Israelis Celebrate, Palestinians Mourn

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

by Helen Thomas

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/16/9009/

---snip---

The Israelis are celebrating the 60th anniversary of the creation of the nation of Israel.

The Palestinians have only to mourn the loss of their land and the oppression they have suffered as refugees in camps and caves since 1948, their life under military occupation and their humiliation at myriad Israeli checkpoints.

Defeats in wars that had U.S. military and financial support have left the Palestinians in despair. But all that is history now.

President Bush has led a prestigious parade of statesmen and former statesmen — many of whom made Israel’s takeover possible — to the anniversary celebration in Israel. . . .

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

1. Death of a peace activist, June 2003

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA66xdLZXh0

[aquart]

2. So you would prefer that the Palestinians rejoice and the Jews mourn?

Aren't you glad you don't have to feel guilty about what happened in World War II anymore?

Speaking of "support," what happened to the Palestinians' money? They were tithing their own, and extorting neighboring governments for decades. Not to mention UN aid cash. The NYT did a big story a few decades ago about how much they'd amassed. Embassies in 96 countries, for instance. Ever heard of an embassy in the cheap part of town?

Get back to me after the audit.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

5. What I'd prefer is that...

...we (the U.S.) discontinue sponsoring Israel's longstanding and brutal oppression/genocide of the Palistinians.

If that would make you and others who seem to have no problem with it mourn, so be it.

[notfullofit]

8. genocide?

When did that happen?

[cali]

21. ack. inappropriate hyberbole of a high order.

Oppression? Absolutely. Genocide? Not even in the ball park. You destroy your own argument with such a patently fallacious and reprehensible claim. And frankly, I have no problem with the Israelis celebrating or the Palestinians marking it as a tragic rememberence. Both are appropriate reactions from two different perspectives.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Totally agree with what you said in yr post...

There does seem to be a tendency from some on both sides to refer to things as genocide that clearly aren't. It not only destroys their arguments (after all, people reading will understandably focus on the word genocide to the exclusion of anything else because genocide is a horrific crime), but it also plays a part in diluting the meaning of the term genocide and detracts from genocides that have happened and unfortunately will still happen in the future...

And frankly, I have no problem with the Israelis celebrating or the Palestinians marking it as a tragic rememberence. Both are appropriate reactions from two different perspectives.

And that's it in a nutshell and exactly how I feel about it. Living in a country where the national day is also marked as a day of mourning people who were oppressed and suffered, I don't think one or the other should be excluded or ridiculed. What's important is that there's two perspectives, and even if we view things from one perspective, we should be able to understand that there is another perspective and not see it as a threat to our own perspective...

[cali]

44. hi, violet

entertaining paradox is essential to really thinking about complex issues. Two things can be equally true and completely contradictory. It doesn't make for a simple linear narrative, but I think it hits closer to the truth.

I haven't been posting much here- too wrapped up in the election. I'm hopeful that with a dem administration, the US will play a more productive role in the I/P mess.

[Violet_Crumble]

102. Hi back at ya, Cali...

I don't venture into GDP hardly at all as I find it all just a bit too confusing and excitable, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Obama will get that official nomination very soon now and go on to win the election. If that happens, I'm hoping there will be a more productive role played by the US not only when it comes to the I/P conflict, but that the US moves away from the unilateralism and rejection of international treaties that personifies the Bush adminimstrations foreign policy...

I've not been round much either. A fair bit of it's got to do with getting a bit bored of the same old, same old arguments in the forum and working out that repeating the same thing over and over is about as exciting and rewarding as sitting through the 10,000th rerun of one episode of The Nanny. Which is why after looking at the discussion about genocide going on in the thread, I can't be bothered explaining yet again why the legal definition of genocide doesn't apply to the I/P conflict...

[notfullofit]

53. Perfect! nt

[LeftishBrit]

58. Fully agree!

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

75. Can't help but notice you took care NOT...

...to go dig up the internationally accepted definition of genocide and then explain how/why, by your interpretation, one or more of the conditions are not satisfied.

So, here it is:

The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:

1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and

2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."

Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here)
"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:

(a) Genocide;

(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;

(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

(d) Attempt to commit genocide;

(e) Complicity in genocide. "


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a crime to plan or incite genocide, even before killing starts, and to aid or abet genocide: Criminal acts include conspiracy, direct and public incitement, attempts to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide.

Source: http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm


Knock yourself out, Cali.

[cali]

86. thanks for posting that and proving my point.

Look, Israel's actions against the Palestinians don't meet the criteria. And no serious analyst or reputable human rights organization claims they do. Grab a clue. The face of genocide is not several thousand deaths over 40 years. The face of genocide is Rwanda, Cambodia, Sudan. You'd have a better case arguing that China has committed genocide in Tibet where over half a million people have been killed in an occupation of 50 years. And yet the situation in Tibet isn't considered genocide either.

Populations don't grow when genocide is committed. You'd have a very, very difficult time arguing genocide just because of that fact.

Again, oppression, no doubt. And personally, I think there's a good argument that the Settlements in the WB are a form of ethnic cleansing. But genocide shouldn't be diminished by people prone to gross hyperbole. What's funny- in a black humor kind of way- is that what's actually happening is bad enough. But those prone to grotesque hyperbole- for whatever reason and those pushing their own little agendas, can't see the harm they do. Sad.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

88. How interesting, once again, you choose not to address the...

...fairly specific language of the international definition of genocide, and then point out which part(s) have not been satisfied.

Gee, why is that, Cali? Either you accept the international definition or you don't. If you do, please point out what part(s) have not been met by Israel's longstanding occupation.

If you don't accept the international definition, please provide the definition and source you're using.

I'm not arguing that genocides can't vary in form and/or scale, but by the international definition provided, there is no credible case to be made that Israel has not satisfied the conditions which constitute genocide -- which, I presume, is why you have chosen not to even bother trying.

