent Hamas leader, whose group achieved an overwhelming victory in legislative Palestinian elections this week, pledged Friday to continue resistance against what he termed Israeli occupation and stressed that the group would not yet recognize the Jewish state.

"As long as there is occupation and so long as our people's rights are usurped, our stand will remain as it is. We would resist the (Israeli) occupation to restore our rights," Moussa Abu Marzouk, deputy head of the Hamas movement, said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Hamas ideology does not recognize the existence of a Jewish state in an Islamic Middle East. In recent years, however, some Hamas leaders have grudgingly accepted the idea of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, as long as it is understood to be only a stage toward freeing all of Palestine - including Israel.

Abu Marzouk stressed that his group does not recognize Israel "and it's not in our mind now to recognize it as we believe that it's a state that has usurped our land and expelled our people. These issues should be handled before we talk about recognition."

Commenting on Israel's insistence not to deal with any Palestinian government that includes Hamas, Abu Marzouk said: "This is its choice. If it does not cooperate, it would isolate itself."

<<<SNIP>>>

[mike_c]

1. why would anyone accept a brutal occupation without resisting?

:shrug:

[Dixie Flatline]

2. Well...

For one thing Hamas views the entire nation of Israel as occupying Palestinian land. So, even if Israel were to be returned to its 1967 or even original borders, it would not be enough for Hamas.

And, how is murdering innocent women and children an effective way of ending the Israeli occupation of the West Bank?

:shrug:

[Matilda]

3. How is murdering innocent women and children

going to make the Palestinians feel more kindly towards Israeli
occupation?

[Dixie Flatline]

4. Nothing will make the Palestinians feel more kindly

toward the Israelis until the occupation is over and they have an independent and viable state.

Terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad are a different story, of course. They will never accept a Jewish state in the Middle East.

[Matilda]

5. We may live in hope

that if Hamas, by being as tough and as wily as the Israelis, can
achieve a peace settlement that is acceptable to the majority of
Palestinians, then support for the extreme elements of Hamas will
wane.

I doubt that the Palestinians will ever accept in their hearts the
right of Israel to take their land, but after so much blood has been
shed, perhaps a viable state may persuade to just go with it.

But viable is the operative word ....

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[gonzo8]

74. Other useful History Books:

A Peace to End All Peace, by David Fromkin

Sowing the Wind, the Mismanagement of the Middle East 1900-1960, by John Keay

All the Shah's Men, An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, by Stephen Kinzer

A little historical context goes a long way in sorting through the self serving bull shit that passes for fact in blogs and press conferences out of Washington, Tel Aviv, Gaza City or London.

[Coastie for Truth]

8. Since I am a Progressive, Liberal, ACLUer, Red Cross Volunteer

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that "murdering innocent women and children" also refers to suicide bombing of pizzerias, wedding receptions, Passover Seders, Bar Mitzvah receptions, university cafeterias, and Super Sol supermarkets in left wing neighborhoods.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Read the post Matilda was replying to...

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't read that before you replied to Matilda, which would explain why you didn't make a similar comment about that post....

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

76. I did - Matilda turned the post around.

from

And, how is murdering innocent women and children an effective way of ending the Israeli occupation of the West Bank?
which I interpret as referring to Palestinians killing Israeli civilians

to

How is murdering innocent women and children
going to make the Palestinians feel more kindly towards Israeli
occupation?
which I interpret as referring to Israelis killing Palestinians, which was NOT the case posited by Dixie Flatline

[Violet_Crumble]

82. Yet yr picking Matilda up for only speaking about Palestinians...

Aren't you seeing a bit of a double standard at play?

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

39. Good question.

One which isn't asked with sufficient frequency, alas.

[Violet_Crumble]

63. What about the killing of Palestinian civilians?

Y'know, Palestinian civilians are also being killed, though some folk would have us believe that only Israeli civilians die or that they're the only ones who matter...

Perhaps there's some euphemism that can be used to describe the deaths of Palestinian civilians?

Violet...

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

78. Yes, we've already established that...

Which is why I asked the question I asked about Palestinian civilians...

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

80. ENOUGH TO SATISFY YOU?

[Violet_Crumble]

81. Satisfy me of what????

If you are implying that I'm not aware that Israeli civilians are killed, yr very very wrong. Now, back to my question about Palestinian civilians :)

Violet...

[mike_c]

86. perhaps you're unaware that during the last five years...

...i.e. since the beginning of the intifada, the IDF and militant Israeli settlers have murdered four times as many Palestinian civilians as have been killed by suicide bombers or other attacks in Israel.

http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/resources/mrates.asp

September 29, 2000 saw an explosion of Palestinian anger and has resulted in an Intifada, Arabic for "a shaking off." Every day, innocent Palestinian and Israeli people are being killed. These pages count, graph and give a context to these deaths.

From Sept. 29, 2000 to January 22, 2006:

Israeli Dead: 993
Palestinian Dead: 3773

Is that enough to satisfy YOU?

[Behind the Aegis]

92. I think this chart is crap.

They say they don't count suicide bombers. I direct you to http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/resources_counts/05_12_1.asp. (December 5th suicide attack) Is it possible another Palestinian was killed that day? It sure is. But, as I went through various dates, I couldn't find collaboration of deaths from other sources, including Arab sources, and you know they wouldn't miss an opportunity to publish about the death of a Palestinian at Israeli hands. The other 'confusing' thing is that it doesn't distinguish between those killed by Israelis and those killed by others. Also, they do not distiguish between armed and unarmed.

Then, there is this: Egypt soldiers kill two at Egypt-Israel border and low and behold, Two Palestinians are reported killed.

Although, they say they don't count suicide bombers in the mix, there is this coincidence: Bombing at Israeli Food Stand Kills Five and, again October 26th finds one Palestinian dead.

Of course, there is also, Five Militants, Jew Killed in West Bank, yet Agust 25th shows 5 dead Palestinians, no dead Jews.

The comment that "since the beginning of the intifada, the IDF and militant Israeli settlers have murdered four times as many Palestinian civilians as have been killed by suicide bombers or other attacks in Israel" is very misleading! Since, some of those included in the dead were armed, and not civilians, in the way it is trying to be portrayed.

Have more Palestinian civilians died in the conflict? Yes! But, when the armed deaths are taken out, the number starts to drop, drastically. I find this chart to be inaccurate and inflammatory.

[mike_c]

95. likewise, they don't count the targets of Israeli assassinations....

Even conservatives like the Middle East Policy Council (the source of the chart you think is "crap"):

"We applaud (Middle East Policy Council's) efforts to present the full spectrum of views and, occasionally challenge the conventional wisdom regarding the Middle East."
- Colin L. Powell, Secretary of State

The most frequently cited journal on the Middle East region in the field of international affairs, Middle East Policy has been engaging thoughtful minds for more than 20 years. Since its inception in 1982, the journal has been recognized as a valuable addition to the Washington-based policy discussion. Middle East Policy provides an influential forum for a wide range of views on U.S. interests in the region and the value of the policies that are supposed to promote them.

BTW, this is from a site urelated to the MEPC: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1061-1924

[Behind the Aegis]

97. The chart is crap.

I said nothing about the site. There are other stats out there that show deaths broken down by civilian and military. Those are more interesting. Lumping every thing into one chart, with the few exceptions, is misleading, at best.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[Ani Yun Wiya]

115. Can you prove

the numbers are false?

I IDF are included in israeli counts, why not count armed Palestinians.

[Behind the Aegis]

119. See post #92

That is just a start.

I have no problem counting the IDF or armed militants, BUT, the chart should say so and not be made to look like it is all 'innocent' deaths. "Every day, innocent Palestinian and Israeli people are being killed. These pages count, graph and give a context to these deaths." The very wording makes it sound if the following chart is that of "innocent Palestinian and Israeli people are being killed." Very deceptive.

