Clinton: Israel's demolition of East Jerusalem homes harms peace efforts

[takeo]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1068546.html

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday blasted Israel's plans to demolish Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem as a violation of its international obligations and "unhelpful" to Middle East peace efforts.

"Clearly this kind of activity is unhelpful and not in keeping with the obligations entered into under the 'road map'," Clinton said, referring to the long-stalled peace plan.

"It is an issue that we intend to raise with the government of Israel and the government at the municipal level in Jerusalem," she added at a joint news conference with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Advertisement

Clinton said she planned to take up the issue with the incoming Israeli government, which is expected to take office in the coming weeks.

Israel has in recent days issued orders for the demolition of 80 Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem it says were built illegally.

But Palestinians say they cannot receive proper building permits from Israeli authorities, and the planned demolitions are means to assert Israel's control over the disputed city.

Clinton also displayed strong public support for Abbas. "The Palestinian Authority is the only legitimate government of the Palestinian people," she told the news conference.

A day after pledging the new Obama administration would always protect Israel's security, Clinton delivered a message of support for
Abbas' Palestinian Authority and repeated that the U.S. was committed to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

"We are very committed to your efforts in this leadership of President Abbas," Clinton told Fayyad.

The top U.S. diplomat told her Israeli interlocutors that Israel must meet its commitments to the road map, which mainly involve the freezing of settlement construction. Clinton said that the new administration in Washington will continue supporting Israel and its democratically elected government, but it will not hesitate to express its views.

Clinton said that friends sometimes have differences of opinion and promised to express American opinion with clarity and sincerity.

Prime Minister designate Netanyahu said that, "we have found much common language and we agreed to work in cooperation and coordination in order to advance peace and security in the region."

[takeo]

The United Nations is demanding that Israel freeze all pending demolition orders against Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem.

The orders were issued because the homes were built illegally. But a new report by the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs says that Palestinians face serious obstacles in building legally, as only 13 percent of East Jerusalem is zoned for Palestinian construction, while Jewish "settlements" occupy 35 percent of East Jerusalem, "in violation of international law."

The difficulty of building legally is what leads many Palestinians to build illegally, it said.


The report said the houses of some 60,000 Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem are at risk of being demolished. Moreover, it said, lack of proper planning and investment mean that Palestinian neighborhoods are overcrowded and suffer from inadequate infrastructure.

The situation has become even worse in recent years, because construction of the separation fence led many Palestinians who were living east of the fence to move to East Jerusalem to avoid being cut off from the city.

According to data received from the Jerusalem municipality, the number of Palestinian requests for building permits submitted each year more than doubled, from 2003 to 2007, rising from 138 to 283, the report said.

However, the number of permits granted remained unchanged, at about 100 to 150 per year.

House demolitions are not limited to East Jerusalem, the report noted: Israel destroys hundreds of Palestinian buildings elsewhere in the West Bank every year on the grounds that they were built illegally.

These demolitions take place in what the Oslo Accords term Area C, which is the area where Israel retains full civil as well as military control. Area C covers about 60 percent of the West Bank.

In the first quarter of 2009, the report said, Israel demolished 25 Palestinian buildings, including nine in the E1 corridor between Ma'aleh Adumim and Jerusalem. These resulted in the eviction of 46 people, including 30 children.

Altogether, some 3,000 demolition orders are pending against Palestinian buildings in Area C, the report said. It noted that between 2000 and 2007, Israel's Civil Administration in the West Bank rejected 94 percent of all Palestinian requests for building permits in Area C.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1082149.html

[takeo]

This is pure discrimination. Palestinians can't build legally in Eastern Jerusalem or the Westbank, Israeli can.
At the same time Israel says it is committed to peace and the roadmap to peace, yet Palestinians can't build houses in area which is designated to be part of to the future Palestinian state... also, in many cases, the area of demolished houses is used for building... Israeli houses!
Israel has a double tongue, speaking about peace in public, but secretly continuing the colonisation. This is what both the US and the UN denounce. Let's hope they will act upon it, let it not be empty words in the desert. It should be a condition sine quae non for any peace-talks. If Israel refuses to stop this, there can't be any peace-talks or peace. Because this is also violence against the Palestinian people.

[Marc39]

This is pure discrimination. Palestinians can't build legally in Eastern Jerusalem or the Westbank, Israeli can.
At the same time Israel says it is committed to peace and the roadmap to peace, yet Palestinians can't build houses in area which is designated to be part of to the future Palestinian state... also, in many cases, the area of demolished houses is used for building... Israeli houses!
Israel has a double tongue, speaking about peace in public, but secretly continuing the colonisation. This is what both the US and the UN denounce. Let's hope they will act upon it, let it not be empty words in the desert. It should be a condition sine quae non for any peace-talks. If Israel refuses to stop this, there can't be any peace-talks or peace. Because this is also violence against the Palestinian people.

If the Pal houses were built out of compliance with various codes and, thus, illegally, as Israeli authorities have determined, then, why condemn Israel? Seems to me whenever there is any conflict between Arabs and Jews, the world reflexively assumes Israel is the bad guy. Like with the situation of Highway 443 in the West Bank. Anti-Israeli propaganda would have everyone believe that restrictions of Palestinians to travel on certain sections of 443 is due to arbitrary Israeli discrimination and oppression of Palestinians. Some even call it a Jew-Only road. Wrong. It's an Israeli-only road. Any Israeli, including Muslims, Christians, Druze, anyone. Just Palestinians face constraints on access to 443. And, you know why? Because of Palestinian violence by certain parts of the highway and the Israeli gov't's interest in protecting lives. You hear about the effects of limited access to the highway to Pals, but, not the causes.

[Mediocrates]

Of course Palestinians can build legally. They opt to bypass the city ordinances and code requirements because they are 'special'. I don't care who you are you don't get to slap up random buildings wherever and however it suits you. Yesterday Jerusalem announced it would create 26,000 new permits for Palestinian housing units in East Jerusalem. Given the 'special' nature of Palestinian families such as the fact they destroyed UN provided housing a few years ago because it did not comply with the needs of massive intergenerational Palestinian families, then we can assume the Palestinians will use the permits to build very large homes. If we arbitrarily assign 1 permit = 15 Palestinians then 26,000 permits = 390,000 Palestinians.

And anyway, isn't one of their key complaints that they're 'forced' into tightly packed areas? Adding 390,000 Palestinians or about half again the total population of Jerusalem would appear on its face to pack them in even more. Maybe they'll have to refuse and blame the Jews for it.

[Marc39]

Of course Palestinians can build legally. They opt to bypass the city ordinances and code requirements because they are 'special'. I don't care who you are you don't get to slap up random buildings wherever and however it suits you. Yesterday Jerusalem announced it would create 26,000 new permits for Palestinian housing units in East Jerusalem. Given the 'special' nature of Palestinian families such as the fact they destroyed UN provided housing a few years ago because it did not comply with the needs of massive intergenerational Palestinian families, then we can assume the Palestinians will use the permits to build very large homes. If we arbitrarily assign 1 permit = 15 Palestinians then 26,000 permits = 390,000 Palestinians.

And anyway, isn't one of their key complaints that they're 'forced' into tightly packed areas? Adding 390,000 Palestinians or about half again the total population of Jerusalem would appear on its face to pack them in even more. Maybe they'll have to refuse and blame the Jews for it.

Too bad Palestinian Christians have no real voice to condemn the illegal construction of buildings and houses on Christians' property. The moment a Christian turns his head, some Muslim Pal starts putting up an illegal building...

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/januaryweb-only/103-42.0.html?start=2

[Sharona]

If the Pal houses were built out of compliance with various codes and, thus, illegally, as Israeli authorities have determined, then, why condemn Israel? .


Ain't that the truth!:D

As someone who has been involved in Town Planning, there are so many reasons why compliance is necessary. Most people don't look beyond what they want and see no reason why their building cannot be permitted. It's never, ever out of prejudice or spite - there is always a sound reason.

Even the smallest town in the UK will have dozens of requests per month and many will be refused. It might be connected to existing covenants, use of the building, changes to the character of the landscape, unsafe land, landfill areas, flood plains.....the list is endless.

[bararallu]

I say let them build their shanties. When the cut of comes for water, electricity etc., it will be that much easier to sever. Moreso, when (not if) the next quake hits they will also rue the day. Not to illicit schadenfreude, but.... they made their bed, time to sleep in it.

[Y. Shulamith]

Clinton is delusional; she thinks as as though there were "actual" peace efforts in a realistic way instead of the same nothingness that has been in existence for 60 years; if not way longer than that.

[Sharona]

Clinton is delusional; she thinks as as though there were "actual" peace efforts in a realistic way instead of the same nothingness that has been in existence for 60 years; if not way longer than that.

I admit that I know very little about American politics so I'm not really qualified to discuss them. What I do know is that the political game is much the same the world over - pretty words designed to target specific audiences.

I doubt she's delusional; she's probably playing to the gallery, although I don't know which audience is there right now.

[bararallu]

Clinton is a mere policy executor, she doesn't formulate anything. Any one who yells "foggy bottom" as an excuse for any given administration (the last one, or 20, included) is.. well frankly.... diluting themselves.

[takeo]

If the Pal houses were built out of compliance with various codes and, thus, illegally, as Israeli authorities have determined, then, why condemn Israel? Seems to me whenever there is any conflict between Arabs and Jews, the world reflexively assumes Israel is the bad guy. Like with the situation of Highway 443 in the West Bank. Anti-Israeli propaganda would have everyone believe that restrictions of Palestinians to travel on certain sections of 443 is due to arbitrary Israeli discrimination and oppression of Palestinians. Some even call it a Jew-Only road. Wrong. It's an Israeli-only road. Any Israeli, including Muslims, Christians, Druze, anyone. Just Palestinians face constraints on access to 443. And, you know why? Because of Palestinian violence by certain parts of the highway and the Israeli gov't's interest in protecting lives. You hear about the effects of limited access to the highway to Pals, but, not the causes.

The problem is that autorities generally give their permission to build Israeli houses, but not to build Palestinian homes. Palestinians need new houses because their population is expanding naturally. So their policy is based on discrimination. (not officially, but in reality). That's what is being denounced by both the US and the UN. They see it as part of a plan to change the demographic situation in Eastern Jerusalem and the Westbank.

About the "Jew-only" road. That's indeed wrong, it should be "Israeli-only road". However, the large majority of the population living in the Westbank isn't Israeli, and can't become Israeli even if they would want it. So in reality only a tiny percentage of the population lliving there can use that road, which intersects nevertheless the territory, gardens, villages, etc. of palestinians and cut them off from eachother. Of course it goes without saying that this affects Palestinian economy in an adverse sense. And if this isn't a case of Apartheid, than I don't know what is. (mind you: the south-African regime also frequently cited "security" as a reason to bar blacks from certain places)
If Israel really wants security, it should build a serious well-guarded border between Israel and Palestine and it should end the occupation and accept a two-state solution, in accordance to the wish of the world community. As you said Palestinians are no Israeli, since this is not a part of Israel the large majority of the population isn't Israeli, than Israel should not build roads there and insetad use the money to improve roads, build railways, public transport, etc. in Israel propper. It can use some improvement.



.

[takeo]

Ain't that the truth!:D

As someone who has been involved in Town Planning, there are so many reasons why compliance is necessary. Most people don't look beyond what they want and see no reason why their building cannot be permitted. It's never, ever out of prejudice or spite - there is always a sound reason.

Even the smallest town in the UK will have dozens of requests per month and many will be refused. It might be connected to existing covenants, use of the building, changes to the character of the landscape, unsafe land, landfill areas, flood plains.....the list is endless.

But according to the UN there is a deliberate policy behind it in Eastern Jerusalem and suburbs. Palestinian requests get systematically rejected, while Israeli requests almost never get rejected.
besides not only the UN and the US, but equally Israeli human rights groups are denouncing the policy.

http://www.btselem.org/english/jerusalem/discriminating_policy.asp

The planning policy in East Jerusalem since its annexation in 1967 is affected by political considerations and infected by systematic discrimination against the Palestinians living there. While extensive building and enormous budget allocations have been the rule in Jewish neighborhoods, the Israeli government has choked development and building for the Palestinian population.