[msmcghee]

90. Another one of those strange folks who thinks . .

. . that proving someone is guilty of a crime simply requires a description of the crime. Someone else did that here last week . . and it was just as amusing.

Here's a clue. You have to show how the specific actions of the accused fall under that definition - something you conveniently forgot about.

How about if I define armed robbery as stealing something while using a deadly weapon. There, that proves you're guilty. I'm amazed that DU allows convicted felons to post here.

:bounce: This guy is fun!

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

93. What odd commentary...

...Did you actually read any of the preceding posts? It sure doesn't sound like it.

[msmcghee]

95. I'll admit that I started reading where you posted the . .

. . legal definition of genocide then challenged cali to show how one or more elements of it were not met.

But, now I've gone back and read through the whole sub-thread and still find your "reasoning" to be 16 oz. short of an honest pint. To start with, when you accuse someone - the burden of proof is yours. It's not up to anyone to prove that your claim is wrong. You are the one claiming that Israel is guilty of genocide. Your evidence? You only provided the definition of genocide and told cali to show why it doesn't apply. Sorry, that doesn't cut as serious debate.

There are many accusations that fly through this forum every day. Sometimes it's genocide, sometimes it's ethnic cleansing, sometimes it's apartheid, sometimes it's intentionally targeting Palestinian civilians - it's a very long list of some of the worst possible crimes people could ever commit against another.

The consistency in all these claims is that they tend to be supported only by the emotional beliefs of the accusers packaged in a great deal of bluster and indignation - but without the benefit of any serious evidence. I know it makes people angry when I point this out - but maybe you should question your beliefs on this matter. If they were correct, why is it so difficult to make a case for them? Why have you made the accusation several times in this thread but offered zero evidence?

The answer is that you've just added one more example to the large and ever growing data base of bullshit claims - represented by several years now of comments posted to the I/P forum.

[cali]

100. Here: The Israeli actions don't fit the criteria under article !!

They don't fit all of the conditions listed. How very interesting that you can't address a single point I made. Not one. Oh, and don't put words in my mouth. I accept the definition. I said that the Israeli actions don't fit the definition.

And there is virtually no one making your feeble argument that the Israelis are committing genocide. By your interpretation, the Palestinians are committing genocide against the Israelis.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

104. Can't address a single point you made?

:rofl:

Too funny. What points? YOU'RE the one who challenged my use of the word genocide as applied Israel's longstanding occupation without offering any reasoned argument, and even after I requested it a second time, not once have you bothered to reference any specific language from the international definition I provided and use it to construct an argument. Why is that Cali? Gotta be a reason.

As to your claim that no one is making the argment that Israelis are committing genocide, I can only conclude that you must get virtually all your news from U.S. corporate media. Maybe you should consider broadening your horizons a bit. If you can read objective accounts of what's been going on in Gaza and seriously claim that it doesn't satisfy the conditions for genocide as spelled out by the international definition, you're either in denial or just being dishonest:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/28/6682/

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/06/8119/

The commentary of Common Dreams reader, Little Brother:

The extermination of a people proceeds apace, and the world reacts with indifference, and complicity ranging from tacit to outright sponsorship.

Alas! Such a thing has never happened before in the history of nations– otherwise, decent people would surely intervene to oppose, deter, and ultimately shut down this heinous horror show. And declare a self-evident policy: Never again!

[Vegasaurus]

105. Oh, very objective of you.

I like Commondreams, but they often post from some very whacky radical sources.

Not far under your quoted "Little Brother" comment in the Commentary, you get to the real meat of what people believe.

You honestly post something as credible that has comments like this:

Israel is a cancer on this planet with a deeply sick victim-collective-consciousness which has born a monster. Sadistic And Murderous.
Like Adolph Hitler, Israel pursues Ethnic Cleansing, and a pure master (chosen people) (superior) race.
Thus bombing children and women and men becomes fun, becomes necessary, is God’s Will.
This sickness is without depth. May Palestine be born again on Israel’s ashes.

David Duke couldn't possibly do any better.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

106. "You get the the real meat of what people believe"

Really? Which people? Who are you talking about? All people? Most peope? Some people? Short people? Tall people? Fat people? Skinny people? Gay people? Straight people? God fearing people? Athiest people? Smart people? Dumb people? Chinese people? Canadian people? Poor people? Rich people? Bad people? Good people? Anti-Semite people?

Who are you talking about, Vegasaurus?

[Vegasaurus]

109. People who hate Israel

who might be short, tall, fat, skinny, gay or straight.

I think the comment I posted from your article transcends physical attributes, and gets right to beliefs, which was what I was talking about anyway.

But I think you knew that and threw a red herring.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

113. "People who hate Israel"

And who is that? How shall we identify them? By ethnicity? Or religious affiliation? Nationality? The way they talk? Or walk? Or maybe by name? How 'bout Noam Chomsky? President Carter? Mel Gibson? Webster Tarpley? John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt? Ralph Nader? Tony Judt? Gideon Levy? Ramzy Baroud? George Galloway? Ray McGovern? Norman Finkelstein? Ramsey Clark? Rachel Corrie's parents? We should probably start some sort of list, don't you think? -- lots of dangerous people to keep track of.

I've got it! I know how we can identify them -- how 'bout ANYBODY and EVERYBODY who ever dares to openly voice unvarnished, harsh truths/criticisms of Israel? They'd be perfect candidates for the "people who hate Israel" tag. Now, I wonder if we could think up some kind of nasty label to attach to these people that might shut some of them up, and give others pause before daring to open their mouths to speak harshly of Israel in the first place? Any ideas?

Let's see, if they hate Israel, by way of deduction what else might we reasonably conclude must be true about them? Hmmm...I'll have to think on that one...dang, I'm drawing blanks, help me out here, Vegasaurus. I'm thinkin' anti-{something}, but I just can't seem to come up with it. What have you got?