[Behind the Aegis]

106. Here's the chart 'they' really don't want people to see....

Breakdown of Fatalities: 27 September 2000 through 01 January 2005 (Total: 4189 (a 577 difference from your stats, which include an extra year))

Palestinians

Raw #.....Overall Palestinian.....Overall

Total: 3179.....----.....75.89%
Females: 140.....4.40%.....3.34%
Males: 3039.....95.60%.....72.55%
Non-Combatants killed by other side: 1099.....34.57%.....26.24%
Females: 103.....9.37%.....2.46%
Males: 996.....90.63%.....23.78%
Combatants killed by other side: 1542.....48.51%.....36.81%
Killed by own side: 406.....12.77%.....9.69
Non-Combatants under 12yo: 88.....2.77%.....2.10%
Non-Combatants males between 12-29yo: 581.....18.28%.....13.87%
Non-Combatants 45yo or older: 89.....2.80%.....2.12%


Israelis

Raw #.....Overall Israeli.....Overall

Total: 1010.....----.....24.11%
Females: 316.....31.29%.....7.54%
Males: 694.....68.71%.....16.57%
Non-Combatants killed by other side: 764.....75.64%.....18.24%
Females: 306.....40.05%.....7.30%
Males: 458.....59.95%.....10.93%
Combatants killed by other side: 215.....21.29%.....5.13%
Killed by own side: 22.....2.18%.....0.53%
Non-Combatants under 12yo: 46.....4.55%.....1.10%
Non-Combatants males between 12-29yo: 178.....17.62%.....4.25%
Non-Combatants 45yo or older: 255.....25.25%.....6.09%

So, what does this breakdown show us? Well, it shows, like your graph, that most (75% of all) deaths in the I/P conflict (mine is only until 2005), are Palestinian. But, what my stats provide, that yours does not, is the real breakdown and that is what some really don't want out there!

Of those who are considered non-combatants (and that includes 'rock-throwers' and unknowns) and are killed by the 'enemy,' one-third (34.57%) of Palestinian non-combatants are killed by Israelis, as opposed to three-quarters (75.64%) of non-combatant Israelis killed by Palestinians! Overall though, statistically, both groups are almost tied, with the Palestinians suffering more lost (P=26.24%, I=18.24%). The Palestinian deaths are almost 3-to-1 by your chart, and mine, but a closer look shows that the innocents killed are almost identical! How can that be?!

What about the women and children? The wails of innocent women and children being slaughtered (lured like mice) seems to be popular, too. Non-combatant (innocent) Palestinian women killed: 103 or less than 10% (9.37%) of all non-combatant deaths. Compare this to the number of Israeli women killed: 306 or more than one-third (40.05%) of all non-combatant (innocent) deaths. The children (under 12yo) are different. In the same period of time almost double the number of Palestinian children have been killed. However, in the overall grand scheme, statistically of Palestinian/Israeli deaths, an Israeli child is more likely to be an innocent victim, than a Palestinian child.

Let's not be 'ageist' and leave out those over the age of 45. On the Palestinian side, 89 non-combatants lost their lives to Israelis. Compare that to the 255 non-combatant Israelis who were killed by Palestinians. The difference? Of those Palestinians over the age of 45, in the grand total of Palestinians killed, they represent 2.8%!!! On the other hand, the Israelis in the same group, represent 25.25%, or one-quarter of all Israelis killed. Therefore, an Israeli non-combatant, over the age of 45, is three times more likely to be killed than a non-combatant Palestinian in the same age group!

Then, there is the little matter of killing one's own. More than 10% (12.77%) of Palestinians killed were killed by their own. Compare that to the paltry 2.18% of Israelis killed by their own. In the overall conflict, almost 10% (9.69%) of Palestinians killed are killed by their own, as opposed to less than 1% (0.53%) of Israelis killed by Israelis.

So what does this all really mean? Well, of Palestinians killed, one-third (34.57%) are non-combatants, almost half (48.51%) are combatants (not 'rock-throwers' or unknown), and a little more than one-tenth (12.77%) are killed by their own (for a total of 95.85%). However, of Israelis killed, three-quarters (75.64%) are non-combatants, less than one-third (21.29%) are killed in combat, and little more than 1% (2.18%) are killed by their own (for a total of 99.11%).

Overall, an Israeli, who is a non-combatant, is statistically more likely to die than an Israeli combatant, as opposed to a Palestinian combatant is more likely to die than a Palestinian non-combatant.

Incidentally, your stats, which include a year more than mine, show less Israelis killed. Yet, my stats, still lacking that year, show about 600 Palestinians less, probably about the number recorded in the last year. It seems my source shows both sets of deaths.

335 more innocent Palestinians have lost their lives than innocent Israelis. However, the graph you present, makes Israel seem much more evil, odious, and insidious. More than 1863 Israelis and Palestinians, innocents, have lost their lives, isn't that enough?!

[gonzo8]

75. How? Quite obviously

by making the cost of the occupation prohibitively high in terms of Israeli lives lost. Terrorism has always been the last weapon of the desperate and outgunned. Given that the U.S. gives Israel a massive amount of military hardware, and the Palestinians have no planes, tanks, or missles, what exactly do you expect them to attack their enemy with, harsh language?

And before people get too self righteous about terrorising civilians, I wouldn't be the first one on this website to point out Irgun and the Stern Gang, and their murderous terrorist activities in the names of Israeli independence. Incidentally, LEHI, the formal name for the Stern Gang, under Menchem Begin, was called "the most violent and unrestrained terrorist organization in the modern era," by J. Bowyer Bell, a specialist on revolutionary movements, at least up until 1979.

[Coastie for Truth]

7. Hamas regards Israel within the 1948 green line as "Occupied Territory"

Hamas even regard the Israeli Bantustans established by the Partition as "Occupied".

Hamas even regards a vestigial remnant of Sephardic/Mizrachi Jews in Muslim lands as "occupied." Link--

[mike_c]

24. that's an issue that is rather moot for Hamas at this point except...

...in a philosophical sense. Hamas now has to govern, and if Israel would withdraw to within its borders I suspect that there could be a long period of fortified peace, much like the situation on the Korean peninsula. The worst zealots on both sides would continue to try to violate that peace, and it would be up to the governments of Israel and a free Palestine to keep them under some control, but the current situation is completely untenable-- maybe Kashmir is a better analogy than Korea.

[Colorado Blue]

53. Hah.

The further Israel withdraws, the closer the terrorists - I mean the P.A. government - gets to the coast and to the major population centers. It's that simple.

I supported the withdrawal from Gaza, along with most Israelis and many American Jews, because I thought it would create an opportunity for peace and for Palestinian self-determination. My husband thought I was nuts. I figured, what does he know. After all, the Palestinians just want peace too, and if we can show good intentions, they will respond in kind.

I have news: Bibi is looking pretty smart right now. He said the unilateral withdrawal would result in the encouragement of the terrorists and he was right.

The idea that there won't be a another full-scale attack on Israel is a silly dream. So why weaken the position geographically? Appeasement hasn't worked, attempts to communicate haven't worked, the population has, if anything, radicalized.

We've been trying to clarify this for years: that the true goal, not just of PLO but of other armed militias like Hizbollah, with whom they might will be linked, is to destroy the entire state of Israel. This has been confirmed as the ideal of a majority of the people in the P.A. and not just that of extremists.

For a long time I think people have been hoping, well, the terrorists are just an extremist minority, and those of us who really want to believe in peace and reconciliation have been hoping against hope that Israeli withdrawals from territory would result in peace.

Heck with THAT idea. It just isn't true.

That being the case, secure and defensible borders - none of the six-mile wide stuff along the Aushwitz Line - and a rocket-free security zone are mandatory; and further unilateral withdrawals are really going to be asking for trouble.

It's time to wake up.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Many people see the Occupied Territories as *Disputed Territory*

No difference.

[mike_c]

87. the partition is hardly worth discussing...

...since half of the present state of Israel is land assigned to Palestine under the partition, then seized by Israel in 1948. Israel has never honored the partition, just like it has never honored the U.N. mandated right of return for Palestinian refugees.

[sabbat hunter]

126. how about

the parts seized by jordan and egypt in 1948? why wasnt a palestine declared at the same time as a Israel?

the arab countries didnt honor the 1948 partition, but attacked israel instead.