In June 1967, Israel annexed 70,500 dunams [4 dunams = 1 acre] of East Jerusalem and the West Bank and incorporated them within Jerusalem’s borders. From this annexed territory, Israel has expropriated about one-third of the annexed territory – 24,000 dunams – most of it privately-owned Arab property. Israel used this expropriated land for residential construction. By the end of 2001, 46,978 housing units had been built for Jews on this land, but not one unit for Palestinians who constitute one-third of the city’s population.

At the same time, Israel choked construction in Palestinian neighborhoods and restricted new construction. Immediately upon annexation of East Jerusalem, and contrary to its actions in the rest of the West Bank, the Jordanian outline plans were nullified, thus creating a planning void that took a long time to fill. In the first decade following annexation, construction was only allowed ad hoc in a few areas in East Jerusalem.
Much land surrounding Palestinian villages and neighborhoods was expropriated to build Jewish neighborhoods, leaving no room for Palestinian construction. The Jerusalem Municipality did not establish outline plans for the Palestinian areas. The few plans that were approved were primarily intended to prevent new construction by declaring broad expanses of land as “green areas,” restricting the building percentages on the lots, and setting narrow borders.

In the early 1980s, the Jerusalem Municipality began to prepare outline plans for all the Palestinian neighborhoods. Most of the plans are complete, and others are in the process of planning and approval. The most conspicuous feature of these outline plans is the vast amount (some 40 percent) of area that is designated as “open landscape areas,” on which building is forbidden. In the plans that were approved prior to the end of 1999, only some 5,100 dunams (constituting 11 percent of the land in East Jerusalem, after the expropriation of 24,000 dunams mentioned above) were available for construction for the Palestinian population. As is the case with the demarcation plans existing in the West Bank, construction is allowed primarily in built-up areas.

The consequences of this policy are evident in Palestinian neighborhoods. For example, at the end of 2002, housing density in Arab neighborhoods was almost twice that of Jewish neighborhoods, 11.9 square meters per person compared to 23.8 square meters per person. The existing situation has forced many Palestinians to build homes without first obtaining a building permit. The Jerusalem Municipality enforces the building laws on Palestinians much more stringently than on the Jewish population, even though the number of violations is much higher in the Jewish neighborhoods.

[takeo]

Too bad Palestinian Christians have no real voice to condemn the illegal construction of buildings and houses on Christians' property. The moment a Christian turns his head, some Muslim Pal starts putting up an illegal building...

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/januaryweb-only/103-42.0.html?start=2

It seems Palestinian christians are as much victim of the Israeli policy as muslims. This is call from the Jerusalem Patriarch (2006) to Israel to spare christian homes and change its policy towards the Palestinians.

http://famvin.org/en/archive/jerusalem-patriarch-begs-israeli-army-to-destroy-churches-before-our-homes

[Mediocrates]

Actually most of the Palestinian Christians have been pogrommed away by Unicorians of Peace of Palestine.

[takeo]

Actually most of the Palestinian Christians have been pogrommed away by Unicorians of Peace of Palestine.

Any links perhaps to sustain that bold claim?

[Mediocrates]

Oh right, I forgot, it's the Jews fault. The Christians are merely being relocated to the east. Do your own googling.

[takeo]

Oh right, I forgot, it's the Jews fault. The Christians are merely being relocated to the east. Do your own googling.

As I suspected, no links...

[Marc39]

Any links perhaps to sustain that bold claim?

I have links to information of oppression and persecution of Christians under Palestinian Muslim control of Gaza and will post later. However, I'm surprised you are unaware of this existing situation.

[Marc39]

It seems Palestinian christians are as much victim of the Israeli policy as muslims. This is call from the Jerusalem Patriarch (2006) to Israel to spare christian homes and change its policy towards the Palestinians.

http://famvin.org/en/archive/jerusalem-patriarch-begs-israeli-army-to-destroy-churches-before-our-homes

Illegally built homes constructed without permits.

[Marc39]

This is pure discrimination. Palestinians can't build legally in Eastern Jerusalem or the Westbank, Israeli can.
At the same time Israel says it is committed to peace and the roadmap to peace, yet Palestinians can't build houses in area which is designated to be part of to the future Palestinian state... also, in many cases, the area of demolished houses is used for building... Israeli houses!
Israel has a double tongue, speaking about peace in public, but secretly continuing the colonisation. This is what both the US and the UN denounce. Let's hope they will act upon it, let it not be empty words in the desert. It should be a condition sine quae non for any peace-talks. If Israel refuses to stop this, there can't be any peace-talks or peace. Because this is also violence against the Palestinian people.

The US and UN denounce terorism, too, so you really cannot talk about Israeli persecution of Pals with a straight face. While Israel talks peace, whether in public or in private, I see no reciprocal conciliatory messages emanating from the Palestinian leadership. Quite the contrary. Abbas just recently made disparaging remarks about Israel being a Jewish state and dismissied any recognition of same. With all due respect, it is the Arab world that needs to overhaul their violent mindset, not Israel.

[Aliyah1995]

As I suspected, no links...


http://www.standwithus.com/pdfs/flyers/ChristiansPersecuted.pdf

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_current_christians.php

Situation in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority
After World War II, Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus, was 80% Christian and Nazareth 60%. Now those percentages are 20% and 30% respectively, and are shrinking. Jerusalem Christians were a plurality in the 1920s; today, they number under 2 percent of the city's population.

Serious violations of religious freedom are reported from within the Palestinian Authority, especially the persecution of Muslims who have converted to Christianity. In the Christian town of Bet Jella, a human rights lawyer reported brutal interrogation methods and arbitrary arrests based on fabricated criminal charges against Muslims who have converted to Christianity and their families. His report includes testimony about torture from victims who were terrified to criticize the Palestinian Authority and their secret police.

In Nazareth, the Christian population has decreased dramatically due to the rise and spread of militant Islam. The Islamic Movement (a radical Muslim group) has demanded the construction of a mosque near the Church of the Annunciation, a mosque even some moderate Muslims oppose. On Easter, 1999, the Muslim group burned Christian stores and targeted Christians over the issue; attempts to intervene were frustrated because Christians are terrified to speak out.

Hundreds of Christian families have left Palestinian towns like Bet Jella and Bethlehem during the al-Aqsa intifada, caught literally in the crossfire between Palestinians and Israelis. On the West Bank, a nearly-permanent Muslim boycott of Christian businesses is achieving its objective: driving the Christians to emigrate.

In October 2000, Christians were attacked in Gaza after a Palestinian Muslim leader called for a "jihad" against both Jews and Christians.

In February 2002 a Muslim mob, including Palestinian Authority Special Forces, burned Christian businesses and attempted to destroy the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches in Ramallah. The attack occurred after a Christian man killed a Muslim while being pursued by a Muslim gang because he refused to pay protection money for safe passage to his home.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=36&x_article=1298

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2067107/posts

But, it's still the Jews fault like always. Like usual, we poisoned the well.

[takeo]

The US and UN denounce terorism, too, so you really cannot talk about Israeli persecution of Pals with a straight face. While Israel talks peace, whether in public or in private, I see no reciprocal conciliatory messages emanating from the Palestinian leadership. Quite the contrary. Abbas just recently made disparaging remarks about Israel being a Jewish state and dismissied any recognition of same. With all due respect, it is the Arab world that needs to overhaul their violent mindset, not Israel.

While Israel is continuing illegal colonisation, Abbas has recognised Israel, denounced terrorism, and has prevented any serious incidents. Even when the war in gaza was raging and many palestinians being killed, the situation on the Westbank remains calm. But I don't think it's going to stay like that forever, if Israel is not willing to end the occupation and colonisation policy, which is also violence against the palestinian people. it seems that in reality, the current government is not prepared to do that or denounce the continuing colonisation.

[takeo]

http://www.standwithus.com/pdfs/flyers/ChristiansPersecuted.pdf

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_current_christians.php



http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=36&x_article=1298

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2067107/posts

But, it's still the Jews fault like always. Like usual, we poisoned the well.


While it's true Palestinian christians are suffering from militant islamist groups, there is no real government discrimination against them in the Westbank. Some groups associated to the PLO and Fatah, consist mostly of christians, E. Said was a christian, Arafat's wife was a christian, etc.

However they are suffering as well from the Israeli policy of colonisation. They suffering that much, that even people within the christian majority in the US, usually supportive of Israel, denounce the Israeli policy against Christian Palestinians.

Last week, another voice snuck into this ideal. Henry Hyde, chairman of the House International Relations Committee, sent a stinging letter to President Bush, criticizing Israel's fence policy, as well as Jewish settlement in east Jerusalem.


Hyde is one of the most senior Republicans in Congress and a staunch supporter of the president. His main concern is certainly not the Palestinians: The main thrust behind his effort is to protect Christian residents. It is worthwhile paying close attention to his words, especially considering the fact that he has a lot of influence in the establishment.


Hyde writes that Israel's actions "go beyond the realm of legitimate security concerns and have negative consequences on communities and lands under their occupation," places such as Bethlehem and Beit Jala. He writes of the difficulties Christian residents have reaching holy sites such as a result of the security fence.


"We fail to understand," he writes, "how the route of the security fence in Jerusalem, which creates an impassible barrier between two regions fundamental to the Christian faith – the birth of Jesus (Bethlehem) and his resurrection (Jerusalem) and imprisons 200,000 Palestinians on the Israeli side will improve Israel's security."


Nor does Hyde limit himself to the security fence. He also talks about accelerated purchases of homes in East Jerusalem by "fundamentalist settlers in East Jerusalem who "intend to establish their own brand of Jewish exclusivity" and have "Messianic aspirations on the Temple Mount."


"The settlements in the barrier completely encircle the Christian triangle of Bethlehem, Beit Jala and Beit Sahour (Shepherds' Field)," he writes.


Hyde's letter is based on reports issued by several American-Catholic groups who have visited Israel in recent years. He is not alone. His letter found its way to influential conservative columnist Robert Novak, who quoted it extensively in his column in the Chicago Sun Tribune over the weekend.


Like Hyde, Novak is a staunch supporter of President Bush. But neither he nor the politicians who made sure he had a copy of Hyde's letter are buying Israel's explanation, as if the justified need for security justifies any and all Israeli crimes.


Bush, whose political standing is at an all-time low, needs his electoral base more now than he ever has. Hyde is Catholic, not evangelical, but he is an inseparable part of this base. He is close to people like him, and his eyes have been opened to the suffering of Christian Arabs. But don't be surprised if his voice changes something about the automatic US support for anything Israel decides with regard to the security fence.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3256347,00.html

[Aliyah1995]

While Israel is continuing illegal colonisation, Abbas has recognised Israel, denounced terrorism, and has prevented any serious incidents. Even when the war in gaza was raging and many palestinians being killed, the situation on the Westbank remains calm. But I don't think it's going to stay like that forever, if Israel is not willing to end the occupation and colonisation policy, which is also violence against the palestinian people. it seems that in reality, the current government is not prepared to do that or denounce the continuing colonisation.

What planet are you from? When has Abbas recognized Israel (i.e. Israel the Jewish State)? And how can building on one's land be considered colonization. Take a hike you Euro-hypocrite!!!!

[Aliyah1995]

While it's true Palestinian christians are suffering from militant islamist groups, there is no real government discrimination against them in the Westbank. Some groups associated to the PLO and Fatah, consist mostly of christians, E. Said was a christian, Arafat's wife was a christian, etc.



Last week, another voice snuck into this ideal. Henry Hyde, chairman of the House International Relations Committee, sent a stinging letter to President Bush, criticizing Israel's fence policy, as well as Jewish settlement in east Jerusalem.


Hyde is one of the most senior Republicans in Congress and a staunch supporter of the president. His main concern is certainly not the Palestinians: The main thrust behind his effort is to protect Christian residents. It is worthwhile paying close attention to his words, especially considering the fact that he has a lot of influence in the establishment.


Hyde writes that Israel's actions "go beyond the realm of legitimate security concerns and have negative consequences on communities and lands under their occupation," places such as Bethlehem and Beit Jala. He writes of the difficulties Christian residents have reaching holy sites such as a result of the security fence.