[LeftishBrit]

122. They aren't a monolithic group. They are people with a particular view.

Which others may disagree with.

And disagreeing with people is not shutting them up. Freedom of speech works both ways.

[notfullofit]

123. How in the hell

can you hate a whole country?

[LeftishBrit]

124. I don't know; but some people evidently do.

Many people and groups seem to have their 'bogeynations' who can do no right, and whose people are all seen as evil. For some, it's Israel. For some it's Iran. For some, it's America or Russia or China or the UK or France.

[Vegasaurus]

128. Criticism of Israel is one thing

claiming that Israel is committing genocide, which is patently untrue, is another.

The Israel haters will find anything possible to demonize the country, to degrade it, to criminalize behavior, etc.

That is very different than saying you hate the settlements or some other Israeli policy,

[cali]

127. lol. I didn't say no one was making the claim

I said no reputable human rights organization is making the claim of genocide. An article from a website isn't exactly reputable.

What part of populations suffering genocide don't grow over a 40 year period, is so difficult for you to grasp.

Now you come up with a U.N. statement saying the Israelis are committing genocide or one from Human Rights Watch, of consider yourself on the losing end of this absurd argument.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

130. And yet again...

...you carefully avoid the single most relevant barometer by which to measure/determine whether Israel is engaged in genocide: the language of the international definition of genocide.

Why is that, Cali? Gotta be a reason.

Well you're in luck, 'cause here it is again:

The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:

1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and

2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."

Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here)
"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:

(a) Genocide;

(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;

(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

(d) Attempt to commit genocide;

(e) Complicity in genocide. "


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is a crime to plan or incite genocide, even before killing starts, and to aid or abet genocide: Criminal acts include conspiracy, direct and public incitement, attempts to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide.


And here are links that provide a fair description of what's been going on in Gaza for at least the last couple years:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/28/6682 /

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/06/8119 /


If you can read these and still claim Israel is not engaged in genocide you're either delusional or dishonest.

[msmcghee]

131. So, you really are completely unable to offer any . .

. . argument or justification for your claim that Israel's actions fall under that definition. Repeating the definition is not an argument for your position. Like I said before, interesting bullshit tactic.

[Shaktimaan]

132. Quick question...

Clearly you believe that Israel meets the standard set by this definition. I don't see how, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to change your mind. I do have a question though.

According to the same definition, do you think that the Palestinians are guilty of genocide against Jews or Israelis?

[LeftishBrit]

97. Just to butt in and ask one question...

Do you consider *all* war to be genocide? It does seem to meet some of the criteria as loosely defined (killing and causing bodily harm to members of a national group).

If so, then many countries are guilty of genocide, as well as both sides of the I/P conflict.

But the I/P conflict does not meet the usual criterion of the word (setting out to destroy, or seriously reduce the numbers, of an ethnic group). The Palestinians have increased in number, not decreased.

The Palestinians haven't been treated well, and are in a bad position; but this doesn't mean the same thing as genocide.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

107. I don't know that every war...

...ever fought would satisfy the international definition of genocide, but I have not reflected on or researched that question at length.

While I would certainly agree that the word genocide should not be thrown around lightly, when the definition is satisfied, neither should it be denied.

Israel has clearly satisfied the conditions of the international definition.

[LeftishBrit]

112. OK, tell us exactly how it fits the criteria...

in any way that would not apply to any war.

The international definition is clearly not intended to apply to every war, or it would simply define genocide as covering war.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

114. What?

I didn't make any claims one way or the other about the definition of genocide as it relates to war.

What are you getting at? Is there some point?

[msmcghee]

115. In (5) you made a claim regarding . .

. . " . . Israel's longstanding and brutal oppression/genocide of the Palistinians".

In ((8) and (21) you were immediately challenged to support your accusation.

In (75) you finally posted the legal definition of the international crime of genocide - without any evidence connecting any acts by Israel with that definition. You have been challenged by several posters since then pointing out your deviousness in posting an outrageous accusation and then ignoring all calls to retract or support it - instead posting the occasional red herring and/or obfuscation.

That's what you're still doing. I call on you now to support your claim or take this crap to a suitable antisemitic site where they appreciate and thrive on stuff like this.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

116. Oh curses, foiled again -- you got me, Sherlock...

...there's always someone who's just too clever.

Are you for real? Did you even read the definition? What kind of mind numbing propaganda have you been put through?

Read post 104, including the linked articles, then read the international definition of genocide. The conditions spelled out are easily satisfied. To pretend otherwise is just silly.

[msmcghee]

117. Interesting bullshit tactic.

You still have made no case - zero - for Israel commiting genocide. Nada - zip - total bullshit crazy - comprende?

Although I can see the sense to it. other members here sometimes try to prove their outrageous claims - only to look totally foolish when they can't do it. You are at least avoiding that ignominious outcome.

But, your claims are no less ugly, vicious, antisemitic lies.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

119. Yet another non-substance non-argument...

...Surprise, surprise.

[Vegasaurus]

118. Just an FYI

usually in a genocide, the population goes down. That is the goal of a genocide: to kill as many people as possible.

That is why the Holocaust was a true genocide. The world lost half its population of Jews. HALF of all jews were killed.

The Palestinian population has grown 30% in the past ten years.

Populations under genocide are not growing 30% in ten years (that is a gigantic growth).

So, you are just wrong (again).

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

120. Just an FYI...

...If you want to deny Israel is engaged in genocide with any credibility, you should use the text of the definition and explain which part(s) are not satisfied and how you arrive at such a conclusion.

Israel's actions in Gaza make it manifestly obvious that they are engaged in genocide.

[pelsar]

125. which definitions..

near as i can tell none of the definitions fit what israel is doing.. which definitions or parts of them are you looking at?