[IndianaGreen]

21. Hamas doesn't recognize the existence of Israel

They consider Israel to be a foreign occupier of Palestinian land. Hamas doesn't recognize the 1948 borders to be legitimate.

Hamas also wants to impose their extremist religious views on all Palestinians, by force if need be.

[mike_c]

22. the occupation is another matter entirely....

If Hamas is to govern in occupied Palestine, and if it is to achieve its social and political goals for the long term transformation of Palestinian institutions, it will have to come to some accomodation with Israel, even if only one of philosophical convenience. However, that cannot happen as long as Israel maintains the occupation beyond the 1948 borders. Israel has a real opportunity to capitalize on Hamas' need to focus as much on internal goverance as on its struggle against Israel. If the final outcome is that both states exist in a tension similar to North and South Korea, facing one another across a fortified border, then that would still be an improvement over the current occupation. Hamas has every responsibility to represent Palestinians in that struggle to free themselves from IDF control. There is no point in even talking about Israel's right to exist until every Israeli is behind the 1948 boundaries. The current question is not Israel's right to exist-- it's Israel's right to export oppression and apartheid.

on edit-- with regard to your comments, it is equally true that Israeli Zionists do not currently recognize Palestine's right to exist-- at least not in any practical sense-- and they're the ones with the boot heel on someone's neck.

[IndianaGreen]

23. Israel's Kadima government supports a Palestinian state

what it opposes is sitting down across the table with someone whose stated claims are the destruction of Israel. If Kadima wins the March elections, PM Olmert will carry out a unilateral peace settlement, pulling the settlers out of most of the West Bank and retreating behind the Sharon Wall.

Palestinians will have to sort their own mess and will have to choose between governing their new state, or fragmentate into a civil war.

[mike_c]

25. I think that would be the best possible outcome....

It would give Hamas and the PA an opportunity to end the intifada and focus on establishing a viable nation. They will NEVER be anything other than mortal enemies with Israel unless the Israelis comply with the U.N. resolutions mandating the Palestinian right of return, in which case there would once again be only one state after a generation or two, and an end to apartheid. But failing that, an Israeli withdrawal to within its own boundaries would give the PA an opportunity to stop fighting for a while and start rebuilding.

[Coastie for Truth]

26. Please explain your comment

with regard to your comments, it is equally true that Israeli Zionists do not currently recognize Palestine's right to exist-- at least not in any practical sense-- and they're the ones with the boot heel on someone's neck.

After clicking on these web sites:

So, please explain yourself after after reading these links. You are denying the entire left wing heritage of Israel and the Jewish people.

[mike_c]

29. my explanation:

Over a half century after the Israeli declaration of statehood, there is still no separate Palestine. Israel has done nothing but block the creation of a viable-- and sovereign-- Palestinian state. For nearly 40 years Israel has directly controlled the Palestinian population via military occupation. If Israel is so interested in fostering the development of a Palestinian equal, why is it taking them so long to start? And lets not even discuss the "settlement" issue. I mean, would you concede the right to such "settlement" in the U.S. by foreign nationals? And why does Israel refer to the Palestinian land outside it's 1948 borders as the occupied "Territory" rather than as Palestine? Then there's the forced annexation of East Jerusalem, and the continuing land seizures entailed by the construction of the ghetto wall.

So if you really want to argue that Israeli Zionists are committed to the two state solution, you must acknowledge that they've done little to achieve it beyond forcibly kicking Palestinians off Palestinian land, and much to disinherit the Palestinian people it displaced during the Nakba.

[Behind the Aegis]

33. there is still no separate Palestine

Interesting, none was created before the occupation either, when the disputed territories where in the hands of Jordan and Egypt.

[mike_c]

34. misdirection....

That hardly addresses the issue under discussion, does it? And why were Palestinians crowded into those "territories" to begin with? More Zionist benevolence, no doubt?

You are clearly a Zionist, BTA. Will you prove Coastie's point and utter the word "Palestine?" Or will you stick with the Israeli euphemism "disputed territories?"

[Colorado Blue]

41. Actually, I believe they were officially annexed to Jordan.

Hmmmmm.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. Actually, that doesn't answer Mike's question...

Hmmmmm indeed...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

48. No, just added information.

[mike_c]

46. but unrecognized except by the U.K., and...

...the West Bank has not been administered by Jordan since 1967, of course. Still, you make a valid point-- as far as I'm aware the so called "peace process" doesn't take the Jordanian annexation into account, probably because none of the parties ever recognized the action.

[Behind the Aegis]

47. There is no Palestine...yet.

There is Gaza and The West Bank, correctly identified as "Occupied Territories." Why are they crowded in those areas, we'll have to travel even further back in time, before they were occupied by Israel, and were occupied by Jordan and Egypt, before that, the UK.

Yes, clearly, I am a Zionist. I believe in Israel's right to be and live safely in her borders. I see the WB and Gaza as becoming the nation to be known as Palestine.

[mike_c]

49. thank you....

eom

[Behind the Aegis]

51. you're welcome?

[Violet_Crumble]

38. Forcing their religious views on all Palestinians...

And force is what it'd have to be as many Palestinians are opposed to Hamas' religious extremism. How would this translate into votes next election, though?

Violet...

[channa18]

6. The facts are.....

1. Hamas is sworn to destroy israel....and now has repeated that pledge.

2. The palestinian people have spoken loud and clear and have voted overwhelmingly to go with hamas and support its agenda .

3.The US and EU have threatened to pull support to the palestinians if they continue advocte the destruction of israel.

4. The past 2 days hamas has stated it will NOT disarm nor will it even begrudingly acknowledge israels right to exist.

5. AND now they wish to organize an army for the purpose of completing their desire to destroy israel.

6.Fatah has organized riots against hamas and its landslide victory and the palestinians are on the brink of civil war.



Did i miss anything ??

[pelsar]

10. yes you forgot...

they dont like JEWs...its not an israeli thing.....

Hamas's charter: The martyrs' oath

Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1136361020700&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[channa18]

11. That makes me sad to hear.

very sad.

[mike_c]

13. and you are willfully ignorant of history, it would seem....

There is no ignorance worse than voluntary ignorance.

[channa18]

15. I read your link and your link is sad to read.....

"Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious...The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised...

-

The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: 'The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him...'
Resisting and quelling the enemy become the individual duty of every Muslim, male or female. A woman can go out to fight the enemy without her husband's permission, and so does the slave: without his master's permission...

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with...

-

The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion... It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions...

Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Muslim people. 'May the cowards never sleep.'"

[bemildred]

12. #5 is wrong.

What they said is that they want to form an army to "defend Palestinians", IIRC.

The general drift I get these days is that Hamas is willing to treat the destruction
of Israel as a long term effort, they are willing to forgo the armed struggle if they
have security, and to rely on competition in the economic and demograpic arenas to regain
eventual political control over what is now Israel. At least that's the rhetoric.

In any case the idea of Hamas forming an armed force that would be any sort of organized
aggressive threat to the IDF is ludicrous.

[janx]

14. CNN just showed a prominent Hamas leader speaking

in Syria.

The Hamas rhetoric has indeed changed. Dare we hope?

[pelsar]

16. depends who is talking...

hamas in syria, hamas in ramalla, hamas in gaza.....they're sorting out there messages..

latest is a long term cease fire with israel, until they get their state, build up forces and then go for haifa and tel aviv...

[bemildred]

19. The rhetoric has not changed that I'm aware of.

It's been like this for some time now.

I expect that the primary effect of the election
in the short run will be that Hamas - it's activities,
it's positions, it's goals - will get a lot more
attention. They have won a bully pulpit of sorts.
What happens other than that will depend on the
choices of political players with far more real
power than Hamas.

[pelsar]

17. they dont speak in tongues...

unlike arafat they're very clear of their long term goal: destroy israel (and jews)....if you find some other real information pass it on....but they say what they mean.

it may change, it may not, in the meantime, they're quite busy with a mini civil war.

[bemildred]

20. No, they seem quite articulate. nt

[Colorado Blue]

57. Oh great. The destruction of Israel is a long term effort?

This is supposed to make us feel better I suppose.