"We fail to understand," he writes, "how the route of the security fence in Jerusalem, which creates an impassible barrier between two regions fundamental to the Christian faith – the birth of Jesus (Bethlehem) and his resurrection (Jerusalem) and imprisons 200,000 Palestinians on the Israeli side will improve Israel's security."
However they are suffering as well from the Israeli policy of colonisation. They suffering that much, that even people within the christian majority in the US, usually supportive of Israel, denounce the Israeli policy against Christian Palestinians.

Nor does Hyde limit himself to the security fence. He also talks about accelerated purchases of homes in East Jerusalem by "fundamentalist settlers in East Jerusalem who "intend to establish their own brand of Jewish exclusivity" and have "Messianic aspirations on the Temple Mount."


"The settlements in the barrier completely encircle the Christian triangle of Bethlehem, Beit Jala and Beit Sahour (Shepherds' Field)," he writes.


Hyde's letter is based on reports issued by several American-Catholic groups who have visited Israel in recent years. He is not alone. His letter found its way to influential conservative columnist Robert Novak, who quoted it extensively in his column in the Chicago Sun Tribune over the weekend.


Like Hyde, Novak is a staunch supporter of President Bush. But neither he nor the politicians who made sure he had a copy of Hyde's letter are buying Israel's explanation, as if the justified need for security justifies any and all Israeli crimes.


Bush, whose political standing is at an all-time low, needs his electoral base more now than he ever has. Hyde is Catholic, not evangelical, but he is an inseparable part of this base. He is close to people like him, and his eyes have been opened to the suffering of Christian Arabs. But don't be surprised if his voice changes something about the automatic US support for anything Israel decides with regard to the security fence.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3256347,00.html

Anyone who wants to protect Christian residents should be against the "two state solution" and a divided Jerusalem, as I can guarantee where that would lead for Christians. And I ask, once again, how can one be accused of colonizing on one's own land?

[takeo]

What planet are you from? When has Abbas recognized Israel (i.e. Israel the Jewish State)? And how can building on one's land be considered colonization. Take a hike you Euro-hypocrite!!!!

Recognising Israel "as a Jewish state" is a new demand, not included in Annapolis or the road map to peace, a demand which the Israeli government has already dropped, Abbas has recognised Israel and that's enough.
And Westbank, Gaza, East-Jerusalem and Golan are not recognised as parts of Israel, not even by the US or any other country. (unless you have other sources?) Even Israeli leaders such as Olmert have publicly stated that colonisation and occupation should end soon and express their support for a two-state solution, as did every American president. So it's NOT Israel and so yes it's colonisation.

[takeo]

Anyone who wants to protect Christian residents should be against the "two state solution" and a divided Jerusalem, as I can guarantee where that would lead for Christians. And I ask, once again, how can one be accused of colonizing on one's own land?

The christian Palestinians don't want Israeli occupation and suffer as a result of it, they support the two-state solution, as do most of the christian palestinian leaders and church leaders. Most of them support Fatah or the PFLP.

[Mediocrates]

Most of whom? Christian Palestinian population is down about 80% in the last 30 years. Towns like Bethlehem and Nazareth are essentially vacant of Christians. They were driven off by the Palestinian Muslims.

[Marc39]

Palestinians need new houses because their population is expanding naturally.

If the 22 member nations of the Arab League opened their doors to the Pals and granted them citizenship, which they have denied for 60 yrs., then their cramped living conditions would be alleviated. I mean, it's all desert, anyway, what the hell are they saving it for?

So their policy is based on discrimination. (not officially, but in reality). That's what is being denounced by both the US and the UN. They see it as part of a plan to change the demographic situation in Eastern Jerusalem and the Westbank.

Not to be overly simplistic, but, wouldn't it make sense for the Pals to cross over the Jordan River and put down roots there? It's mostly Palestinian, anyway, Jordan is almost 40,000 sq. mi, it's Jew-free and Queen Noor is a hottie. I'm sure there aren't any hard feelings remaining over that whole Black September massacre.

...Of course it goes without saying that this affects Palestinian economy in an adverse sense.

That second intifada affected their economy in an even more adverse sense. The stream of Gaza missiles fired into Israel hasn't delivered positive results for their economy, either, with that Israeli blockade. Do the Pals not see a cause-and-effect to their actions?

And if this isn't a case of Apartheid, than I don't know what is.

And, if you characterize Israel's self-defense policy as apartheid, then you don't know what apartheid is, with all due respect..

(mind you: the south-African regime also frequently cited "security" as a reason to bar blacks from certain places)

The Pals, though, have a patent on suicide bombing. There is no comparing apartheid S. Africa and Israel.

If Israel really wants security, it should build a serious well-guarded border between Israel and Palestine and it should end the occupation and accept a two-state solution, in accordance to the wish of the world community. As you said Palestinians are no Israeli, since this is not a part of Israel the large majority of the population isn't Israeli, than Israel should not build roads there and insetad use the money to improve roads, build railways, public transport, etc. in Israel propper. It can use some improvement.



.

You're either naive or disingenuous in suggesting a link between the so-called occupation and Arab violence directed toward Israelis. In 1948, Israel did not occupy the West Bank, didn't have any blockade on Gaza, yet, the Pals attacked Israel. If you are not aware that the real "occupation" the Pals want ended is the occupation of Israel, then, there's no help for you, with all due respect.

[Yala]

Queen Noor is a hottie.

Ew. She's nasty. Are you sure you aren't thinking about Queen Rania?

[Marc39]

Ew. She's nasty. Are you sure you aren't thinking about Queen Rania?

Noor is pretty fetching...
http://onemonkeyshow.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/queennoor2.jpg

[Yala]

Noor is pretty fetching...
http://onemonkeyshow.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/queennoor2.jpg

That's a retouched picture. Rania, on the other hand, is one of the prettiest women I have ever seen.

[takeo]

Marc39

If the 22 member nations of the Arab League opened their doors to the Pals and granted them citizenship, which they have denied for 60 yrs., then their cramped living conditions would be alleviated. I mean, it's all desert, anyway, what the hell are they saving it for?



Not to be overly simplistic, but, wouldn't it make sense for the Pals to cross over the Jordan River and put down roots there? It's mostly Palestinian, anyway, Jordan is almost 40,000 sq. mi, it's Jew-free and Queen Noor is a hottie. I'm sure there aren't any hard feelings remaining over that whole Black September massacre.

It's the same thing as saying that Israeli Jews can migrate to the US or Canada. It's a nonsensical argument. Palestinians don't want to migrate to another country, neither do most Israeli want to migrate. It's their place, where their parents, great-parents, great-great-parents, etc. lived, and palestinians and israeli have to find a solution acceptable to both peoples.


That second intifada affected their economy in an even more adverse sense.

The second Intifadeh started because Palestinians were already very unhappy with the situation. I was there in 1999, and it was so very clear that something was going to explode: more colonies were build, more roads Palestinians couldn't use intersecting their gardens, villages, etc. They had enough.


The stream of Gaza missiles fired into Israel hasn't delivered positive results for their economy, either, with that Israeli blockade.

The Israeli blockade predates the war in Gaza. Actually it was one of the main reasons for that war.


Do the Pals not see a cause-and-effect to their actions?

Do the Israeli not see a cause-and-effect to their actions? That's a good question as well. It's totally uncomprehensible that the Israeli government is STILL continuing this colonisation and occupation policy, even when everyone knows that it's very costly, can never be satisfying (the large majority in the occupied territory is and remains palestinian), is blocking any peace-initiative, and can cause serious trouble between Israel and its main and most important ally.





And, if you characterize Israel's self-defense policy as apartheid, then you don't know what apartheid is, with all due respect..

I don't think building roads and settlements in occupied territories can be classified as "self-defense"... self-defense means defending Israel, I don't see how building roads and settlements in occcupied territory is helping the security of Israel...



The Pals, though, have a patent on suicide bombing. There is no comparing apartheid S. Africa and Israel.

The blacks in South-Africa resisted as well, and committed murderous acts of resistence against the Apartheid regime. That's why mandela and the others were labelled "terrorists" by the regime.



You're either naive or disingenuous in suggesting a link between the so-called occupation and Arab violence directed toward Israelis. In 1948, Israel did not occupy the West Bank, didn't have any blockade on Gaza, yet, the Pals attacked Israel.

Because they didn't agree to the terms of the UN plan. But that's already 60 years ago. Times have changed. Now Abbas does recognise Israel, and many Arab states have said they will rcognise Israel once the two-state solution becomes reality.



If you are not aware that the real "occupation" the Pals want ended is the occupation of Israel, then, there's no help for you, with all due respect.


Abbas recognised Israel. What palestinians want is their own state. Why should Israel continue to occupy territories where the large majority of the population isn't israeli citizen, an occupation not recognised and condemned by the rest of the world? Why? What's wrong with a two-state solution?

[Aliyah1995]

Recognising Israel "as a Jewish state" is a new demand, not included in Annapolis or the road map to peace, a demand which the Israeli government has already dropped, Abbas has recognised Israel and that's enough.
And Westbank, Gaza, East-Jerusalem and Golan are not recognised as parts of Israel, not even by the US or any other country. (unless you have other sources?) Even Israeli leaders such as Olmert have publicly stated that colonisation and occupation should end soon and express their support for a two-state solution, as did every American president. So it's NOT Israel and so yes it's colonisation.

This is EXACTLY the problem with you and most of the rest of the European hypocrites. You are not for a two state solution for two peoples, but one more Judenrein state for the Arabs (in addition to the 21 that exist) and one "state of all it's citizens" that would effectively be national suicide for Israel. All but the extreme left, self-hating Israelis (many of whom have left Israel, like Ilan Pape) would NOT be naive enough to go for this.

Again, let's get this straight, Judea and Samaria are part and parcel of Israel. It CERTAINLY says so on my teudat zehut (Israeli identity card) that I am an Israeli, as well as on my passport. It is ONLY "colonization" to those of your ilk that want to chop up Israel more and more. Once again, take a hike you Euro-hypocrite!!!!

[Aliyah1995]

Marc39



It's the same thing as saying that Israeli Jews can migrate to the US or Canada. It's a nonsensical argument. Palestinians don't want to migrate to another country, neither do most Israeli want to migrate. It's their place, where their parents, great-parents, great-great-parents, etc. lived, and palestinians and israeli have to find a solution acceptable to both peoples.




The second Intifadeh started because Palestinians were already very unhappy with the situation. I was there in 1999, and it was so very clear that something was going to explode: more colonies were build, more roads Palestinians couldn't use intersecting their gardens, villages, etc. They had enough.




The Israeli blockade predates the war in Gaza. Actually it was one of the main reasons for that war.




Do the Israeli not see a cause-and-effect to their actions? That's a good question as well. It's totally uncomprehensible that the Israeli government is STILL continuing this colonisation and occupation policy, even when everyone knows that it's very costly, can never be satisfying (the large majority in the occupied territory is and remains palestinian), is blocking any peace-initiative, and can cause serious trouble between Israel and its main and most important ally.







I don't think building roads and settlements in occupied territories can be classified as "self-defense"... self-defense means defending Israel, I don't see how building roads and settlements in occcupied territory is helping the security of Israel...





The blacks in South-Africa resisted as well, and committed murderous acts of resistence against the Apartheid regime. That's why mandela and the others were labelled "terrorists" by the regime.





Because they didn't agree to the terms of the UN plan. But that's already 60 years ago. Times have changed. Now Abbas does recognise Israel, and many Arab states have said they will rcognise Israel once the two-state solution becomes reality.






Abbas recognised Israel. What palestinians want is their own state. Why should Israel continue to occupy territories where the large majority of the population isn't israeli citizen, an occupation not recognised and condemned by the rest of the world? Why? What's wrong with a two-state solution?

The difference is that Jews have tried living in the diaspora for 2,000 years and after relying on the goodwill of the Takeo's of this world who started pogroms on us and constantly told us to go back to Israel, THANKS BUT NO THANKS. The Arabs, on the other hand, have 21 countries to go to. That their breathren treat them as chess pieces in their sick game to eliminate Israel is SURELY a sad thing, but that is NOT Israel's fault or responsibility.

Wow, so you were here in 1999. I guess that makes you an expert. Guess what???? In 2000, Ehud Barak offered Arafat just about all of Judea and Samaria and Eastern Jerusalem on a silver platter (just before the second intafada broke out). Why did Arafat refuse?!?! Even some leaders in Fatah accused Arafat of abusing the Palestinians by refusing that offer.