[eyl]

129. Uh, no

You made the accusation, so you need to show how Israeli actions do satisfy the criteria.

[LeftishBrit]

121. The point is...

that Israel have not committed genocide according to the usual definitions. They have not killed a large proportion of Palestinians, or otherwise reduced their numbers. They have killed and harmed some Palestinians through military attacks. If that is 'genocide', then all war must be genocide. Otherwise, you seem to be setting a different standard for Israel than for anyone else.

[msmcghee]

126. Aggressive war could be seen as containing elements of genocide . .

. . by definition. It seems to me that by attacking a peaceful state, there is an implied genocidal goal. To the extent that killing large numbers of the defenders would support or achieve the underlying goal - then that act of aggression can fall under the definition of genocide, whether or not it is explicitly stated.

I think in all acts of genocide, there is a purpose other than simply killing all or most members of some race or ethnicity. It is usually to be rid of any possible need to compete with those targets politically, religiously, territorially and/or economically (or usually a combination of those) - and genocide is seen as the surest and most obvious solution by those leading the enterprise.

Killing, is a highly emotional activity for humans. That's why movies like "Die Hard", "Kill Bill" and thousands of others and such are such box office sure hits. It's a very dependable emotion that we are willing to pay good money to experience vicariously and safely. Therefore, when the killing of large numbers of mostly defenseless humans is being done in real life, I am also sure that those actually doing it at first must depend on some form of racism (or ethnicism) as motivation. As it continues in a long campaign that probably becomes replaced by more thoughtful justifications that become their primary motivation - justifications that carry weight with those one wishes to appeal to for justification. These things can be observed in documentary footage and historic accounts of all such incidents.

I'm not sure that defensive war can escape from the same criteria. To the extent that it may be necessary to defend oneself from aggression by killing most or all members of the attacking society (which almost certainly are ethnically different from the defenders) then defensive war can be seen as genocidal to that extent. I suspect it's easy to reach the conclusion that it is necessary to kill all or most members of the attacker's society when bombs are going off in your streets and your civilians are dying in large numbers. I think all sides in WWII were willing to kill every enemy combatant and civilian and were actively pursuing that goal - if that's what it would have taken to prevail in that war. I think that has happened in almost every war throughout history. That's really what war is about - what it means - to kill all of the enemy in order to prevail - or less than all if one prevails before that is required. The holocaust - where there was no real danger to the troops carrying out that genocide - was just a particularly cowardly example.

I think that with such fuzzy definitions regarding a highly emotional aspect of human nature, genocide will tend to be seen as what people that we don't like do in war. In reality, war is genocide. Now, read back through some of the comments in this forum and tell me if you see much inconsistency in that theory.

In the I/P conflict I think the large difference in armies and capability of the two sides has so far prevented Hamas from carrying out its admittedly genocidal intentions while it has had allowed Israel to avoid having them. That's why Iran's arming of Hamas and Hisb'allah with advanced anti-tank weapons and more powerful and accurate rockets - and Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons is so ominous for the ME - and for the world.

[rockymountaindem]

3. US military support? When?

[Boojatta]

4. Did the creation of Israel cause all people who are Palestinian refugees to become such?

I don't claim to know the answer, but I can imagine one potential example of why the answer could be "no." If a person who had no Palestine/Israel citizenship in 1948 married a Palestinian after 1948, then the person could be a Palestinian through marriage. If the person is also a refugee, then it would seem that the person is a Palestinian refugee. Of course, that depends on whether or not "Palestinian refugee" means simply "a Palestinian who is a refugee." However, it doesn't follow that the creation of Israel caused the person to become a Palestinian refugee. Nor does it follow that policy decisions made during or after a war that occurred shortly after the creation of Israel caused the person to become a Palestinian refugee.

Also (and this is probably a detail), why were these words chosen: "refugees in camps and caves since 1948"? Are caves by definition not camps? Are caves and camps the only two kinds of places where Palestinian refugees live?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

6. Yes. nt

[notfullofit]

9. Why? nt

[ProgressiveMuslim]

11. Are you serious?

If so, I'd be happy to refer you to resources so that you can educate yourself. Please let me know.

[notfullofit]

12. I was asking why

"refugees in camps and caves since 1948"? Are caves by definition not camps? Are caves and camps the only two kinds of places where Palestinian refugees live?"

Why do they live in caves, are there no houses?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

13. My "yes" was for the question in your subject line.

My husband is a refugee. He grew up in a camp in Khan Younis, Gaza Strip. He now lives in a suburb outside of Philadelphia.

He has no desire to return to his family's home in Isdud (Ashdod). We do believe, however, that the right of return must be on the table. Israel must accept responsibility for its crimes. A reasonable solution must be achieved that is acceptable to both sides.

[notfullofit]

17. May I ask

'Israel must accept responsibility for its crimes'

which crimes are you referring to?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

25. The Nakba of 1948.

The destruction of 400+ villages.
The creation of 700,000+ refugees.
Plan Dalet.
Ongoing denial and minimization of those crimes...

[Vegasaurus]

26. More victimhood

There have been crimes against humanity for time and eternity.

There are far, far worse crimes than the creation of 700,000 refugees (including the murder of six million Jews, or the situation with genocide and displacement in the Sudan since the 90's).

You can argue that the creation of Israel was a crime, but it won't change the fact that Israel is here to stay.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

27. Mocking victims doesn't make them any less victimized.

It certainly doesn't diminish the crimes committed against them.

I'm curious, do you mock and make fun of all kinds of victims, such as victims of rape, or do you reserve your special brand of humor only for Israel's victims?

[Vegasaurus]

38. I am not mocking any victims

I see nothing funny about people living life in perpetual misery and victimhood.

I believe that the Arab countries have a huge part in the victimhood of the Palestinians, since they have refused them citizenship, kicked them out or put them in squalid refugee camps.