It doesn't. It makes me mad. And extremely depressed.

[bemildred]

68. We report, you decide.

It doesn't mean that much. It just means they don't intend to attempt reconquest, which is a ridiculous idea anyway. They aren't up to the job. It does suggest that one could work out a modus vivendi and leave it for later generations to sort out the issues that remain unresolved as time passes. I mean it would be nice if an end to the constant violence could be brought about, and a good thing for everybody.

[Tom Joad]

18. Israeli leaders says dispossession and ethnic cleansing will continue

They say this every day, every week. In Deed, not just words Before Oslo, During Oslo, After Oslo. With a bush, or clinton, or bush jr. as US president, the dispossession continues. It is relentless. It is unforgiving. It is brutal.

As US citizens it is our responsibility to stop the funding of this madness, this suicidal dream (nightmare!) of dispossesing another people from their land and homes.

See for example thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x113126
House demolitions in Jerusalem continue unabated.
http://stopthewall.org/latestnews/1082.shtml
Occupation bulldozers arrived in Ein Lozeh in Silwan (Jerusalem) on the morning of January the 16th and attacked the house of Ahmed al Raziq. Al-Raziq’s modest property consisted of a single 75 square meter room. He had built a small structure above the entrance to the property in order to prevent the house from decaying. Occupation Forces used this as a pretext for demolishing his house, stating they had not given permission for the structure to be built on Ahmed’s property.

[barb162]

27. Israel ceded Gaza in September, 2005, remember?

[mike_c]

36. gaza remains under Israeli military control...

...and is not recognized as being part of any country. Israeli hardliners consider Gaza to be "occupied Israeli territory." Israel has hardly "ceded" Gaza.

[pelsar]

50. gaza is under palestinian control...

israelis are not in gaza, dont control the egyptian/palestenian border, dont control gaza. Whether or not the saudi arabia has decided or not decide to recognize gaza is hardly an israels responsability

......and which "israeli hardliners are you refering to?.......i've never heard of them, care to put up link?)

[mike_c]

60. link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip

The withdrawal was highly contested by the radical nationalist right in Israel, particularly the religious nationalist tendency, and some supporters of these tendencies now consider the Gaza Strip to be an occupied part of Israel. Following withdrawal, Israel retains offshore maritime control and control of airspace over the Strip.

[Colorado Blue]

64. SO WHAT? There are radicals in every community. The

majority agreed to the withdrawal, although some of us are now wondering if it wasn't a grave mistake.

I think ceding control of Gaza airspace and maritime approaches to Israel, considering the rocket attacks that have come close to the Ashkalon power plant and terrorize Israeli citizens, would be suicidal - especially right now.

Do you think the Israelis should commit suicide?

[mike_c]

71. I think people should stop trying to suggest that Palestinians in Gaza...

...control their own destiny. My comments were in response to the assertion that Israel had "ceded Gaza" in any but the most limited manner. Furthermore, pelsar asked for a link, and I gave it to him-- and a link from a neutral source at that. I'm not responsible for its content.

[barb162]

90. Gaza is not occupied by anyone other than Palestinians. Right?

There are no Israelis living there. Palestinians have self-government in Gaza.

Israeli citizens and military presence in Gaza have been removed.

[mike_c]

91. I don't know whether you're simply naive...

...or whether you're deliberately trying to be obtuse. Thirty-eight years of military occupation in Gaza ended just a little over four months ago, so yes, the Israelis have withdrawn. They still control sea approaches to the Gaza coast, the land border on all but the Eqyptian crossing at Rafah, and the air space over Gaza. The Strip is a no mans land, not a part of any country, and therefore utterly lacking sovereignity. Gaza is in limbo. Israel has made it clear that it considers it within its rights to reenter at any time.

[barb162]

96. And I don't know whether you're naive, obtuse or whatever

Rafah IS open to Egypt and Israel is not controlling every border since Rafah opened. Israel entering Gaza? What about rockets entering Israel again? Israel has a right to defend itself. Was the strip a no man's land when Israelis were there? Why didn't the Palestinians take up the Israeli offer to leave the housing intact? Why were some of the Israeli greenhouses destroyed? If it is a no man's land, that is not Israel's fault. Also Gazans have made it clear that they consider it is within their rights to shoot rockets into Israel at any time and send suicide bombers into Israel at any time. Those rockets violate Israel's air and land space.

Israel has recognized and legitimate security concerns. Given the history of numerous and deadly Palestinian violations of Israel's sovereignty, including attempts by the PA to illegally import weapons by sea, suicide bombing, rockets, etc., Israel has exercised extreme restraint in regard to the violators.

[mike_c]

98. does your knowledge of the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...

...extend further back than the founding of CNN?

[barb162]

100. Why? Does yours?

[Violet_Crumble]

104. Well, he doesn't seem to be spewing nonsensical sound-bytes...

That in itself tells me his knowledge goes back a bit further...

Violet...

[barb162]

129. that's your opinion, not mine

[Violet_Crumble]

131. I don't recall saying it was anyone's opinion but my own...

n/t

[Coastie for Truth]

135. I went to a nominally Presbyterian engineering school

where we had a traditional old (pre-1968) Liberal Arts requirement including history, Byzantium- Mameluks- Ottomans, plus "Old Testament" and "New Testament" and Koran.

Plus I took European and Near Eastern history electives (that's where the cute girls were ;) ).

Plus, since the kids are grown, my wife and I take 3-9 credits a year in .

[sabbat hunter]

127. border control

israel has withdrawn forces from gaza yes?
israel has every right to control the land borders that are with gaza. those are gaza-israeli borders. a nation has a right to control its own borders. If israel wants to lock them down and not let anyone thru them into israel that is their right as a sovereign nation.

[barb162]

89. Israel ceded Gaza to the Palestinians and the Palestinians

run Gaza. Gazans, not Israelis have the police, civil authority, have been making plans for industry, housing, etc. The Israelis stay out except of course when some rockets come flying over into Israel. Whenever it is that the Palestinians declare a state, Gaza will be part of their state.

[barb162]

28. link please for "ethnic cleansing "and "dispossession"

"They say this every day, every week."

Where/ when did Israel ever say they were doing ethnic cleansing every day , every week.

[Tom Joad]

30. In deed, not in words. Deeds count more.

Official govt words include all sorts of nice things, sometimes. Deeds point to something else entirely.

'Tis the nature of governments. Especially colonial ones. e.g. Bush says he is bringing "democracy" to Iraq. Folks on DU, however, think otherwise. We are watching his deeds, not just entranced by his rhetoric. We care enough about US society not to let it continue along the path of international outlaw and bully, so we dissent.

We are watching the continual land grab by Israel in the West Bank. Many of us dissent from US support for such crimes.

[barb162]

31. Gaza return by Israel , Sept., 05, debunks what you wrote

[mike_c]

40. see # 36, above....

Israel has not "returned" Gaza to anyone. It has withdrawn it's settlements and its military bases, but it controls Gaza from naval platforms offshore and retains complete control of Gaza airspace. It controls entry and exit (except via Egypt, which it monitors). Gaza is an Israeli concentration camp from which the guards have been withdrawn and the perimeter sealed.

[Colorado Blue]

45. Yeah, and considering the fact that the rocket fire and arms

smuggling and civil violence and suicide attacks and shootings have continued unabated, and Gaza police actually attacked the Egyptian border crossing and OTHER Gaza citizens actually punched holes in the wall at the border with Egypt, Gaza is unlikely to become the new Singapore anytime soon.

This is a shame because people have in fact poured billions of dollars into Palestinian coffers and there is the possibility for beneficial change, real progress, and self-determination in Gaza.

Maybe it's time to stop blaming other people for the problems.