Cause and effect???? How about this. Why were hundreds of Jews slaughtered in Israel and Tel-Aviv/Yaffo in the 1920s? Because of the "occupation" of 1967? Why did the Arab countries open war on the new-born state of Israel in 1948, which would have given the Arabs ("Palestinians") even more land than Barak offered them in 2000 at Tabo? Because of the "occupation" of 1967? Why did the Arabs vow to push the Jews into the sea in 1967, when they still had the lands Israel won back in the six day war? Because of the "occupation".

Abbas does NOT recognize Israel, but a "state of all her citizens" (translation a state to be flood by millions of arabs under the "right of return", which would effectively spell national suicide for Israel) next to a Judenrein "Palestinian" one. Again, most Israelis are not naive and suicidal. What irks me Takeo is not so much your opinions. You have a right to your ignorant, biased opinions against Israel. What irks me is that you think WE are so naive and stupid to believe in this so-called two state solution when a) we have been trying "land for peace" for the last 16 years and have gotten NOTHING but terrorism and b) when the "Saudi Peace Plan", by definition, would spell national suicide for Israel. In short, be as anti-semitic and anti-Israel as you want, but don't take us for fools. MOST Israelis have woken up, as the last election results show.

[Marc39]

It's the same thing as saying that Israeli Jews can migrate to the US or Canada. It's a nonsensical argument. Palestinians don't want to migrate to another country, neither do most Israeli want to migrate. It's their place, where their parents, great-parents, great-great-parents, etc. lived, and palestinians and israeli have to find a solution acceptable to both peoples.

Migrate? They just need to cross a funky little river to get to Jordan. Maybe instead of shooting rockets into Israel, they can attach themselves to the missiles, point them in the direction of Jordan, and blast off. You try to make a case that Pals have an historical connection with Palestine, which is ahistorical Arab propaganda. Palestine was viewed as southern Syria by most Arabs. The Pals do not view Palestine as their ancestral homeland as Jews do. At least, not until Arafat fed them that fairy tale. Palestine was just a plot of land. There is no evidence during 400 years of Ottoman rule of a yearning among Pals for self-determination and independence. Their allegiance was to their tribe or clan, not to any Palestinian nationalistic cause.

The second Intifadeh started because Palestinians were already very unhappy with the situation. I was there in 1999, and it was so very clear that something was going to explode: more colonies were build, more roads Palestinians couldn't use intersecting their gardens, villages, etc. They had enough.

You're enabling bad behavior. I don't care, quite frankly, if the Pals unleash their hostility on themselves and kill one another, I only care that they not harm Jews in Israel. They turn down statehood time and time again, then, they go through their regular anger-ventilation phase, destroy their neighborhoods and blame it on the Israeli occupation. Well, you know what? I'm bored with their tantrums. They don't want to build their state, they only want to destroy another state. They are a bunion on the global derriere.

The Israeli blockade predates the war in Gaza. Actually it was one of the main reasons for that war.

Please, the rockets started in 2001, if not before. The Pals have never given Jews a moment of peace, since they invaded in the 7th century.

Do the Israeli not see a cause-and-effect to their actions? That's a good question as well. It's totally uncomprehensible that the Israeli government is STILL continuing this colonisation and occupation policy, even when everyone knows that it's very costly, can never be satisfying (the large majority in the occupied territory is and remains palestinian), is blocking any peace-initiative, and can cause serious trouble between Israel and its main and most important ally.

The Arabs have 8 million sq. miles of land. Israel, merely 8 thousand sq. miles. Most Arab land is vacant. And, you want me to feel sympathy for the Pals that the evil Jews are "colonizing" and "occupying" them? Who died and made them boss?

I don't think building roads and settlements in occupied territories can be classified as "self-defense"... self-defense means defending Israel, I don't see how building roads and settlements in occcupied territory is helping the security of Israel...

When did the West Bank become official Pal land exclusively?

The blacks in South-Africa resisted as well, and committed murderous acts of resistence against the Apartheid regime. That's why mandela and the others were labelled "terrorists" by the regime.

The S. African blacks were Quakers in comparison to the Pal savages. No other culture teaches their children to blow themselves up and become martyrs. The Arab and Muslim pathology is completely deranged.

Because they didn't agree to the terms of the UN plan. But that's already 60 years ago. Times have changed. Now Abbas does recognise Israel, and many Arab states have said they will rcognise Israel once the two-state solution becomes reality.

Abbas only recognizes Israel to the West. He's duplicitous, like Arafat. Preach conciliation to the Western media, preach "resistance" to the Arab street. Abbas recently ridiculed Israel being a Jewish state and denied it as same with no outrage at all expressed. Can you imagine the world reaction if Netanyahu made light of Gaza not being a Muslim territory?

Abbas recognised Israel. What palestinians want is their own state.

Not judging by the rioting and looting after Israel withdrew from Gaza. Those misfits burned Gaza to the ground, including 400 greenhouses Jewish benefactors paid for. Where were the parades, the fireworks, the hugs and kisses, the dancing tin the streets celebrating the chance to have their own state? And, you want Hamastan expanded to the West Bank?

Why should Israel continue to occupy territories where the large majority of the population isn't israeli citizen, an occupation not recognised and condemned by the rest of the world? Why? What's wrong with a two-state solution?

The rest of the world turned their backs on the Jews in Nazi Germany. They have no business judging Israeli policies. Neither the Geneva Conv. nor the Hague definitions of occupation apply to Israel's presence in the West Bank.

[takeo]

This is EXACTLY the problem with you and most of the rest of the European hypocrites. You are not for a two state solution for two peoples, but one more Judenrein state for the Arabs (in addition to the 21 that exist) and one "state of all it's citizens" that would effectively be national suicide for Israel. All but the extreme left, self-hating Israelis (many of whom have left Israel, like Ilan Pape) would NOT be naive enough to go for this.

Again, let's get this straight, Judea and Samaria are part and parcel of Israel. It CERTAINLY says so on my teudat zehut (Israeli identity card) that I am an Israeli, as well as on my passport. It is ONLY "colonization" to those of your ilk that want to chop up Israel more and more. Once again, take a hike you Euro-hypocrite!!!!

Apparently you belong to the ultra-right Israeli pro-occupation tendency. Both Labor and Kadima have accepted the two-state solution. Do you think they are self-denying Jews? You know we have reached the core of the problem. The main problem is not Hamas, but a part of Israeli politicians refusing to accept a two-state solution, they believe in Greater-Israel (like "GroB Deutschland"), they believe in Drang nach Osten.
"Judea and Samaria" was not a part of Israel when Israel was recognised by the UN in the 40's. It was occupied since 1967, an occupation never recognised by any other country. The US wants a two-state solution.
So I have a few questions for you: 1) What about the 90% palestinians still living in those occupied territories? Shoot them? You don't want to make them Israeli citizens, but you want their land... really, do you think that's realistic? You think they will just leave the land they inhabited for many generations? Do you thinkthat's just and fair?
2) Israel conquered this in 1967, why do you think Israel has the right to keep the territories it conquered in 1967? And do you think Israel can ignore the opinion of the rest of the world and internationa laws?
3) Israel made commitments in Annapolis, Oslo and on other occasions, that it will agree to a two-state solution. Now Israel changes its mind.
4) If Israel doesn't want to end occupation, why should palestinians remain calm? Any people has the right to resist illegal occupation, that's not terrorism but legitimate self-defense, French, Russians etc. had the right to resist nazi-occupation, and so they did, it was not terrorism (despite nazi's calling it terrorism)
5) Why should Israel keep the Westbank and eastern Jerusalem, what's the benefit? what do you think Israel should do with the palestinians living there?

You can say "take a hike" but these questions remain. If you don't want to end colonisation there will be war, and than you don't have to whine that "the world is against us", and "there is no peace in Israel". If you want to continue occupation, that's an act of war. And if you choose for war, there won't be any peace or support for Israel. Nothing to do with antisemitism, but a deliberate choice of you and your government for eternal war. Many Israeli, especially on the left but not only on the left, know that. They don't want the occupation to continue, they don't see the benefit of it. Even Olmert said so.
Anyway Israel can't live without US-support and the US seems more determined than ever to have a two-state solution and end occupation. That's why I think there will be a two-state solution. And if Netanyahu obstructs the whole proces the US will deal with him.

[wat0n]

Apparently you belong to the ultra-right Israeli pro-occupation tendency. Both Labor and Kadima have accepted the two-state solution. Do you think they are self-denying Jews? You know we have reached the core of the problem. The main problem is not Hamas, but a part of Israeli politicians refusing to accept a two-state solution, they believe in Greater-Israel (like "GroB Deutschland"), they believe in Drang nach Osten.
"Judea and Samaria" was not a part of Israel when Israel was recognised by the UN in the 40's. It was occupied since 1967, an occupation never recognised by any other country. The US wants a two-state solution.
So I have a few questions for you: 1) What about the 90% palestinians still living in those occupied territories? Shoot them? You don't want to make them Israeli citizens, but you want their land... really, do you think that's realistic? You think they will just leave the land they inhabited for many generations? Do you thinkthat's just and fair?
2) Israel conquered this in 1967, why do you think Israel has the right to keep the territories it conquered in 1967? And do you think Israel can ignore the opinion of the rest of the world and internationa laws?
3) Israel made commitments in Annapolis, Oslo and on other occasions, that it will agree to a two-state solution. Now Israel changes its mind.
4) If Israel doesn't want to end occupation, why should palestinians remain calm? Any people has the right to resist illegal occupation, that's not terrorism but legitimate self-defense, French, Russians etc. had the right to resist nazi-occupation, and so they did, it was not terrorism (despite nazi's calling it terrorism)
5) Why should Israel keep the Westbank and eastern Jerusalem, what's the benefit? what do you think Israel should do with the palestinians living there?

You can say "take a hike" but these questions remain. If you don't want to end colonisation there will be war, and than you don't have to whine that "the world is against us", and "there is no peace in Israel". If you want to continue occupation, that's an act of war. And if you choose for war, there won't be any peace or support for Israel. Nothing to do with antisemitism, but a deliberate choice of you and your government for eternal war. Many Israeli, especially on the left but not only on the left, know that. They don't want the occupation to continue, they don't see the benefit of it. Even Olmert said so.
Anyway Israel can't live without US-support and the US seems more determined than ever to have a two-state solution and end occupation. That's why I think there will be a two-state solution. And if Netanyahu obstructs the whole proces the US will deal with him.

So you think that if Israel withdraws to the Green Line the conflict will end?

I'd love to be that optimistic...

[takeo]

Marc39

Migrate? They just need to cross a funky little river to get to Jordan. Maybe instead of shooting rockets into Israel, they can attach themselves to the missiles, point them in the direction of Jordan, and blast off.

They won't why should they? If you want etnic cleansing you will have to do it yourself, they won't help you.



You try to make a case that Pals have an historical connection with Palestine, which is ahistorical Arab propaganda.

As I demonstratec above, with plenty of links, Palestinians DO have a historical connection with Palestine. There is not a single serious historian which denies that.



Palestine was viewed as southern Syria by most Arabs. The Pals do not view Palestine as their ancestral homeland as Jews do.

Yes they do, and they live there for many generations.


At least, not until Arafat fed them that fairy tale. Palestine was just a plot of land. There is no evidence during 400 years of Ottoman rule of a yearning among Pals for self-determination and independence. Their allegiance was to their tribe or clan, not to any Palestinian nationalistic cause.

So? During that time there were no nationalistic feelings either among any other people. identifying itself with a nation is a recent phenomenon, as is zionism. What matters is that they lived this land uninterrupted since many centuries. They are as much entitled to this land as Jews are. As long as you don't understand that there can never be peace.


You're enabling bad behavior. I don't care, quite frankly, if the Pals unleash their hostility on themselves and kill one another, I only care that they not harm Jews in Israel.

If Israeli is occupying them, they have the right to defend themselves, as any people on earth.

They turn down statehood time and time again, then, they go through their regular anger-ventilation phase, destroy their neighborhoods and blame it on the Israeli occupation. Well, you know what? I'm bored with their tantrums. They don't want to build their state, they only want to destroy another state. They are a bunion on the global derriere.