But, wallowing in self pity about events of 60 years ago doesn't help people.

It may feel cruel to say, but look at what the Israelis have accomplished in 60 years, with enemies constantly starting wars and terrorizing them.

They have created a society that develops life saving medical techniques, new technology needed by people throughout the world, etc.

And they were a bunch of Holocaust survivors who made the desert bloom.

If Holocaust survivors and other Jews, chased from their own countries as refugees as well, can create something like that, so could the Palestinans.

I don't know why you expect so little of people. Victimhood doesn't get people anywhere.

[notfullofit]

39. It is

pretty astonishing what they have accomplished in such a short period of time when you stop and think about it.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

48. The galilee is hardly a desert. I'd call it verdant.

The Negev doesn't bloom.

Are you familiar with Israel's per capita water consumption?

It's no miracle.

Read for yourself:

http://www.btselem.org/english/water/consumption_gap.asp

[notfullofit]

54. I was thinking more

along the lines of their accomplishments.

[Vegasaurus]

60. There is not another country in the world

that has contributed so much globally, in terms of medical and technological advancements, etc. in such a short period of time, all while trying to fend off near constant terrorism and wars.

It is quite remarkable.

[notfullofit]

62. The only

other country I can think of that that comes close to it is Japan.

[azurnoir]

64. Both Japan and Germany got

immense support from the US after WW2, and this was I believe so as not to repeat the same mistake twice.

[notfullofit]

67. We were

discussing more along the lines of scientific, medical advancements and breakthroughs, which the Israelis accomplished in a few short years. Astonishing compared to the rest of the world when taken in a timeframe context.

[azurnoir]

80. No not really

although at present all you hear about are the poor uneducated Arab Jews that were accepted into the new state of Israel what you do not hear much about anymore is that by and large the European Holocaust survivors were amongst some of the most well educated people on earth and the connections between them and scientists in America. Not to mention that the Weizmann Institute existed well before partition.

http://www.weizmann.ac.il/

[notfullofit]

81. Is it really

that hard for you to give credit where credit is due?

[azurnoir]

83. No not at all

however Israels advances are not so amazing when one looks at the population, it is not taking away anything. In fact it would have been more amazing if those advances had not been made.
Is it so hard for you to look objectively.

[notfullofit]

94. I thought I

was looking objectively, hence my positive comments.

[azurnoir]

103. I did not know that objectiv e

meant a 100% glowing report, usually it means something closer to "just the facts" without any personal opinion. In this area that is near impossible. However seeing as how Israel had one of the most advanced schools of physics in the world before partition why on earth would they have gone backwards after?
Now what has impressed me is the level of organization and assimilation of immigrants, especially in the early years. To absorb so many from so many different countries in so short a time and still have a cohesive society that is impressive, something the US can not even claim-it took longer.

[msmcghee]

70. This was because they both signed . .

. . unconditional terms of surrender which means they stopped fighting and submitted to whatever the allies prescribed for them.

That is not what the Palestinians or their Arab allies did at the end of any of the wars they started against Israel. Sixty years of terrorism is the result the world got from hoping that by halting the counterattack before a decisive defeat of her Arab enemies by Israel - they would see that the West was their friend and would see the immense opportunities for their societies and their families in reconciliation and peace with Israel. So much for hope.

[azurnoir]

78. In part perhaps

however in no small part it was also because the seeds of WW2 were sow at the end of WW1 when over confident victors decided to teach the "losers" a lesson and forced what has been called a humiliating treaty.
The other reasons that your post noted were secondary, until recently when they became political coin for the so called ProIsrael crowd as a moral equivalence for continued status quo.

[msmcghee]

82. I'm having a problem again making . .

. . any sense of your comment.

What does a humiliating treaty with Germany post WWI have to do with anything? Teaching the losers a lesson was not my point. It is destroying their military and economic capacity to wage war and making sure they don't re-acquire it for a long time - depending on the severity of their war-mongering efforts. If a society starts a war against a peaceful state and loses the war - but their high military leaders are not hung and their military destroyed - they will come back and fight again. They will be certain they have the "duty" to right the wrong that was done to them. They will not realize that they made a mistake in starting the war. They will try to do a better job killing you next time. Every dictatorship with a military is a military power. They will always see war as the best solution to any problem or humiliation. That's what militaries and military powers do. It's their job.

The world wished that Hitler would see the light of reason in the thirties - rather then expect him not to. Germany never should have acquired the economic capacity to wage war in the thirties. That was the world's error in wishful thinking.

Whatever your point was with Germany, I can't see how it had anything at all to do with Japan.

I have no idea what your last sentence is about.

[azurnoir]

84. You and occsionally Vegas seem to have problem alot n/t

[msmcghee]

85. Yes, well rather than try to explain . .

. . what you were talking about - you apparently realize it's probably best to drop it. Smart move.

[azurnoir]

89. No I will continue

the rise of the Nazi party was due in small part to the restrictions of the Versailles treaty at least some if not most historians have said so.

http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/84862.html

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/party.htm

http://www.sagehistory.net/worldwar2/topics/germany.html

[msmcghee]

98. You are right about that.

The rise of the Nazi party was due in small part to the humiliation of the Versailles Treaty. (Did you mean to say "in no small part"?)

Actually, I think it was a significant reason (no small part). IMO WWII was due in large part to the unwise decision to humiliate the German people (which some would say was justified as the penalty for starting and prosecuting WWI - or at least for losing it) and then to stand by while they elected a megalomaniac to power who began violating the treaty.

You don't wound a bull and then expect peace in the barnyard. You kill it or make it your friend out of care and kindness. But, you can not ignore it.

(I'd appreciate Mr. Magistrate's view on this as I'm sure there's a more complete view of this history than my own.)