[Englander]

102. So, you agree with mike_c?

It appears that you agree, as you didn't give any indication that you disagree,
with the reality that the Isreali authorities have effective control over Gaza;

'..Israel withdrew its military forces and settlers from the Gaza Strip in August and September. Nonetheless, Israel continues to hold responsibility for ensuring the well-being of Gaza's population for as long as, and to the extent that, it retains effective control over the area. Israel still exercises full control over Gaza's airspace, sea space and land borders with Israel as well as its electricity, water, sewage and telecommunications networks and population registry. Under the disengagement plan, Israel reserves the right to reenter Gaza militarily at any time.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/22/isrlpa12345.htm

[eyl]

111. let's parse this

Israel withdrew its military forces and settlers from the Gaza Strip in August and September. Nonetheless, Israel continues to hold responsibility for ensuring the well-being of Gaza's population for as long as, and to the extent that, it retains effective control over the area. Israel still exercises full control over Gaza's airspace, sea space

Israel will always "control Gaza's airspace and sea space" by virtue of the simple fact it's miltarily stronger.

and land borders with Israel

False, since Israel doesn't control Rafah, either in theory or effect (Israel monitors the crossing, but with a time delay). As such, Israel's control of the other crossings is simply a matter of control over its own borders, and in any event doesn't seal the Palestinians in.

as well as its electricity, water, sewage and telecommunications networks and population registry.

How is this supposed to change? Given that you've informed me that Israel's cutting off Gaza's electricity (or other infrastructure) would be a war crime? Is HRW saying that as long as the Palestinians don't have their own power supply, etc. (and BTW, AFAIK the population registry isn't under Israeli control) they'll still be considered occupied? What if they choose not to build them? For that matter, by this standard, aren't portions of Canada occupied by the US?

Under the disengagement plan, Israel reserves the right to reenter Gaza militarily at any time.

I'm pretty sure the UK considers itself to have the right to enter France militarily if the latter threatens it.

In short, by the standards HRW is advancing here, Israel will always be in occupation of Gaza.

[pelsar]

55. just the wrong facts....

the Egyptian/palestenian border is completly in their hands...israels gets a video feed 8 minutes late and has no power over anything...their southern border is their border and their freedom.

...you seem to feel that the palestenains and egyptians have closed off their border to the palestenians citizens...making an israeli/palestenian/egyptian concentration camp to keep in palestenains.

the air space is not controlled by israel as is evidence by the daily kassams and now mortors that fly over the border attempting to kill israeli citizens and terrorizing in collective punishment in an attempt to cause ethnic cleansing of the border areas.

[Violet_Crumble]

59. You didn't disprove any of Mike's facts...

And I'd like to see some proof to support yr claim that there's DAILY qassam attacks...

Violet...

[pelsar]

66. need i really say more?....

Gaza is an Israeli concentration camp from which the guards have been withdrawn and the perimeter sealed

its such a pathetic comment.......(if the perimeter is sealed, does that mean the palestenians/egyptians/israelis are all working together to keep in the palestenians?)


and the kassams and mortors are such a 'mundame thing" that they get a single line in the evening news and thats it (they've been landing either just outside the border or in the desert latley)...the border populations however had a lot to say on the terrorism, attempts at ethnic cleansing them

[Violet_Crumble]

67. Yeah, actually you do need to...

Dismissing something which is overblown rhetoric (and calling Gaza a concentration camp is overblown rhetoric) and then coming back with some overblown rhetoric (DAILY qassam attacks!!! DAILY qassam attacks!!!!) to replace it just doesn't quite do it for me...

I did ask you for some proof of these DAILY qassam attacks. No offense intended, but given the saturation coverage they get when they do happen, I'm highly sceptical of any claims they don't get reported when they happen...

Violet...

[pelsar]

72. fair enough.....

about the kassams..like i said, they're only a line in the evening news....written on the weekends as well, the locals complaining about lack of protection......but given that its not in haaretz (arutz 7 i know wont do), i shall wait until they are "properly listed"

[barb162]

101. 2,990 attacks during 2005 'truce'

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1136102653775&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Jan. 2, 2006 1:57 | Updated Jan. 2, 2006 9:46
2,990 attacks during 2005 'truce'
By MARGOT DUDKEVITCH

As Islamic Jihad, the Popular Resistance Committees and Fatah's Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades announced an end to their self-declared truce of January 2005, under which they pledged to refrain from attacking Israeli targets, an annual summary of terror activities for 2005 released by the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) on Sunday revealed that a total of 2,990 attacks were launched against Israeli targets. The attacks occurred after the truce was announced the report stated.

According to the report, motivation among all the terror groups to attack Israel remains high with the number of monthly terror alerts averaging 57.

There was a significant decrease in the number of Israeli fatalities stemming from terror attacks in 2005 with 45 Israelis killed, a 60 percent reduction from the 117 Israelis killed in such attacks in 2004. Twenty-three of the fatalities in 2005 were killed in seven suicide bomb attacks. There was also a 30% decrease in the number of Israeli casualties in attacks during 2005 with 406 Israelis wounded compared with 589 the previous year.

Yet, in 2005 there was a significant increase in Kassam rocket attacks on Israel with 377 recorded, compared with 309 in the previous year. At the same time there was a decrease in mortar shellings with 848 launched in 2005 compared with 1,231 in 2004. There was also a drop in bombing attacks with 199 recorded in 2005 compared with 592 in 2004. A total of 1,133 shooting attacks were carried out by terror groups in 2005 compared with 1,621 in 2004.

snip

Such a truce, huh?
I would consider this number of attacks: Ethnic Cleansing

[Violet_Crumble]

103. The article didn't say there were daily qassam attacks...

And the 2,990 was not about qassams at all...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

107. pointless. n/t

[barb162]

125. SO? 3000 attacks on Israel a year is ethnic cleansing in my book

[Violet_Crumble]

132. Pelsar and I were discussing his claim of daily qassam attacks...

Hence my question to him: 'And I'd like to see some proof to support yr claim that there's DAILY qassam attacks...'

You popped up with a claim of around 3000 as though it was actually an answer to the question I had asked. It's not, so I'm not sure why yr arguing about something that neither pelsar or I were discussing with each other...

As for overblown rhetoric, yr opinion that any attack on Israelis is ethnic cleansing must be weighed against the fact that you don't believe anything done to the Palestinians is ethnic cleansing, and also a rather fast and loose use of the term 'ethnic cleansing'. I generally believe that terms like 'genocide' and 'ethnic cleansing' are best avoided by anyone who doesn't have a good understanding of the terms and only thinks of them as verbal weapons. But that's my opinion, of course :)

Violet...

[mike_c]

70. it was a metaphor, for gawd's sake....

Gaza is indeed isolated by the Israeli Gaza Strip barrier, through which Israel controls all movement of people and materials by way of checkpoints at the Erez crossing, Sufa crossing, Kissufim crossing, and the Karni crossing. Israel routinely shuts down all traffic at crossings for weeks at a time, effectively sealing the Strip. Prior to the opening of the Egyptian crossing at Rafah in 2005, that control was for all intents and purposes hermetic, and it still causes great personal and economic hardship for the Palestinians.

[pelsar]

73. not its not a metaphore....and its not true

....effectively sealing the Strip...Prior to the opening of the Egyptian crossing at Rafah in 2005.

its not 2005, its now 2006 israel cannot "effectivly seal the strip" writing that is simply not true....its that simple, why do you write it?

_________________________________

israel can open and close its borders at will, that is the right of every state, whats the problem? the gazans have access to the world and its markets by egypt, its that simply in the year 2006

(perhaps if the palestenians, or who ever it is, would stop trying to blow up or tunnel under karmi and Erez etc, israel might be a bit more liberal with its opening hours...)

[Violet_Crumble]

42. Yes! We Must Forget All About The West Bank!!!!

Right? ;)

[pelsar]

52. no but...

having a "gaza style society" next to the israeli knesset and airport, would not be healthy for the palesteninians.....

[Violet_Crumble]

58. And that's why people conveniently forget to mention the West Bank?

Yr comment doesn't make much senses considering I was pointing out that trying to pretend that the West Bank doesn't exist when speaking about crap stuff being done to the Palestinian people is a kinda silly ploy...

Violet...

[pelsar]

108. gaza..

actually the conversation, once again, was about the "gaza concentration camp" and how the egyptian/palestenain border doesnt seem to exist when one is looking for to blame israel for gazas present chaos.....

except that it does....