They want their own state. That's a wish shared by the US and the rest of the world.

Please, the rockets started in 2001, if not before. The Pals have never given Jews a moment of peace, since they invaded in the 7th century.

First of all, as historic evidence shows, Palestinians live in Palestine even before the Arab invasion. DNA studies show that most palestinians seem to be heirs of the ancient population of palestine, as are Jews. And palestinians have the right to resist occupation and colonisation, which are acts of violence and state-terrorism. Do you think European peoples didn't have the right to resist nazi-occupation?




The Arabs have 8 million sq. miles of land. Israel, merely 8 thousand sq. miles. Most Arab land is vacant. And, you want me to feel sympathy for the Pals that the evil Jews are "colonizing" and "occupying" them? Who died and made them boss?

Palestinians aren't Moroccans or Saudi's. The US is even bigger, and many Jews live there already, more than in Israel. What's your point?

When did the West Bank become official Pal land exclusively?

It wasn't part of Israel before 1967. It is still not a part of Israel according to internaitonal law and instances.




The S. African blacks were Quakers in comparison to the Pal savages. No other culture teaches their children to blow themselves up and become martyrs. The Arab and Muslim pathology is completely deranged.

The SA blacks committed a lot of violent acts as well. Both Palestinians and black SA'ans resisted oppression.



Abbas only recognizes Israel to the West. He's duplicitous, like Arafat.

He's recognised Israel, final point. And there hasn't been any serious violence since a long time in the Westbank, despite the war in Gaza. But if Israel doesn't want a two-state solution or peace, he shoudn't remain calm forever.




Preach conciliation to the Western media, preach "resistance" to the Arab street. Abbas recently ridiculed Israel being a Jewish state and denied it as same with no outrage at all expressed. Can you imagine the world reaction if Netanyahu made light of Gaza not being a Muslim territory?


In Israel there are other minorities living as well. Besides Palestine is not a "muslim state", because christians are living there as well.



Not judging by the rioting and looting after Israel withdrew from Gaza. Those misfits burned Gaza to the ground, including 400 greenhouses Jewish benefactors paid for. Where were the parades, the fireworks, the hugs and kisses, the dancing tin the streets celebrating the chance to have their own state? And, you want Hamastan expanded to the West Bank?

I've been against the unilateral withdrawel sincet he beginning. Sharon should have talked to the PA, but refused to do so. You can't expect to withdraw from some quarter of the occupied territories and ask everyone to accept it. Just suppose Saddam only withdrew from a quarter of Kuweit, do you that would have prevented any war?



The rest of the world turned their backs on the Jews in Nazi Germany.

Actually Nazi-Germany was defeated, millions of people died fighting the nazi's.

[takeo]

They have no business judging Israeli policies. Neither the Geneva Conv. nor the Hague definitions of occupation apply to Israel's presence in the West Bank.

You are wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
There are two disputes regarding the Fourth Geneva Convention: whether the convention applies to the territories in question and whether the Convention forbids the establishment of Israeli settlements. Article 2 concerns the applicability of the Convention whereas article 49 concerns the legality of population transfers. In practice, Israel does not accept that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies de jure, but has stated that on humanitarian issues it will govern itself de facto by its provisions, without specifying which these are.[67][68]


[edit] Article 2
Article 2 extends the Convention to "all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties" and "all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party".[69] Supporters of the legality of the settlements argue that the Convention itself does not apply, as the West Bank and Gaza Strip have never been part of a sovereign state since the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, therefore do not meet the definition of "the territory of a High Contracting Party".[70][71][72][73] This argument was articulated in 1971[74] by Israeli Attorney-General Meir Shamgar[75] (who also created the legal framework of the Israeli military government in the administered territories[76]) and presented by Moshe Dayan in a speech before the 32nd session of the United Nations General Assembly in 1977.[77]

The International Court of Justice, in an advisory (i.e. non-binding) opinion to the UN General Assembly, argued that according to Article 2 of the Convention applies if “there exists an armed conflict” between “two contracting parties”, regardless of the territories status in international law prior to the armed attack. It also argued that "no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal" according to customary international law (and defined by "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations" (General Assembly Resolution 2625).[78]

On 15 July 1999 a conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention met at the United Nations headquarters in Geneva. It ruled that the Convention did apply in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.[79][80] The Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention held in Geneva on December 5, 2001 called upon "the Occupying Power to fully and effectively respect the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to refrain from perpetrating any violation of the Convention." The High Contracting Parties reaffirmed "the illegality of the settlements in the said territories and of the extension thereof."[81]

U.N. Security Council Resolution 446 refers directly to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and specifically insists that Israel desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup.

However, others have objected to the ruling of the conference, which they argue has amended history and been construed only for this specific situation (see excerpt below). Under Article 2, the Convention pertains only to “cases of…occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party” by another such party. The West Bank and Gaza Strip were never the territory of a High Contracting Party; the occupation after 1948 by Jordan and Egypt was illegal and neither country ever had lawful or recognized sovereignty. The last legal sovereignty over the territories was that of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate, which stipulated the right of the Jewish people to settle in the whole of the Mandated territory. According to Article 6 of the Mandate, “close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use” was to be encouraged. Article 25 allowed the League Council to temporarily postpone the Jewish right to settle in what is now Jordan, if conditions were not amenable. Article 80 of the U.N. Charter preserved this Jewish right to settlement by specifying that:

nothing in the [United Nations] Charter shall be construed ... to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples or the terms of existing international instruments.[82]

According to barrister and human rights activist Stephen Bowen, Israel’s argument was rejected by the international community "because the Convention also states that it applies 'in all circumstances' (Article 1), and 'to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict' (Article 2)."[83] Shamgar argues specifically against this point, stating:

[takeo]

There is no rule of international law according to which the Fourth Convention applies in each and every armed conflict whatever the status of the parties.... The whole idea of the restriction of military government powers is based on the assumption that there has been a sovereign who was ousted and that he was a legitimate sovereign. Any other conception would lead to the conclusion, for example, that France should have acted in Alsace-Lorraine according to rule 42-56 of the Hague Rules of 1907, until the signing of a peace treaty.[74]


[edit] Article 49
Article 49 (1) insists that "Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive" and Article 49(6) insists that "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies".[69] According the commentary of Jean Pictet of the International Red Cross, this is intended to prevent the World War II practice of an occupying power transferring "portions of its own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories" which in turn "worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race".[84]

Supporters of the legality of the settlements argue that even if the Convention did apply, it should be read only in the context of World War II forcible migrations at the time. It is only intended to cover forcible transfers and to protect the local population from displacement. They point out Article 49(1) specifically covers "[i]ndividual or mass forcible transfers" whereas the Israelis who live in the settlements have moved there voluntarily, and argue that settlements are not intended to, nor have ever resulted in, the displacement of Palestinians from the area.[70][72][73][85][86] In addition, they state that the Geneva Convention only applies in the absence of an operative peace agreement and between two powers accepting the Convention. Since the Oslo Accords leave the issue of settlements to be negotiated later, proponents of this view argue that the Palestinians accepted the temporary presence of Israeli settlements pending further negotiation, and that there is no basis for declaring them illegal.[70][71][73][86][87][88]

Those who reject that view have a different reading of the article. They note that Pictet's commentary on Article 49(6) states "[t]he paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words "transfer" and "deport" is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power." David Kretzmer, Professor of International Law at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has argued:

As paragraph 1 of Article 49 refers expressly to forcible transfers, it seems fair to conclude that the term "transfer" in paragraph 6 means both forcible and nonforcible transfers. This conclusion would seem to flow from the object of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is to protect civilians in the occupied territory, and not the population of the occupied power. From the point of view of the protected persons, whether the transfer of outsiders into their territory is forcible or not would seem to be irrelevant."[89]

US State Department Legal Advisor, Herbert J. Hansell, in a letter dated 1 April, 1978, has reached the same conclusion, noting that "[p]aragraph 1 of article 49 prohibits "forcible" transfers of protected persons out of the occupied territory; paragraph 6 is not so limited."[56]

He further argued that:

The view has been advanced that a transfer is prohibited under paragraph 6 only to the extent that it involves the displacement of the local population. Although one respected authority, Lauterpacht, evidently took this view, it is otherwise unsupported in the literature, in the rules of international law or in the language and negotiating history of the Convention, and it seems clearly not correct. Displacement of protected persons is dealt with separately in the Convention and paragraph 6 would seem redundant if limited to cases of displacement. Another view of paragraph 6 is that it is directed against mass population transfers such as occurred in World War II for political, racial or colonization ends; but there is no apparent support or reason for limiting its application to such cases.

The latter interpretation was adopted by the International Court of Justice in its 2004 advisory opinion [90], and 150 countries supported a (non-binding) General Assembly resolution demanding Israel to "comply with its legal obligations as mentioned in the advisory opinion".[91]

[Aliyah1995]

Apparently you belong to the ultra-right Israeli pro-occupation tendency. Both Labor and Kadima have accepted the two-state solution. Do you think they are self-denying Jews? You know we have reached the core of the problem. The main problem is not Hamas, but a part of Israeli politicians refusing to accept a two-state solution, they believe in Greater-Israel (like "GroB Deutschland"), they believe in Drang nach Osten.
"Judea and Samaria" was not a part of Israel when Israel was recognised by the UN in the 40's. It was occupied since 1967, an occupation never recognised by any other country. The US wants a two-state solution.
So I have a few questions for you: 1) What about the 90% palestinians still living in those occupied territories? Shoot them? You don't want to make them Israeli citizens, but you want their land... really, do you think that's realistic? You think they will just leave the land they inhabited for many generations? Do you thinkthat's just and fair?
2) Israel conquered this in 1967, why do you think Israel has the right to keep the territories it conquered in 1967? And do you think Israel can ignore the opinion of the rest of the world and internationa laws?
3) Israel made commitments in Annapolis, Oslo and on other occasions, that it will agree to a two-state solution. Now Israel changes its mind.
4) If Israel doesn't want to end occupation, why should palestinians remain calm? Any people has the right to resist illegal occupation, that's not terrorism but legitimate self-defense, French, Russians etc. had the right to resist nazi-occupation, and so they did, it was not terrorism (despite nazi's calling it terrorism)
5) Why should Israel keep the Westbank and eastern Jerusalem, what's the benefit? what do you think Israel should do with the palestinians living there?

You can say "take a hike" but these questions remain. If you don't want to end colonisation there will be war, and than you don't have to whine that "the world is against us", and "there is no peace in Israel". If you want to continue occupation, that's an act of war. And if you choose for war, there won't be any peace or support for Israel. Nothing to do with antisemitism, but a deliberate choice of you and your government for eternal war. Many Israeli, especially on the left but not only on the left, know that. They don't want the occupation to continue, they don't see the benefit of it. Even Olmert said so.
Anyway Israel can't live without US-support and the US seems more determined than ever to have a two-state solution and end occupation. That's why I think there will be a two-state solution. And if Netanyahu obstructs the whole proces the US will deal with him.

Actually, I belong to realistic tendency. Labor took a beating in the last election with their lowest showing ever and Kadima didn't even get 1/4 of the seats, nor succeeded in forming a coalition, hence Netenyahu, NOT Livni became PM. And once again, you are distorting history. Aside from the fact that you are denying Jewish connection with Judea and Samaria that predates any "Palestinian" people, you are also ignoring the fact that Israel won the so-called "occupied territory" in a defensive war and is under no obligation to "give it back". Despite, Moshe Dayan offered to "return" it right after the war for nothing more than guaranteed peace. The arabs rejected it.

1) What about the 90% palestinians still living in those occupied territories? Shoot them? You don't want to make them Israeli citizens, but you want their land... really, do you think that's realistic? You think they will just leave the land they inhabited for many generations? Do you thinkthat's just and fair?

I, as anyone else TRULY concerned about these people, want them moved from the refugee camps they have been kept in by their brethren and the UN (for the sole purpose of having an agenda to chop up Israel in stages and ultimately wipe if off the map) and have them moved to Jordan, Egypt, Syria, etc. with their own brethren and be fully assimilated with their own brethren, just like the Jewish refugees from Europe and the Arab countries were assimilated amongst our brethren in Israel with 1/1000 of the land and resources that the Arabs have.