And going back to your first point - I'm inclined to agree on that as well, now that I understand it better. (Both Japan and Germany got immense support from the US after WW2, and this was I believe so as not to repeat the same mistake.)

Although they got support from the Allies and the West generally. More important than the support was the attention and close supervision of all details of their rebuilding and the restructuring of their government as well as treaties that made it impossible for those nations to ever become a threat to the West again.

[Boojatta]

32. Do you think that Israelis who consider the items in your list

to be "necessary evils" are right? In other words, do you think that young Israel would have never reached age 60 if it had not committed those crimes?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

57. Of course not. They *had* to commit those crimes to achieve their goals.

But at least have the decency to admit to what was planned and carried out. Make reparations. Put the down guns, stop the settlement machine, and be willing to do the decent thing.

Don't be like Vegasaurus in some mind-boggling state of denial, pretending Palestinans' attitude about it all is the critical point, as tho they could magically take a happy pill and get over it.

These people will never accept the semi-humanity they are provided living under Israeli tyranny. No American would accept it, no Israeli would accept it, no Europeans would accept it.

[Boojatta]

61. If the problem is...

some particular goals that were pursued by some people who had power in Israel after Israel was created, and Israel's creation and survival did not necessitate the pursuit of those goals, then why mourn on the anniversary of Israel's creation?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

66. Some, like Columbia U's Joseph Massad, would argue the Nakba is ongoing.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9549.shtml

I certainly felt that yesterday, protesting at the Israel b-day parade in Philly yesterday.
It is likely that anyone who marched in that parade would be welcomed to move to Jerusalem tomorrow, while my husband, who was born there, whose ancestors have lived on the land for centuries, would be banned like a leprous dog.

Israel's birthday seems an opportune time to remind the world that the occupation is a crime, and there is much for which Israel should be deeply ashamed.

[Boojatta]

69. "seems an opportune time"

Okay, it seems opportune, but is it appropriate? If the intention isn't to protest against the creation of Israel, then it would seem more appropriate to choose a known date that marks the beginning of a specific act that deserves condemnation and that is representative of a number of acts that should all be condemned.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

73. Is it appropriate? To quote one of my favorite TV characters:

Absa-fucking-lutely.

Israel's birth was absolutely a catastrophe (Al Nakba) for the people of Palestine. It's absolutely appropriate to remind the world of the dark side of that event.

[Boojatta]

76. "Israel's birth was absolutely a catastrophe (Al Nakba) for the people of Palestine."

That statement suggests that, contrary to what you wrote earlier, Israel's leaders were forced to choose between either allowing the infanticide of an infant Israel or imposing a catastrophe upon the people of Palestine. Otherwise it is difficult to understand how Israel's birth was itself a catastrophe for the people of Palestine.

Some people claim that the holocaust made the creation of Israel inevitable. If they are right, then perhaps it would be appropriate to link Al Nakba with holocaust remembrance day.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

101. I have given up trying to understand your point. nt

[Boojatta]

110. You have already replied.

I don't think that your replies answer my earlier question, but perhaps the fault lies in the wording of my earlier question.

Could you please, without going back and re-reading my posts that you replied to, tell me in your own words what you think I was asking?

[eyl]

41. I'm curious (really - this isn't snark)

Do you think the Palestinians should likewise accept responsibility for their crimes?

(Hebron, the Jewish Quarter, Gush Etzion, etc., as well as ongoing terrorism)

[ProgressiveMuslim]

43. Palestines absolutely accept and claim responsibility.

The difference lies in the way they understand those actions.

They see themselves as fighting an uneven war against a nuclear-armed country backed by the world's superpower.

[eyl]

46. Well, an Israeli might say

that the expulsions in 1948 were an unavoidable product of the Yishuv's fight to survive Arab violence.

(BTW, all of the cases I mentioned above save the last occured during or prior to 1948 - at which point Israel was neither nulcear-armed nor backed by the US)

[ProgressiveMuslim]

47. Eyl, do you really want to tally violence? Are you kidding me? nt

[eyl]

50. Hey, I'm just pointing out

what you said.

And a tally of the violence may not turn out quite as you seem to think.

[eyl]

99. So when you say the accept and claim responsibility

you mean they accept and claim that Israel is responsible for those acts?

[oberliner]

14. Regarding the caves

There have been communities of Palestinian cave-dwellers that have existed for many years.

[notfullofit]

16. They exist

even today, in caves!?

[pelsar]

19. still exist..

south of Hebron, where they live.....and have lived for centuries

[notfullofit]

20. Good grief,

I had no idea!

You seriously mean a 'hole in the rock' cave?
Did civilization forget them or what?

[pelsar]

23. they're choice.....

sort of a sense of "family" pride, connection to the land etc......

its not like they dont have electricity or dvds, cellphones or anything..or dont drive they're trucks to the market....they just live in caves (no mortgage)

[notfullofit]

24. No bathrooms either.

Oh well, different strokes I guess.
The no mortgage bit sounds good though.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

29. Real classy. Is there a point to this?

Are you suggesting that cave-dwelling is a characteristic of "Palestinian?"

I assure you, it is not.

[notfullofit]

34. Not

at all, I was responding to and questioning Post #4.
I had no idea that Palestinians lived in caves, it was not my mention.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. No more than civilisation's forgotten the cave-dwellers of Lightning Ridge...

People live in caves out of practicality. Whether it's out of tradition or in the case of Lightning Ridge that going underground is the only way to escape the extreme heat, it's got nothing to do with a lack of civilisation....

[notfullofit]

36. It would seem to

be most 'impractible', to me anyway.

I believe we all lived in caves at one time or another but that was long long ago.

It is also extremely hot in Death Valley, Ca (hottest place on earth) or Nevada and Arizona, so I just think there must be another explanation for this phenomenon, no?