[Violet_Crumble]

147. Post 146 applies to you too...

n/t

[eyl]

109. The disucssion here

is about Gaza being sealed

[Violet_Crumble]

146. No it wasn't...

The discussion doesn't just start at a post that suits you, eyl. See post 30, where Tom says:

"We are watching the continual land grab by Israel in the West Bank."

The reply to that post brought up Gaza in an attempt to make out that Israel does nothing but wonderful deeds...

Violet...

[eyl]

151. looking over it

I think I accidently replied to the wrong post <blush>....

[barb162]

32. So, are Suicide Bombers guilty of ethnic cleansing?

[Colorado Blue]

44. Give us a break already.

Since when are enforcing housing code violations "ethnic cleansing"?

Enough with this OTT rhetoric.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. Enough with the disgusting euphemisms!

Destroying the homes of innocent people is 'enforcing housing code violations' or in another thread 'urban relocation'?? CB, attempts to use bland euphemisms to hide the nastiness of something that happens has been done in the past and it never hides the stench of what truly happens. It's interesting to compare this reaction to the destruction of Palestinian homes to the reaction to the removal of extremist settlers (all the others had gone and didn't need to be physically removed) from their homes in September last year, where an incredible amount of sympathy was given to the extremist settlers and their removal was described in some circles as ethnic cleansing...

Here's a question to anyone who wants to attempt to answer it. How can anyone support the destruction of Palestinian homes and use euphemisms for their destruction, yet describe the removal of extremist settlers from Gaza last year as ethnic cleansing etc? What's the difference?

Violet...

[eyl]

110. Given that the people describing

the rmoval of settlemetns as "ethnic cleansing" are the hardline settlers, ask them that. Or are you saying someone on this board made that claim?

[mike_c]

56. this is ethnic cleansing....

Section 3b of Haganah's Plan Dalet describes how to deal with occupied "enemy population centers", which is how Haganah referred to Palestinian villages:

Destruction of villages (setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris), especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously. ... Mounting search and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the armed force must be destroyed and the population expelled outside the borders of the state.

This is ethnic cleansing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_villages_depopulated_during_the_1948_Arab-Israeli_war

This too is ethnic cleansing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier

[Colorado Blue]

61. Isn't this ethnic cleansing?

http://www.jimena.org/

Why I Support JIMENA - A Perspective From the Left
By: John Erlich

If you are on the Left and sympathize with the Palestinians, there are many
good reasons to support JIMENA's and other efforts to address the issue of
Jews from Arab Lands:

1. If Israel is guilty of "ethnic cleansing" for the expulsion or
flight of
590,000 Palestinians during the War for Independence, so much more so are
the Arab States guilty of ethnic cleansing of the Jews from Arab lands.


Despite the flight of 590,000 Palestinians and discrimination against the
those who remained, the number of Palestinian Arabs within Israel's 1967
borders has actually increased since 1949 to the point that there are more
Arabs there now (900,000) than in 1947 (650,000). Jews in the Arab world
numbered about 856,000 in 1948 and 7,800 in 2001, with the only remaining
significant communities being in Casablanca, Morocco (6,000) and the
Tunisian island of Djerba (1,500). Which is the more egregious example of
ethnic cleansing?


3. Unlike the Palestinians, who were expelled from or fled a war zone,
under
war conditions, the Jews of Arab lands were expelled from or fled areas
which were not in a war zone, and, for the most part, after the first
Arab-Israeli war was over.

4. The issue of the Jews of Arab lands constitutes a significant "blind

spot" for the Left. The second strongest denunciation on the Left that I
can remember ever reading regarding the expulsion of the Jews called it,
".playing in to the Zionists' hands." The first strongest denunciation
called it, "reactionary." The Left typically denounces Israel's policies
toward the Palestinians in the strongest terms, using phrases such as,
"crimes against humanity." Where is the moral courage of the Left? One
Leftist American scholar wrote a book examining in excruciatingly minute
detail the Jewish community of Egypt and its dispersion in the late 20th
Century. However, the most significant event in the post-1949 history of
that community is mentioned only in one short, passing sentence, with no
discussion or elaboration offered: In 1967, virtually the entire male Jewish
population of Egypt (500 men and boys), from teenagers to elderly
great-grandfathers, was arrested, imprisoned, and tortured for 3 years.

To put it simply, I support JIMENA because the expulsion/flight of the Jews
of Arab lands was a larger and more decisive movement than the Palestinian
case; the Jews were a small minority that hardly posed a credible threat to
the Arab world; they were not expelled during wartime nor from war zones;
and, finally, the issue is the subject of too much denial and obfuscation on
the Left.

Hazzaq u'barukh, JIMENA!


PS: your references to the War of 1948 and the Palmach occurred during an absolutely desperate time in history - which should try to link up with the WWII era in general, and with the existential nature of Israel's fight for survival.

[mike_c]

69. good lord, CB-- no one disputes that Jews have been targets...

...of ethnic assault. Is that your justification for Israel's behavior toward the Palestinians? And you conveniently forget that in the context of the Zionist conquest of Palestine-- during which the original language of the conflict was framed-- the matter DID have to do with one segment of the population attempting an illegal uprising and seizure of control who self identified as Zionist Jews and was distinguished among the general population on the basis of being Jewish. Trying to extrapolate that language of conflict to the broader history of Jewry is a tenuous argument at best.

But let's be clear. Jews have indeed been the targets of concerted ethnic cleansing campaigns, throughout the western world and since the time of Rome, or at least christian Byzantium. Maybe earlier-- I'm no historian. Only a fool would dispute that, but that is not the matter at hand. I'm not talking about JEWS pursuing apartheid and ethnic cleansing. I'm talking about ISRAEL doing it as state policy. One reason that I'm comfortable using the term "apartheid" in this context is that I see no functional distinction between Israelis as Jews and South Africans as Afrikaners. Their history prior to the events in question is not the point, nor does it justify their current behavior. Your argument is essentially "We have always been at war with Eastasia."

[Colorado Blue]

62. Violet. You know I can't see what you're writing.

Please do me the courtesy of not responding directly to my posts.

[Violet_Crumble]

65. I'm quite aware of that...

And as my replies are intended for a wider audience than you, I'll keep on replying. There's no rule at DU that says just because someone puts another person on ignore that person has to stop replying to them....

Oh, bum! You can't read this reply! Never mind!

Violet...

[Englander]

105. Because it is, that's why.

It's not ott rhetoric, ott rhetoric is describing the removal of the Gaza
settlers as ethnic cleansing, that's an eg of ott rhetotic.
An eg of using a repugnant euphemism is to describe ethnic cleansing as
housing code violations, that's an eg of using a euphemism, in a disgusting
manner.

[Coastie for Truth]

79. A CHALLENGE

TO THE PRO-PALESTINIAN POSTERS: - IF, HEAVEN FORBID, THERE WERE TO BE A HOLOCAUST IN THE WEST - OR ANY OF THE ENGLISH SPEAKING LANDS - HOW MANY OF YOU WOULD VOLUNTARILY PUT YOURSELF IN HARMS WAY - LIKE OR OR THE -- AND HOW MANY OF YOU WOULD TURN YOUR NEIGHBORS AWAY LIKE .

THAT'S WHY THERE IS AN ISRAEL

THAT'S WHY THERE IS A "LAW OF RETURN"

THAT'S WHAT SOME OF US PERCEIVE AMBIGUOUS STATEMENTS AS "RACISM."

THERE'S AN "ALERT" BUTTON ON THE LOWER LEFT HAND CORNER OF THE SCREEN

[Violet_Crumble]

83. What an offensive question...

Why is that question only aimed at 'pro-Palestinian' posters? Why don't you aim that same question at everyone? Why do you think anyone would say they wouldn't help other people in trouble?

As it's such an offensive question expressed in an accusatory way, you ain't gonna get an answer out of me, nor I hope anyone else...

Violet..