2) Israel conquered this in 1967, why do you think Israel has the right to keep the territories it conquered in 1967? And do you think Israel can ignore the opinion of the rest of the world and internationa laws?

See what I stated above. Aside from the Jewish historical connection to Judea and Samaria that you and your ilk like to deny, Israel won this land in a defensive war. According to international law, when a country wins territory in a defensive war, it is under NO obligation to give it back. If it decides to for the sake of "peace" that is it's perogative, but Israel is under NO obligation to give up Judea and Samaria.


3) Israel made commitments in Annapolis, Oslo and on other occasions, that it will agree to a two-state solution. Now Israel changes its mind.

Once again, I ask you what planet you have been living on? Like Jimmy Carter, you willfully and spitefully ignore all the times Israel offered the so-called Palestinians just about all of Judea and Samaria and Eastern Jerusalem, yet we got nothing but terror and intafadas. Even those who are in favor of a two-state solution (and by two-state solution, those in favor of it mean one JEWISH state of Israel next to a Palestinian state) are only in favor of it if the missles and other forms of terror stop or at least until there is a serious effort of the leaders to stop it.


4) If Israel doesn't want to end occupation, why should palestinians remain calm? Any people has the right to resist illegal occupation, that's not terrorism but legitimate self-defense, French, Russians etc. had the right to resist nazi-occupation, and so they did, it was not terrorism (despite nazi's calling it terrorism)

As long as the so-called Palestinians are kept in the refugee camps as pawn by their brethren and the UN, of course they should not remain calm. Their anger is just misplaced. They ought to be taking it out on their corrupt leaders, the corrupt UN, and their brethren who refuse to integrate them.


5) Why should Israel keep the Westbank and eastern Jerusalem, what's the benefit? what do you think Israel should do with the palestinians living there?

You keep repeating the same questions in different forms. I think I have answered this question not once, but twice in just this post.

[Marc39]

[edit] Article 49
Article 49 (1) insists that "Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive" and Article 49(6) insists that "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies".[69] According the commentary of Jean Pictet of the International Red Cross, this is intended to prevent the World War II practice of an occupying power transferring "portions of its own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories" which in turn "worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race".[84]

Supporters of the legality of the settlements argue that even if the Convention did apply, it should be read only in the context of World War II forcible migrations at the time. It is only intended to cover forcible transfers and to protect the local population from displacement. They point out Article 49(1) specifically covers "[i]ndividual or mass forcible transfers" whereas the Israelis who live in the settlements have moved there voluntarily, and argue that settlements are not intended to, nor have ever resulted in, the displacement of Palestinians from the area.[70][72][73][85][86] In addition, they state that the Geneva Convention only applies in the absence of an operative peace agreement and between two powers accepting the Convention. Since the Oslo Accords leave the issue of settlements to be negotiated later, proponents of this view argue that the Palestinians accepted the temporary presence of Israeli settlements pending further negotiation, and that there is no basis for declaring them illegal.[70][71][73][86][87][88]

Those who reject that view have a different reading of the article. They note that Pictet's commentary on Article 49(6) states "[t]he paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words "transfer" and "deport" is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power." David Kretzmer, Professor of International Law at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has argued:

As paragraph 1 of Article 49 refers expressly to forcible transfers, it seems fair to conclude that the term "transfer" in paragraph 6 means both forcible and nonforcible transfers. This conclusion would seem to flow from the object of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is to protect civilians in the occupied territory, and not the population of the occupied power. From the point of view of the protected persons, whether the transfer of outsiders into their territory is forcible or not would seem to be irrelevant."[89]

US State Department Legal Advisor, Herbert J. Hansell, in a letter dated 1 April, 1978, has reached the same conclusion, noting that "[p]aragraph 1 of article 49 prohibits "forcible" transfers of protected persons out of the occupied territory; paragraph 6 is not so limited."[56]

He further argued that:

The view has been advanced that a transfer is prohibited under paragraph 6 only to the extent that it involves the displacement of the local population. Although one respected authority, Lauterpacht, evidently took this view, it is otherwise unsupported in the literature, in the rules of international law or in the language and negotiating history of the Convention, and it seems clearly not correct. Displacement of protected persons is dealt with separately in the Convention and paragraph 6 would seem redundant if limited to cases of displacement. Another view of paragraph 6 is that it is directed against mass population transfers such as occurred in World War II for political, racial or colonization ends; but there is no apparent support or reason for limiting its application to such cases.

The latter interpretation was adopted by the International Court of Justice in its 2004 advisory opinion [90], and 150 countries supported a (non-binding) General Assembly resolution demanding Israel to "comply with its legal obligations as mentioned in the advisory opinion".[91]

Thanks for the information on an interesting topic. And, yes, Art.49 of the Fourth GC is ammunition for many anti-settlement propagandists. Only problem: It presupposes an occupation, a military occupation. Not a settlement. Based on GC and Hague definitions of an occupation, the settlements do not qualify, rendering Art. 49 inapplicable. Art. 49's relevance is further invalidated on the basis that Israel is neither deporting nor transfering any population into the WB. Israelis are, in fact, settling of their own accord. The ONLY int'l law directly related to the settlements also happens to fully permit settlement in ALL of Palestine, the Mandate for Palestine.

[takeo]

Thanks for the information on an interesting topic. And, yes, Art.49 of the Fourth GC is ammunition for many anti-settlement propagandists. Only problem: It presupposes an occupation, a military occupation. Not a settlement. Based on GC and Hague definitions of an occupation, the settlements do not qualify, rendering Art. 49 inapplicable. Art. 49's relevance is further invalidated on the basis that Israel is neither deporting nor transfering any population into the WB. Israelis are, in fact, settling of their own accord. The ONLY int'l law directly related to the settlements also happens to fully permit settlement in ALL of Palestine, the Mandate for Palestine.

The Mandate was in force under Brittish rule only. And the Mandate never mentioned an Israeli state but an Israeli home, which is not the same. It also mentions that the Jewish migrants should respect the interests of the aboriginal non-Jewish population.

And as you can read above, most specialists including US officials do think the Geneva conventions forbid transfer of its own population in occupied territories, even non-forcible.
There's also little doubt that the area is occupied. For example resolution 242 calls for Israel to leave the territories occupied in 1967.


As paragraph 1 of Article 49 refers expressly to forcible transfers, it seems fair to conclude that the term "transfer" in paragraph 6 means both forcible and nonforcible transfers. This conclusion would seem to flow from the object of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is to protect civilians in the occupied territory, and not the population of the occupied power. From the point of view of the protected persons, whether the transfer of outsiders into their territory is forcible or not would seem to be irrelevant."[89]

US State Department Legal Advisor, Herbert J. Hansell, in a letter dated 1 April, 1978, has reached the same conclusion, noting that "[p]aragraph 1 of article 49 prohibits "forcible" transfers of protected persons out of the occupied territory; paragraph 6 is not so limited."[56]

And let me ask you again, WHY should Israel colonise these areas? Isn't Israel big enough? Why should Israel get everything and the palestinians nothing? And what are you going to do with the large majority of palestinians living there, if you want to adhere their territory to Israel but not the people living there? And do you agree that, if Israel refuses to accept a two-state solution, Palestinians have the right to resist occupation?

[baggi]

takeo, are you sure you are not hired by iran and there allies?

jerusalem is the capital of israel, not anohter arab state

the arabs lost all these wars, they should bow there heads in shame instead of whineing all the time

[takeo]

takeo, are you sure you are not hired by iran and there allies?

jerusalem is the capital of israel, not anohter arab state

the arabs lost all these wars, they should bow there heads in shame instead of whineing all the time

This is not about Iran. That's certainly not the opinion of the US or any other country, nor does it correspond to international law, UN-resolutions, etc. The US, Denmark, etc. considers that East-Jerusalem is not a part of Israel.
If you don't want to grant them their state and don't want to end occupation, than war is the only option, and you should be honest enough to admit that and stop whining about poor Israel being victim of violence, condemnation and isolation. No land= no peace, that's the deal.

[baggi]

well if it is war israel-vs-pals I will bet on israel ;) why should they give up land to violent people that want to drive israel in to the sea ?

[Sanket]

No land= no peace, that's the deal.

The Palestinians don't have a choice but to stay and fight....;)

[Mediocrates]

The Palestinians have staked out the hill they want to die on.

[Marc39]

The Mandate was in force under Brittish rule only.

True, however, the Mandate for Palestine has been preserved by Art. 80 of the UN Charter.

And the Mandate never mentioned an Israeli state but an Israeli home, which is not the same. It also mentions that the Jewish migrants should respect the interests of the aboriginal non-Jewish population.

True, again. UN Res. 181 provided statehood for Israel. If any non-Jews feel their rights are infringed upon, they can seek redress. What of respecting the rights of Jews in Gaza and the WB? Oh, that's right, no Jews are allowed in Gaza.

And as you can read above, most specialists including US officials do think the Geneva conventions forbid transfer of its own population in occupied territories, even non-forcible.

Forced transfer, no? Many do not. Have you read Eugene Rostow's opinion on the matter? You are cherry-picking those who support your position.

There's also little doubt that the area is occupied. For example resolution 242 calls for Israel to leave the territories occupied in 1967. You must know 242 calls for "some" withdrawal, not totally, but, importantly, as part of a negotiated peace with its neighbors. Last time I checked, the PLO and Hamas still called for the destruction of Israel.

As paragraph 1 of Article 49 refers expressly to forcible transfers, it seems fair to conclude that the term "transfer" in paragraph 6 means both forcible and nonforcible transfers. This conclusion would seem to flow from the object of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is to protect civilians in the occupied territory, and not the population of the occupied power. From the point of view of the protected persons, whether the transfer of outsiders into their territory is forcible or not would seem to be irrelevant."[89]

Isn't Art. 49 predicated on a militay occupation? Is Israel militarily and governmentally contolling the WB? I thought Oslo ceded control of the WB to the PA.

US State Department Legal Advisor, Herbert J. Hansell, in a letter dated 1 April, 1978, has reached the same conclusion, noting that "[p]aragraph 1 of article 49 prohibits "forcible" transfers of protected persons out of the occupied territory; paragraph 6 is not so limited."[56]

Former US State Dep't legal advisor Eugene Rostow, who, by the way, was also Under Secretary of State during the Johnson admin., dean of the Yale Law School, and, perhaps, most importantly, a contributor to the creation of UN Res. 242, which has a direct bearing on the matter, makes a cogent case for the legality of the settlements...

http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/islegal1.shtml

[bararallu]

Marc,

Remember when you just started posting here, I warned you of the provocateur (if not also poseur) cadres that are intellectually dishonest, factually loose, and engaged here just to demonify Israel and Jews who believe that they too can self determine? Well you are now debating with just such an individual. IMHO, I would pay far more attention to it's rhetorical ways than it's factual means. Most people here have given up trying to educate it- since it's about as rewarding as winning at something like this (http://www.miiwiigames.com/whack-a-groundhog.php). Especially since the selective dropping have been so appalling (including subtle justification for genocide, outright racism etc). There is a very worthwhile take away, however, if you stay away from end-game fisking and keep to ad hoc evisceration of method. Otherwise, you will be forced to repeat yourself and use a lot of back quoting to established lies.

Note the overarching methodology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie), note the use of standard logical fallacies, and de rigueur
use of selective quoting, aside from the opportunistic sniping. This is exactly how the Left wins it's battles, in little razzias used to erode the big picture, not to mention causality. That is also why their volume level is set so high, since they can always say that they haven't heard you.

[Marc39]

Marc,

Remember when you just started posting here, I warned you of the provocateur (if not also poseur) cadres that are intellectually dishonest, factually loose, and engaged here just to demonify Israel and Jews who believe that they too can self determine?

IIRC, you were the first provocateur against me, but, that's in the past. Actually, I don't mind opposing POVs as I'm always open to learning, provided its not junk informaton and propaganda. I'm not necessarily accusing anyone here of that, but, I can sort it out. Having been exposed to pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli rhetoric has, in fact, drawn me to the pro-Israeli side, as I have chronicled in a recent thread. And, I agree, at some point, I'll just grow weary of repeating the same line of debate. You've made all good points. Thanks for watching my back.