[Violet_Crumble]

37. I told you the wrong town. It's Coober Pedy, not Lightning Ridge..

Around 70% of the population live underground there. It's very practical when you stop and think about it. It's always been a mining town, so there were lots of holes in the ground. Instead of having to pay a fortune for airconditioning, living in a cave provides a constant comfortable temperature without having to pay for cooling or heating. Even the motels in Coober Pedy are underground (there's a photo of a Comfort Inn in the link I'm posting)...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12873915

Bit of trivia here, but even though most people tend to think that Death Valley has the highest recorded temperature, there's a place in Libya called el Azizia that takes the record for the highest recorded temperature.

[Boojatta]

18. Do those resources truly address the question of whether or not

all people who are Palestinian refugees were caused to be such by the creation of Israel?

[oberliner]

7. The majority of people who are identified as Palestinian refugees were not alive in 1948

Most of the people who are currently identified as Palestinian refugees are the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of those who were alive in 1948.

This means of designation is unique to this particular group.

Generally, the term "refugee" does not apply to the descendants, but, in this case, it does.

[azurnoir]

10. I am not sure the Palestinians are unique

in their desendent also being termed refugees, I believe that the same applies to Hmong and Tibetans, although the last thing Hmong want to do is return to Laos, at least right now.

[oberliner]

15. The UN appears to make such a distinction

There is a separate entity from the UNHCR called the UNRWA which defines a Palestinian refugee in a different manner from the way the UN defines other refugees.

If something similar exists for the Hmong and/or Tibetans, I would be interested in learning more about it.

[notfullofit]

22. Does that same formula apply to

Israelis, as in from Moses' time?

Just how far back is it permissable to go?

[Violet_Crumble]

31. I don't think the UN dabbles in biblical stuff like Moses...

Both UNRWA and the UNHRC are very clear about who they define as refugees...

[azurnoir]

52. No the UN has no seperate agency for the Hmong or Tibetians

However were we discussing the UN?

I was answering this comment "Most of the people who are currently identified as Palestinian refugees are the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of those who were alive in 1948."

The same could said about the 2 other groups I mentioned, however while they are in camps they are treated as refugees, same goes for at least Hmong when they arrive in the US.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

28. If the descendents grew up in camps, and have no legal identity, do you have a problem with that? nt

[LeftishBrit]

40. I do...

but part of the blame lies with those countries who kept them in camps and allowed them no legal identity as citizens.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

42. Which is exactly what Israel did until recently.nt

[LeftishBrit]

45. And so did Lebanon and Jordan.

I don't think ANYONE has treated the Palestinians well. Including Israel, the Arab states, and now their own leadership.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

49. No comparison, much as you like to equalize blame.

Lebanon isn't the source of the Nakba.

[azurnoir]

51. So do you think that Syria

should be held responsible for the 1.5 million Iraqi's made refugees by American and British military actions in Iraq? Don't America and the UK have some obligations here?

Why should countries, especially thrid world that are having developmental problems of their own be forced to take on a refuge population created by another countries war or does this only apply to Israel.

[Boojatta]

55. Ideally there would be some way to hold responsible

people who voted for the administrations responsible for wars. However, that would require eliminating the secret ballot.

[azurnoir]

65. I was thinking more the administration that voted for the war

arguably in 2000 there was no way of knowing that Bush would start a war with Iraq, I say arguably because I felt he would , just one of many many reason I did not vote for him.

[Boojatta]

68. That's a good point about not knowing what someone will do after elected.

That suggests that war should require a referendum.

Regarding refugees, are you suggesting that Israel was the only country involved in wars that Israel was involved in?

[azurnoir]

71. No however

In the case of Israel the expulsion of Palestinians has happened more than just in 1947-1948

http://www.un.org/depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

http://www.forcedmigration.org/guides/fmo043/fmo043-3.htm

http://www.badil.org/Refugees/facts&figures.htm

It also happened again in 1967

[Boojatta]

111. "expulsion of Palestinians has happened more than just in 1947-1948"

If expulsion of Palestinians from Palestine happened in 1947, then why mourn their expulsion on the anniversary of a date in 1948?

[msmcghee]

72. I think that would be very dangerous.

Because of highly inflamed passions "the people" are as likely to not vote to respond when they should in their best interest - as to respond excessively or inappropriately when they shouldn't.

That's why we elect pros hopefully who have experience to handle these things rationally. Unfortunately, we elect idiots these days who can be just as dangerous or more so than an uninformed public. Thanks to a news media that's managed for the bottom line profits of investors we get the "horse race" 24/7 leading up to the election. This is emotionally exciting at some level but completely content-less - like watching American Idol - but very little about the differences and tests of experience of the candidates.

[Boojatta]

74. Okay, how about a judicial process...

to hear evidence relevant to establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the various claims that are the alleged basis for war are true claims? Given that death is an inevitable consequence of war, it seems appropriate to use at least the criminal law standard of proof.

It might be a good idea for the decision to be made by a jury that consists of six actively serving members of the military and six civilians.

[msmcghee]

77. I see your point in trying to make the decision a more . .

. . rational one.

IMO the mistake we made going into Iraq as we did was a mistake in electing GWB to the presidency. He wanted to be a war president and to make his legacy as a fast-responding avenger of 9/11. He surrounded himself with frothing-at-the-mouth war-whores - and fired anyone who wasn't sufficiently on board.

He was elected mostly because of the out-of-control passions the repukes unleashed in their 10 year jihad against Bill and Hillary Clinton that reached a climax as Gore was running for president and that tarnished Gore by association - at least enough so that enough voters were willing to ignore the remarkable accomplishments of the Clinton administration and lynch the Clintons by punishing Gore.

As usual, the MSM made billions by enabling all this highly emotional crap that was going on and they fed into it relentlessly for profit - and also because they want their millionaire incomes only lightly taxed.