[mike_c]

84. I agree-- it's a terribly offensive question...

...because it assumes that anyone who desires justice for the Palestinians wishes harm for Jewish people in general, or for Israelis in particular. That is deeply offensive. Coastie, if you think my comments are racist, then I'm sorry, and it's unlikely that we will ever find common ground. I won't alert-- I think your question should remain for all to see. It is shameful, sir. It reveals a great deal.

As for your characterization of "Pro-Palestinian posters," the Palestinians are suffering a grave injustice at the hands of Israel. Turn your question around. Would you have me ignore THAT injustice? How can you?

[Coastie for Truth]

112. You don't know what I am doing for victims of America's NABKA

I have been working with survivors of Katrina - the ones Bush and Cheney and Rove and Chertoff abandoned -- the ones Gubernator Boobengrabber tried to keep out of California until after his special election. The ones everybody forgot.

Christmas Eve I had to help a family burned out of the Section 8 (Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program) apartment - a family I had helped resettle in September when they arrived here from New Orleans - first in very temporary housing -- and then in more permanent housing.

And Bush ain't doing crap - except trying to make Louisiana a Red State - without making any new states Blue. (That was the battle between Boobengrabber and Rev Cecil Williams about our own Nabka victims here in California).

You state

...because it assumes that anyone who desires justice for the Palestinians wishes harm for Jewish people in general, or for Israelis in particular.

If that's the way you chose to interpret it ..... My intent was - if you want justice do justice and put some sweat equity in. Criticizing Israel doesn't get one Palestinian kid schooling or health care or build a house for a Palestinian family or create employment in Gaza or the WB --- and my experience is that "divestment" costs a heck of a lot more Palestinian jobs then Israeli jobs.

I admit I should be doing more the Palestinians for a "Win-Win" solution. But if it is "Zero Sum" -- and I am going to be blamed for everything I do -- then I react by devoting my attention to the New Orleanians (I lived in NOLA, my wife taught in the "Lower Ninth Ward")

[Violet_Crumble]

121. If yr intent was not to offend people...

Then why is the 'CHALLENGE!!!!' you posted full of stuff about another Holocaust and asking if we'd just sit back and do bugger-all? Why isn't it asking about putting ones money where ones mouth is when it comes to schooling or health care? It's clear what the original intent was, and it wasn't an innocent 'sweat equality' question...

WTF has a list of yr good deeds got to do with the offensive question you asked??

Violet...

[Englander]

124. That's N-A-K-B-A.

Spelling is important, even if it's a non-English word.

[Matilda]

85. It is deeply offensive to all liberal-minded people

who try to understand both sides of the equation.

To deplore what the Israeli Government is currently doing - building
illegal settlements that encroach on more and more Palestinian
territory and building a wall which effectively seals off one town
in the West Bank from another - is not necessarily to support the
idealogy and aims of Hamas.

To understand the plight of the Jewish people who have been marginalised
and been subjected to their own terrors through the ages, does not
mean that it's necessary to give them a free hand to do the same to
another people, who had nothing at all to do with what happened to the
Jews in Europe in the last century or any other.

Why is it so hard to understand that some of us just don't like bullying
and inhumane treatment no matter where it comes from or against whom
it is perpetrated?

[pelsar]

88. because its a simplistic approach....

Why is it so hard to understand that some of us just don't like bullying
and inhumane treatment no matter where it comes from or against whom
it is perpetrated?

to blame the "strong' just because he is strong doesnt really work, its like saying to the kid who always gets beat up, NOT to take the atlas course and get strong to stop the bullying, stay weak and we'll be "for you"...and dont hit back, whatever you do.

the war with the palestenians is hardly so simplistic as weak vs strong. Had israel remained weak, it would not exist today. Had the palestenians accepted the original UN decision, or subsequently accepted that they lost their gamble and get on with their lives, things would have been different...they didnt and they continue to attack.....they're messages of living with israel at best are mixed and confusing. Just this last vote, for whatever the reason, chose a party whos platform is israelis total destruction.

the point is, what if israel had pulled back to 67, and hamas was elected...that "what if" is a real life possibility for israelis,

what if Iran decides to follow through with their plans to wipe israel off the map (yes its related, goes to the acceptable atmosphere in certain govt circles to destroy israel). The palestenains, they're attacks, do not exist in a vacuum of just the "wall and settlements", if that were so, there wouldnt have been the terrorist attacks pre67, presettlements, pre wall, there were.

Whats not recognized is the complexity, at one point there was no wall..and there lots of suicide bombers....now there is a wall, and there are very few. They're related, first came the sucide bomber, then came the wall, it wasnt the other way around.

I will not argue if the wall is horrible, it is, and in some places its a "land grab"....but is a reaction not the cause. Everything we do in life has a price, the suicide bomber produced by the palestenians society has such a price: because of them israel has created checkpoints, helicopter asssinations, and now a wall....and together they make the palestenains life miserable.....but there are fewer sucicde bombers that actually make it through. Thats the other side of the coin.

and the final note: for the claim that pulling back to 67 would produce "peace"......the palestenains voted strongly in favor of hamas, whos platform is not about settlements or the wall, or the checkpoints, its about israels total destruction. Whether or not they will modify they're platform or not remains to be seen, but it doesnt change their platform of today.

[mike_c]

93. most Americans don't know the history of Zionism and Israel's founding...

...and the history of events since 1948. If they did they would be ashamed of themselves for swallowing obfuscation like yours. If they knew what the Zionists did in the '30s and especially after WWII they would be ashamed of their failure to help the Palestinians. You depend on that ignorance. If most Americans knew that the issues they hear about today are the result of Israel's refusal to obey international law for over half a century, and their flaunting of U.N. resolutions for the restoration of Palestinian land and citizenship, they would be ashamed of their support for Israel. Like them, I once believed Israel was a great and brave nation that survived against the odds. Now Israel epitomizes state sponsored oppression and sectarian terrorism for me.

If Americans Knew....

[Coastie for Truth]

113. If Americans Knew

is an extreme RW site - Hillary's "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" -Coors, Scaife, Paul Findley, Allison Weir, Joe Corsi, James Ennes, John P. O'Neil (Swiftie). If that is your source - you leave me no choice -- <>

I would certainly exp[ect from a PhD and a CSU tenured Prof.

[Violet_Crumble]

123. Uh, extreme RW sites cause post deletions...

Y'know, like the link to that extreme RW site you posted yesterday. So as that other one's not zapped, I'll assume it's not an extreme RW site....

What does <> mean? Can I have one too? The batteries on my last one wore out within 24 hours of you giving it to me :)


Violet...

[eyl]

139. From what little I've seen

they're an extreme LW site. Nonetheless, their commitment to accuracy....isn't the greatest, let's say.

[Englander]

141. Hugh!1!

Those leftists, eh? Condemn them!

btw, IfAmericansKnew isn't a lw site, whatever the phrase means. Also, any discussion
about the site is pretty pointless, as it isn't considered a legitimate source.

[eyl]

144. "as it isn't considered a legitimate source"

exactly my point

[Violet_Crumble]

145. I didn't say they were a credible site...

I'm pointing out that the comment about it being an extreme RW site was a ridiculous one. I know there's plenty of sites that aren't what I'd consider to be particularly credible that are allowed as long as they're not used to start new threads, but that doesn't make them extreme RW sites, like the factsandlogic site where just posting a link yesterday got the post deleted...

Violet...

[eyl]

152. True

unfortunately, there seems to be a tendency in places to label everything wrong "right-wing" without checking if it actually is "right-wing"

[Behind the Aegis]

142. Not accurate...

While USNewsWire does release news, its focus is on PR distribution, not independent news gathering.

This makes this an extension of the site www.ifamericansnew.org which in turn is not credible for use as a lead article as it appears to be a vanity front of a single person, Alison Weir with most of the material culled, or cribbed, from other sites.

Lithos
I/P Forum Moderator
Democratic Underground

source

So, it is not credible for a lead article, a vanity site is rarely good as "most of the material (is) culled, or cribbed, from other sites."

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

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

[Matilda]

94. Your reply is disingenuous.

The Wall is about a land grab - if it were not, it would be built on
the Green Line, and it would still keep out suicide bombers. It has
less to do with weak vs. strong than it does with legality and morality.
What Israel is currently doing is both illegal and immoral, and that
they have the military power to carry out their seizure of Palestinian
land is the crux of the matter.