[takeo]

well if it is war israel-vs-pals I will bet on israel ;) why should they give up land to violent people that want to drive israel in to the sea ?

You can bet on anyone you want, there will be no real winners. Israeli people will die, many young Israeli will have to risk their life, it will negatively affect Israeli economy and safety, more Palestinians will die, and also I don't think the US is going to help Israel concerning Iran if Israel refuses to help them achieve lasting peace in the Middle East. Actually Obama-administration officials said that if Israel wants US cooperation against the Iranian threat (without US cooperation Israel can't do anything) it should cooperate in the palestinian-Israeli peace-proces, which means accepting a two-state solution as an absolute precondition.

[takeo]

The Palestinians don't have a choice but to stay and fight....;)

well, if Israel refuses to end violence against palestinians (= occupation and colonisation) and accept a two-state solution, that's right.

[Aliyah1995]

Takeo-

And let me ask you again, WHY should Israel colonise these areas? Isn't Israel big enough? Why should Israel get everything and the palestinians nothing? And what are you going to do with the large majority of palestinians living there, if you want to adhere their territory to Israel but not the people living there? And do you agree that, if Israel refuses to accept a two-state solution, Palestinians have the right to resist occupation?

For starters, take a look at a map. Takeo, you (and the rest of your have an axe to grind with Israel cohorts) consistently ignore what has been pointed out to you on this thread numerous times. The Arabs were offered more than any "two state solution" would give them right now in 1948. They opened with war and numerous wars ever since. In addition, Israel has made generous offers (despite the fact that it would have meant displacing many loyal citizens of Israel and put Israel's security at grave danger) and we got NOTHING but bombs and missles.

You also (again like the rest of your anti-Israel cohorts) try to play the moral relativity card that falls on it's face like a house of cards. Anyone that has a BASIC knowlege of International Laws of war knows that wantonly aiming at unarmed civilians is a war crime. Suicide bombings on buses and missles aimed at playground is NOT "legitimate resistance" in ANY scenario.

Lastly, Israel won all these "territories" in a defensive war in 1967. An occupier according to International Law when it comes to defining occupation applies to a country that aggressively declares war and conquers land. The land Israel won in the Six Day War does NOT fit under this definition.

If you go to a casino and gamble away 10,000 dollars and lose it, you don't go to the courts and sue the manager of the casino for your money back. You took a chance and you lost. That's life.

Since there is no icon available for beating a dead horse, I will use this one instead:stick:

[Reffo]

Aliyah1995

Great post.

[takeo]

Marc39

True, however, the Mandate for Palestine has been preserved by Art. 80 of the UN Charter.

Says who? The Brittish Mandate of Palestine doesn't exist anymore.

besides the League of Nations never accepted that the whole of Palestine would be turned into a Jewish state:


The Palestine Committee set up by the Foreign Office recommended that the reference to 'the claim' be omitted. The Allies had already noted the historical connection in the Treaty of Sèvres, but they had recognized no legal claim. They felt that whatever might be done for the Jewish people was based entirely on sentimental grounds. Further, they felt that all that was necessary was to make room for Zionists in Palestine, not that they should turn 'it', that is the whole country, into their home. Lord Balfour suggested an alternative which was accepted:

'Whereas recognition has thereby [i.e. by the Treaty of Sèvres] been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine, and to the [sentimental] grounds for reconstituting their National Home in that country ...'[23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan

Nowhere is it said that zionists had the right to establish anywhere in Palestine. Between the end of the '30's and the end of the Brittish mandate the autorities forbade Jewish immigration to Palestine.


Moreover:

From the outset, there were important preliminary legal questions regarding the validity of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the Anglo-French Declaration, the League of Nations British Mandate of Palestine, and the competence of the United Nations or its members to enforce a solution against the wishes of the majority of the indigenous population. The United States Senate had not ratified the Treaty of Versailles, in part, due to reservations about the legitimacy of the League of Nations System of Mandates.[30] The US government subsequently entered into individual treaties to secure legal rights for its citizens, and to protect property rights and businesses interests in the mandates. In the case of the Palestine Mandate Convention, it recited the terms of the League of Nations mandate, and subjected them to eight amendments. One of those precluded any unilateral changes to the terms of the mandate.[31] The United States insisted that the convention say that it 'consents' rather than 'concurs' with the terms of the mandate and declined to mention the Balfour Declaration in the preamble of its portion of the agreement. It did not agree to mutual defense, to provisionally recognize a Jewish State, or to pledge itself to maintain the territorial integrity of the mandate.[32]

And:

Article 26 of the Palestine Mandate provided that:

'The Mandatory agrees that, if any dispute whatever should arise between the Mandatory and another member of the League of Nations relating to the interpretation or the application of the provisions of the mandate, such dispute, if it cannot be settled by negotiation, shall be submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice...'

In an earlier dispute involving the grant of the Rutenberg Concessions, the Permanent Court of Justice had ruled it had jurisdiction over every dispute involving the Palestine Mandate:

'The Court is of opinion that, in cases of doubt, jurisdiction based on an international agreement embraces all disputes referred to it [the Court] after its establishment. In the present case, this interpretation appears to be indicated by the terms of Article 26 itself where it is laid down that "any dispute whatsoever .... which may arise" shall be submitted to the Court.'[36]




True, again. UN Res. 181 provided statehood for Israel. If any non-Jews feel their rights are infringed upon, they can seek redress. What of respecting the rights of Jews in Gaza and the WB? Oh, that's right, no Jews are allowed in Gaza.

The establishment and expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have been described as "having no legal validity" by the UN Security Council in resolutions 446, 452, 465 and 471.


Also, resolution 181 provided statehood for an Arab state in Palestine.


Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in Parts II and III below.

No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State)(4) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be said previous to dispossession.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm


Forced transfer, no? Many do not. Have you read Eugene Rostow's opinion on the matter? You are cherry-picking those who support your position.

There are several UN-resolutions condemning the settlements.

You must know 242 calls for "some" withdrawal, not totally, but, importantly, as part of a negotiated peace with its neighbors.

Actually the word "some" is not mentioned in the resolution. And the interpretation as if "territories" doesn't mean "all" territories is very controversial. Actually when the UN asked Iraq do withdraw from Kouweit, should it have mentioned "all of Kouweit"?
The resolution also highlights the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territories by force...."

The resolution's most important feature is the "land for peace" formula, calling for Israeli withdrawal from "territories" it had occupied in 1967 in exchange for peace with its neighbors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242

Land for peace is the major idea behind this resolution. If Israel refuses to accept a two-state solution and end occupation, neither should Arab states or the Palestinians recognise Israel. But in reality, a few Arab states as well as the Palestinian president have recognised Israel as a sign of goodwill, despite the fact that Israel still didn't end the occupation and there's no agreement to reach "secure and negociated borders" with its neighbours. If Israel is unwilling to end occupation, how can there be "secure and recognised borders"?



Last time I checked, the PLO and Hamas still called for the destruction of Israel.

Last time I checked, Israel is still occupying and colonising and didn't reach secure and recognised borders with its neighbours. Israel is still acquiring territories by force.... Israel also didn't accept to the idea of a two-state solution. Last time I checked, Palestinian president Abbas and his predecessor recognised Israel.







Isn't Art. 49 predicated on a militay occupation? Is Israel militarily and governmentally contolling the WB? I thought Oslo ceded control of the WB to the PA.

Israel is still militarily occupying more than half of the Westbank.



Former US State Dep't legal advisor Eugene Rostow, who, by the way, was also Under Secretary of State during the Johnson admin., dean of the Yale Law School, and, perhaps, most importantly, a contributor to the creation of UN Res. 242, which has a direct bearing on the matter, makes a cogent case for the legality of the settlements...

http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/islegal1.shtml

This is apparently not the opinion of US-governments, which is/were calling for the establishment of a palestinian state in the occupied territories, and didn't veto the many resolutions condamning settlements in the Westbank, Gaza, etc.

[Sanket]

well, if Israel refuses to end violence against palestinians (= occupation and colonisation) and accept a two-state solution, that's right.

The Palestinians don't have a choice....:p

If Israel has to survive Palestinians have to suffer....:p

[takeo]

Takeo-



[QUOTE]For starters, take a look at a map. Takeo, you (and the rest of your have an axe to grind with Israel cohorts) consistently ignore what has been pointed out to you on this thread numerous times. The Arabs were offered more than any "two state solution" would give them right now in 1948. They opened with war and numerous wars ever since.

This war doesn't mean that Israel couldn't or shouldn't return to the conditions of resolution 181. Also, Israeli leaders never made it a secret that the WHOLE of Palestine was their aim.

The principle of partition was placed on the agenda of the Twentieth Zionist Congress. In a 15 July 1937 editorial, David Ben-Gurion implied that partition could never be an acceptable long-term solution: 'The Jewish people have always regarded, and will continue to regard Palestine as a whole, as a single country which is theirs in a national sense and will become theirs once again. No Jew will accept partition as a just and rightful solution.'[7] During the Congress, Ben Gurion supported the proposal to partition Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state.[8] At the same time, he delivered speeches which made it clear that he did not accept partition as a final solution: 'If I had been faced with the question: a Jewish state in the west of the land of Israel in return for giving up on our historical right to the entire land of Israel I would have postponed the establishment of the state. No Jew is entitled to give up the right of the Jewish nation to the land. It is not in the authority of any Jew or of any Jewish body; it is not even in the authority of the entire nation alive today to give up any part of the land'... ...'this is a standing right under all conditions. Even if, at any point, the Jews choose to decline it, they have no right to deprive future generations of it. Our right to the entire land exists and stands for ever.'[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan



In addition, Israel has made generous offers (despite the fact that it would have meant displacing many loyal citizens of Israel and put Israel's security at grave danger) and we got NOTHING but bombs and missles.

Which generous offers? Barak-proposal? You mean Israel continuing to controll external borders of Palestine? What state or people on earth would accept that? Also, there was no just solution for the refugees, as required in many UN-resolutions. Anyway, Arafat was prepared to negociate about that plan, Barak refused, it was "take it or leave it".

Anyway, Abbas firmly stated that he is in favor of negociations and a two-state solution, and there is little if any violence in PA-controlled areas. Still the Israeli government refuses to negociate about that, eventough Israel made this commitment in Annapolis and a various other occasions.


You also (again like the rest of your anti-Israel cohorts) try to play the moral relativity card that falls on it's face like a house of cards. Anyone that has a BASIC knowlege of International Laws of war knows that wantonly aiming at unarmed civilians is a war crime. Suicide bombings on buses and missles aimed at playground is NOT "legitimate resistance" in ANY scenario.

That's right, but attacking occupying IDF soldiers or Israeli government members IS legitimate defense. This is not terrorism. Palestinians have the right to resist illegal occupation of their land.



Lastly, Israel won all these "territories" in a defensive war in 1967.

Who says it was defensive? Israel invaded Egypt first. There is no consensus that it was a defensive war. And even in the case it was a defensive war, acquisition of land by force is forbidden under international law, a principle returning in many un-resolutions, including 242.




An occupier according to International Law when it comes to defining occupation applies to a country that aggressively declares war and conquers land.

No, according to international law acquisition of land by force is always illegal, in any circumstance.



The land Israel won in the Six Day War does NOT fit under this definition.

of course it does, it is even explicitly mentioned in resolution 242. (see above)



If you go to a casino and gamble away 10,000 dollars and lose it, you don't go to the courts and sue the manager of the casino for your money back. You took a chance and you lost. That's life.

International politics is not a casino. There is resolution 242 and others condemning occupation and colonisation.
And you still didn't answer the vital question: 1) Why should Israel keep these territories, what's the benefit? and 2) if you keep them, what are you going to do with the people living there? Making them Israeli citizens or eternally occupy them? (this is a deliberate choice for eternal war and bloodshet)



Since there is no icon available for beating a dead horse, I will use this one instead:stick:

You can laugh all you want, many Israeli, the US government, the UN and the entire world want the occupation to end. Notice that not a single country moved its embassy to Jerusalem, as a protest against the occupation of Eastern Jerusalem. If you choose for eternal war and bloodshet for the sake of the ideological project of Eretz Israel (German translation: GroB Israel) than that's your choice. But than stop whining about violence and "the whole world is against Israel". If you choose for war, war is what you'll get. But I doubt that's the choice of the majority of the Israeli. Already some people inside labour are very uncomfortable with the stance of the government, dissent is growing, which can threaten the government. And the largest party in Knesset is in favor of a two-state solution.