I don't think we went to war in Iraq because we have the wrong system - it was because we put the wrong people in office. It's our fault for having an "American Idol" mentality as a society. I think Al Gore is an intelligent person who would have used the best minds to figure out the right thing to do in response to 9/11.

That's just my opinion as I see it now. Always subject to revision if I see better data.

[Boojatta]

79. I still think that a referendum is a good idea, at least in the sense that

a referendum vote against military action should mean that the proposed military action will not occur.

[Boojatta]

87. "I don't think we went to war in Iraq because we have the wrong system"

First, a minor point: there's no shortage of wrong systems, so I think that it's inappropriate to express yourself that way.

I don't see how you can avoid acknowledging that the system is, to some extent, imperfect. The system includes procedures for changing the system. Does the existence of such procedures create an unnecessary risk that a perfect system will be changed into an imperfect system? Or is the risk worth it because there actually do exist imperfections in the system and it is important to allow for admittedly imperfect efforts to address those imperfections?

What you wrote reminds me of some dialog from a movie:

MUFFLEY General Turgidson, I find this very difficult to understand. I was under the impression that I was the only one in authority to order the use of nuclear weapons.

TURGIDSON That's right sir. You are the only person authorized to do so. And although I hate to judge before all the facts are in, it's beginning to look like General Ripper exceeded his authority.

(...)

MUFFLEY (anger rising) General Turgidson, when you instituted the human reliability tests, you assured me there was no possibility of such a thing ever occurring.

TURGIDSON Well I don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip up sir.

[msmcghee]

91. I only gave you my opinion and . .

. . left you with yours. If you want to pursue the question further - of whether we went to war because we have a screwed up system rather than because we had a screwed up person as chief executive - that's OK by me. However, you need to make a case for that.

Saying that my view is inappropriate is not making a case.

Saying whatever you said in that second paragraph - is not making a case.

Saying that I remind you of a character in a movie is not making a case.

There's no such thing as a perfect system and no system will ever exist in that state. However, when looking at what we know about how this decision to attack Iraq was made - I'd say that there's a huge amount of evidence that a person with limited ability, a toxic belief system and a huge ego was at the head of our government wielding his power in corrupt ways. There is no system capable of reacting quickly to world events, however well designed, that can withstand such gross abuse. It seems obvious to me that that is where the fault lies - in an election gone bad on several levels.

But, if you want to believe that somehow with a better system - having a corrupt president surrounded by true-believers carrying irrational ideological agendas - will still produce good decisions in the best interests of our nation and reflective of our liberal democratic values - feel free to show me just how that would work.

[Boojatta]

92. What I called inappropriate was not your view,

but your wording: "the wrong system."

My second paragraph is based on the idea that if there's nothing wrong with a system then it's perfect and if there's something wrong with a system then it's imperfect. If you disagree then I don't understand what you mean by "wrong" and we should probably consider some examples to increase clarity.

The movie dialog was just for innocent fun and if you didn't like it then consider it retracted.

I believe that, under a better system, GWB would not have gotten into the White House. However, under a better system he would have had less power to wage war even if he had gotten into the White House.

You mention a need for the system to allow people who have power to react quickly. What kinds of events are they reacting to? Natural disasters are one thing. Events caused by other powers are something else. If there's a competition for speed at the cost of quality by world leaders who are reacting to each other, then the outcome might be rather unpleasant.

[msmcghee]

96. You seem to be making several points . .

. . that are incidental to your main point which I am no longer sure of. I'd rather not reply to those as I think the discussion would end up with us debating everything imaginable to do with governmental systems - a huge topic. I don't want to dismiss your ideas on this but if it's important to you - could you state it as a single premise and then state the main reason why you believe it is correct? I might even agree with you.

[LeftishBrit]

56. I think that ANY country which ill-treats refugees within its borders is to be blamed...

even if it was not responsible for their becoming refugees in the first place.

And this is an issue which is very applicable to my own country and where I have FREQUENTLY found myself at odds with many of my fellow-citizens. Our tabloid press unfortunately whips up a lot of hatred against asylum-seekers, and has done so for decades.

I could rant for a long time about this, and it's getting a bit off-topic; but I can assure you that far from this being something that I apply only to Israel and the Arab countries, it is one of my strongest political causes at home.

[Vegasaurus]

59. The Arab countries were responsible for making 750,000 refugees

who were the Jews they expelled.

So, not only did they expel an equal number of people, they also have refused citizenship to their Arab brethren.

Whether or not they are responsible for making the Palestnians refugees, they have done absolutely nothing to help, and if anything, have only made matters worse.

Other countries have welcomed refugees.

It serves the authoritarian regimes to keep the Palestinians stateless though , so they will continue to do so.

[eyl]

108. In this case

the refugees were the result of a war that the Arab states (and the Palestinians themselves) had no small part responsibility for (indeed, they initiated the violence in that war) and Israel circa 1949 was not exactly wealthy.

[aranthus]

63. The "creation of Israel" did not cause a single refugee.

The mere creation of the state could not have caused refugees, since that is only the establishment of a government. What caused the refugees was the war over Israel's creation. Trying to blame the refugees on Israel's creation is just a back handed way of saying that Israel shouldn't exist and that the Palestinians had the right to start a war to destroy it. Good luck with that argument.

That's a completely different claim from saying that some of the Palestinians were forcibly evicted by the Israelis during the war. That's a factually true statement. The issue is then what is to be done about the few who were forcibly evicted and who have not yet been let back into Israel, or at least given the option.

But trying to blame all of the current crop of stateless Palestinians on Israel's creation is just a lie, and more anti-Israel propaganda that does not help the Palestinians. The reason is that it might resonate with the anti-Israel crowd in Europe or elsewhere, but it just makes the Israelis continually aware that the Palestinians are more interested in destroying them than in getting a state of their own.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!