It is not only the Palestinians who believe that all the land "from
the Jordan to the Sea" belongs to them - the Jews believe the same.
And if you think that the aim of the settlements and the Wall is not to
ultimately push the Palestinians right out of the West Bank, then you
are being simplistic and naive.

And if you want to go back to the beginning, remember it started when
the State of Israel was created and Palestinians were driven off their
land - by murder and terrorism. But it was done, it won't be undone,
and in the end the Palestinians must accept a two-state solution as
the best they can hope for. But to ignore the fundamental fact that
the Palestinians were drive out of their homes only two generations
ago,and to think they are not still angry, is to distort history.

[pelsar]

116. whats the green line?

since when has the "green line" signified anything more than the end of the 48war...just as the 67 lines are different. There is no "magic" to the green line. There were terrorist attackes pre 67 when israel was at the green line.

Furthermore, hamas also doesnt recognize any significance to the 'green line"...so outside of those who dont live in the region..who does?

must be time for an update: 2006

the "jews" who believe from jordan to the sea, arent in power, and when they were...they modified their vews. Hamas is in power and they believe in all of israel is theirs.....so much for the attempt at the "moral equivelance"...shot down by reality.

and finally: this whole thing wasnt really started in 48 ....it was really started when the romans murdered and drove the jews off the land....the narrative starts there.....unless of course one wants to negate the jewish culture, history and religion.....

[Matilda]

117. The Green Line is a boundary that is accepted by the U.N.

I was in Israel in '66 and '67 - yes, there were some attacks, mostly in border areas, but
generally much more freedom of movement for everyone than there is today. We were aware not to
take risks, but were never unduly worried. I left Israel a few months before the six-day war,
when everything changed.

This quote is from Moshe Dayan: "Before their very eyes, we are possessing the land, the villages
where they, and their ancestors, have lived. We are the generation of colonizers, and without the
steel helmet and the gun barrel we cannot plant a tree and build a home."

And if you think these people are no longer in power, just look and see how the Palestinians are
being pushed ever further eastward, and their towns and villages are cut off one from the other
so that a contiguous state is not possible. And in case they have any ideas of resettling, their
homes are torn down, their olive trees uprooted, their water stolen and sold back to them at a
huge profit to the Israelis, their livelihoods destroyed. That is reality, on the ground, right
now.

[pelsar]

118. i'm familiar with whats going on....

and i have no problem with giving the west bank to the palestenians...i'm just saying that there is no "magic" within that green line.....way before israel pulls back and lets its govt be with range of kassams and mortors a stable agreement has to be in place, the "green line" wont make it stable.

[Matilda]

120. "Giving" the West Bank to the Palestinians?

Shouldn't that be "giving back"?

Moving back to the Green Line would at least be moving the border to the
divide that's accepted by the U.N. is what I'm saying, since under
international law, it's illegal to keep territories seized during a
war.

And of course, a stable agreement means that Israeli settlers would
have to leave the West Bank - can't have stability when you have an
occupying army in your land. I think anybody can understand that.

[pelsar]

128. giving it back....

cause it was taken during a defensive war.....in which case it is very "legal" to keep it, moving back to the green line may mean peace or it may mean kassams on jerusalem....

what if its the latter?....then what?

[Matilda]

136. Double post - self-deleting.

Apologies.

[Matilda]

137. Two false assumptions here ...

First, this quote from Menachim Begin: "In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army
concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us.
We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." (Noam Chomsky, The Fateful Triangle)

From Yitzak Rabin: "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai
would not have been sufficient to start a war. He knew it, and we knew it." (Le Monde, Feb. 1968).

So no, it was not a defensive war.

The second point is that it makes no difference in law, it is still illegal to keep the seized
territory, unless it is part of a proper peace treaty signed by all parties involved. And that is
most certainly not the case here.

[eyl]

140. Quotes accurate but misleading

"In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army
concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us.
We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

The next paragraph in the speech

[Matilda]

150. Israel may like to justify the attack as being "noble" self-defence,

but attacking another country on their ground first is usually
considered to be an attack according to the rules.

Even if it had been justifiable (and at the time, I thought it was, I
will admit), it is still an attack.

[eyl]

153. Egypt blocked the Tiran Straits

beforehand. That's internationally considered an act of war. Egypt had also sponsered and supported fedayeen attacks at Israeli civilians. That's also considered an act of aggression. I could go on; there were other actions as well. But using those quotes to "prove" Israel did not need to attack is a distortion.

The short of it is that firing the first shot isn't necessarily aggression. You can, of course, argue whether Egypt's actions were sufficiently aggressive to require a war; but that's a different question than whether Israel had the legal right to attack.

[Coastie for Truth]

154. Blocking The Straits of Tiran was a Causus Belli

The "official" directive given to officers of the United States Navy, United States Coast Guard, and NOAA Commissioned Corps is that blocking straits is a causus belli.

References:

1. International Law for Seagoing OfficersBuridck Brittin

2.

3.

4.

SECTION 2. TRANSIT PASSAGE

Article 37

Scope of this section

This section applies to straits which are used for international navigation between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone.

Article 38

Right of transit passage

1. In straits referred to in article 37, all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage, which shall not be impeded; except that, if the strait is formed by an island of a State bordering the strait and its mainland, transit passage shall not apply if there exists seaward of the island a route through the high seas or through an exclusive economic zone of similar convenience with respect to navigational and hydrographical characteristics.

2. Transit passage means the exercise in accordance with this Part of the freedom of navigation and overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of the strait between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone. However, the requirement of continuous and expeditious transit does not preclude passage through the strait for the purpose of entering, leaving or returning from a State bordering the strait, subject to the conditions of entry to that State.

3. Any activity which is not an exercise of the right of transit passage through a strait remains subject to the other applicable provisions of this Convention.

Article 39

Duties of ships and aircraft during transit passage

1. Ships and aircraft, while exercising the right of transit passage, shall:

(a) proceed without delay through or over the strait;

(b) refrain from any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of States bordering the strait, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;

(c) refrain from any activities other than those incident to their normal modes of continuous and expeditious transit unless rendered necessary by force majeure or by distress;

(d) comply with other relevant provisions of this Part.

2. Ships in transit passage shall:

(a) comply with generally accepted international regulations, procedures and practices for safety at sea, including the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea;

(b) comply with generally accepted international regulations, procedures and practices for the prevention, reduction and control of pollution from ships.

Black letter, text book law - blocking the straits was a causus belli = the availability of Mediterranean ports is legally irrelevant.

[Coastie for Truth]

114. If Israel pulls back to the Green Line AND tears down the wall-

and Hamas continues to attack to drive Israel into the sea (per its covenant ) who will take in the Israeli survivors? Volunteers please - don't be bashful.

[Violet_Crumble]

122. No-one's playing, Coastie...

can't say I blame them either...

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

130. I'll give you a hint. Nobody.

That's basically what happened after WWII. The British interned the survivors of the Holocaust in concentration camps.

[Violet_Crumble]

133. Speak for yrself, CB...

I'd take in anyone who wouldn't mind sharing the spare bedroom with piles of books and a territorial chihuaha/foxy cross :)


p.s. - Level four sucks. I can now see things I don't normally care to see...

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

134. Why don't you go to Zack Fibush's Deli

in Sydney - and ask the present Fibush about the DP camps.

Tell them Aunt Sara's grand son sent you -- you'll get some great Central European pastry.

[channa18]

138. Excuse me....

do they have good Corned Beef Sandwiches there ?

Pastrami also ??


Just wondering.



:):):)

[Violet_Crumble]

149. I don't think Coastie's even given us the name of the deli...

Apparently anyone in Sydney's expected to wander round multiple delis asking for some Zack person so they can ask him bizarre questions...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

148. I'll pass on that...

Sydney's too far to hike during my lunchbreak to get some recommended pastry, even though the temptation to say: 'some American internet discussion board guy I don't know sent me here to annoy you and scab myself some free pastries' would make it fun...

Violet...