[takeo]

The Palestinians don't have a choice....:p

If Israel has to survive Palestinians have to suffer....:p

that is BS.

[Sanket]

that is BS.

HAMAS Flying JF-17 would be a nightmare to Israel..;)

[Aliyah1995]

Takeo-

This war doesn't mean that Israel couldn't or shouldn't return to the conditions of resolution 181. Also, Israeli leaders never made it a secret that the WHOLE of Palestine was their aim.

The principle of partition was placed on the agenda of the Twentieth Zionist Congress. In a 15 July 1937 editorial, David Ben-Gurion implied that partition could never be an acceptable long-term solution: 'The Jewish people have always regarded, and will continue to regard Palestine as a whole, as a single country which is theirs in a national sense and will become theirs once again. No Jew will accept partition as a just and rightful solution.'[7] During the Congress, Ben Gurion supported the proposal to partition Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state.[8] At the same time, he delivered speeches which made it clear that he did not accept partition as a final solution: 'If I had been faced with the question: a Jewish state in the west of the land of Israel in return for giving up on our historical right to the entire land of Israel I would have postponed the establishment of the state. No Jew is entitled to give up the right of the Jewish nation to the land. It is not in the authority of any Jew or of any Jewish body; it is not even in the authority of the entire nation alive today to give up any part of the land'... ...'this is a standing right under all conditions. Even if, at any point, the Jews choose to decline it, they have no right to deprive future generations of it. Our right to the entire land exists and stands for ever.'[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan

Yet the fact is you can pull out all the quotes you want, but EVERY Israeli leader since 1948 had been willing to compromise, while the Arab leaders continually refused (with the exception of Anwar Sadat) and continually declared war on Israel.

Which generous offers? Barak-proposal? You mean Israel continuing to controll external borders of Palestine? What state or people on earth would accept that? Also, there was no just solution for the refugees, as required in many UN-resolutions. Anyway, Arafat was prepared to negociate about that plan, Barak refused, it was "take it or leave it".

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php

The details were not disclosed formally, but according to media reports Barak's offer included:

Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip
The creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal
The removal of isolated settlements and transfer of the land to Palestinian control
Other Israeli land exchanged for West Bank settlements remaining under Israeli control
Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City
"Religious Sovereignty" over the Temple Mount, replacing Israeli sovereignty in effect since 1967

Anyway, Abbas firmly stated that he is in favor of negociations and a two-state solution, and there is little if any violence in PA-controlled areas. Still the Israeli government refuses to negociate about that, eventough Israel made this commitment in Annapolis and a various other occasions.

Oh really, when did Abbas say he is in favor of a two state solution in Arabic to his cohorts? Please do tell. And, once again, I ask which two states are we talking about? If you mean one state "of all it's citizens" next to a Judenrein Palestinian state, then try again. Unacceptable to even most dovish Israelis.

That's right, but attacking occupying IDF soldiers or Israeli government members IS legitimate defense. This is not terrorism. Palestinians have the right to resist illegal occupation of their land.

Well the last time I looked the missles from Gaza were NOT aimed at military bases, but playgrounds, schools, synagogues, hospitals, factories, etc. Nor are the bulldozers aimed at soldiers, but at buses, cars with women with infants, unarmed civilians walking on the sidewalk, etc. And, in case you have been living in a cave for the last four years, Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, yet the missles not only kept coming, but increased, both in quantity and quality. What is YOUR excuse for that. And, by your logic, if government leaders are fair game, then you are opening up a can of worms for government leaders all over the world. A Mexican in Texas who feels like Texas really belongs to Mexico can assassinate the Texas governor as "legitimate self-defense". At any rate, Israel is not occupying any land. Israel won it fair and square in a defensive war.


Who says it was defensive? Israel invaded Egypt first. There is no consensus that it was a defensive war. And even in the case it was a defensive war, acquisition of land by force is forbidden under international law, a principle returning in many un-resolutions, including 242.

Most reputable historians agree that it was a defensive war:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/8397

In Defence of the Six Day War
by Mustafa Latif-Aramesh

Preemption is within the law.


It isn’t enough to read a United Nations General Assembly resolution and to conclude that Israel is an aggressor. It also isn’t enough to read an article on Wikipedia. What a person must do is look under every stone and realise the dirt that lies beneath. The Six Day War, a war which unarguably set the agenda of Israel’s future borders, is
We have seen the consequences of not preempting in 1973.
often used as example of Israel breaking international law, but this is truly a farce. [snip]

Also,

Anti-Israelis would then point to United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which states the “inadmissibility
Nasser and his allies, of course, didn’t just talk, they acted.
of the acquisition of territory by war.” But this is in reference to a offensive war. As the former International Court of Justice Judge Stephen Schwebel notes, there is a difference “between aggressive conquest and defensive conquest, between the taking of territory legally held and the taking of territory illegally held.” [snip]

Takeo-

An occupier according to International Law when it comes to defining occupation applies to a country that aggressively declares war and conquers land.

Which, as show above, does NOT apply to Israel.

International politics is not a casino. There is resolution 242 and others condemning occupation and colonisation.
And you still didn't answer the vital question: 1) Why should Israel keep these territories, what's the benefit? and 2) if you keep them, what are you going to do with the people living there? Making them Israeli citizens or eternally occupy them? (this is a deliberate choice for eternal war and bloodshet)

Re-read 242 because I don't think you REALLY understand it. Anyway 1) Because they are NOT "territories", but Judea and Samaria (part and parcel of Israel) 2) The ONLY sane choice (all others, "two state solution" and otherwise will only guarantee continued bloodshed) is to take down the refugee camps and integrate them into Jordan (which is 80% "Palestinian"), Egypt, Syria, etc. Any other solution will GUARANTEE continued bloodshed.

You can laugh all you want, many Israeli, the US government, the UN and the entire world want the occupation to end. Notice that not a single country moved its embassy to Jerusalem, as a protest against the occupation of Eastern Jerusalem. If you choose for eternal war and bloodshet for the sake of the ideological project of Eretz Israel (German translation: GroB Israel) than that's your choice. But than stop whining about violence and "the whole world is against Israel". If you choose for war, war is what you'll get. But I doubt that's the choice of the majority of the Israeli. Already some people inside labour are very uncomfortable with the stance of the government, dissent is growing, which can threaten the government. And the largest party in Knesset is in favor of a two-state solution.

The solution of making Jordan the "Palestinian" State is gaining popularity all the time. Moshe Feiglin, a proponent of it, won the 20th spot in the Likud primaries and Benny Elon has traveled to the States and introduced it to several member of congress who agreed that it was the best, most realistic solution. A "two state" solution will only lead to more bloodshed for both sides.

[takeo]

Aliya



Yet the fact is you can pull out all the quotes you want, but EVERY Israeli leader since 1948 had been willing to compromise, while the Arab leaders continually refused (with the exception of Anwar Sadat) and continually declared war on Israel.

Really? I already quoted Ben Gurion, who wanted ALL of Palestine. Then there's Netanyahu refusing a two-state solution, Shamir, etc.
On the other hand there's the Saudi peace plan, Syria offering the recognise Israel in return for Golan, Jordan which recognised Israel, Arafat and Abbas recognising Israe, etc.



Oh really, when did Abbas say he is in favor of a two state solution in Arabic to his cohorts? Please do tell. And, once again, I ask which two states are we talking about? If you mean one state "of all it's citizens" next to a Judenrein Palestinian state, then try again. Unacceptable to even most dovish Israelis.

He said it on many occasions, he officially recognised Israel and most recently told Hamas to do the same if they want to enter in a government of national unity. Abbas, as Arafat, have already said they want to compromise on the "right of return", taking Israeli demographic considerations into account. So clearly they don't want 2 palestinian states, but one palestinian and one mostly Jewish state. Settlers can't remain since they have been illegal settlers, none of them were there before 1967.
But do you really care or just mention this for the sake of the argument? Because apparently you don't want a palestinian state, under any circumstance, you want Eretz Israel. So, considering these facts, it is not exaggerated to say that you don't want peace. Because you can't honestly expect that anyone would accept their own ethnic cleansing as a reasonable solution and just let them be carried away from the are where they lived for many generations.










Well the last time I looked the missles from Gaza were NOT aimed at military bases, but playgrounds, schools, synagogues, hospitals, factories, etc. Nor are the bulldozers aimed at soldiers, but at buses, cars with women with infants, unarmed civilians walking on the sidewalk, etc.

palestinians are no military match for Israel, that's why some people take resort to desperate actions. I don't support that, and I think it damages the palestinian image. (as, of course, deliberate Israeli bombing in Gaza damaged the Israeli image). but you still didn't answer my question, are attacks on IDF in occupied territory legitimate acts of self-defense?





And, in case you have been living in a cave for the last four years, Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, yet the missles not only kept coming, but increased, both in quantity and quality. What is YOUR excuse for that.

You can check on this forum that I didn't believe unilateral withdrawel was a good idea, it left a power vacuum in Gaza. Perhaps that was the goal... also you can not expect peace because you withdraw from only one part of the occupied territories, and without peace negociations, Palestine without WB and Eastern Jerusalem is not acceptable to anyone. Also, there was a truce for months with Hamas but Israel bombed some defense positions of Hamas and refused to end the blockade, etc. So the lesson from this is that any withdrawel should happen as part of a general peace-agreement, with clear conditions. As Obama said there can only be peace after a general peace-agreement, implicated as soon as possible. This means that Israel has to abandon the colonisation project, and Netanyahu doesn't want that.






And, by your logic, if government leaders are fair game, then you are opening up a can of worms for government leaders all over the world. A Mexican in Texas who feels like Texas really belongs to Mexico can assassinate the Texas governor as "legitimate self-defense".

No, the US is not occupying any part of Mexico. The border changes have been agreed upon by most sides and the entire international comminuty long ago.


At any rate, Israel is not occupying any land. Israel won it fair and square in a defensive war.

That's clearly not the opinion of the international community, the US, and even a large share of Israeli public opinion. This isn't some kind of casino game, 100's of 1000's people live there, you don't want to make them Israeli citizen nor do they want that. They are never going to accept israeli occupation. So what are you going to do with them? (the options are eternal war, genocide or ethnic cleansing)
Of course there's still the solution preferred by the US, the palestinians and the rest of the world: the two-state solution. The mantra was always for years that Israel wanted that, and Israel officially commited itself to that commitment, but that it couldn't materialise "because of the palestinians obstructing". Now it's clear who's obstructing any talks about two-state solution, doesn't even want to talk about that: Hamas AND Israel both refuse to recognise the other side.







Most reputable historians agree that it was a defensive war:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/8397

You mean most ideological historians...



Which, as show above, does NOT apply to Israel.

Why not?


Re-read 242 because I don't think you REALLY understand it.

I read it many times and I don't think you understand it. It says that you can't take lands by violence, it said Israel should withdraw from territory occupied since 1967, etc.


Anyway 1) Because they are NOT "territories", but Judea and Samaria (part and parcel of Israel)

They are not, according to international law new borders are only legal if they are recognised by a substantial number of countries, which is clearly not the case. Even the US embassy refuses to move its seat to Jerusalem, in protest to the Israeli occupation of East-Jerusalem. Apart from that the overwelming majority of the inhabitants don't call it "Judea and Samaria" and are not Israeli citizens. If you want to keep these illegally occupied territories (for whatever obscure reason) there can't be peace. (about what are you going to talk?) In that case there will be war, and Israel will continue to be isolated. The US already said that it should cooperate if they want their cooperation against Iran. On the long run an isolated Israel at war with most neighbours is not good for Israel and even dangerous. Do you really believe the Westbank, Gaza and Eastern Jerusalem are worth it?






2) The ONLY sane choice (all others, "two state solution" and otherwise will only guarantee continued bloodshed) is to take down the refugee camps and integrate them into Jordan (which is 80% "Palestinian"), Egypt, Syria, etc. Any other solution will GUARANTEE continued bloodshed.

What you mean is ethnic cleansing right? Let's see what the public opinion in the US or president Obama would think of that... not to mention the palestinians themselves. What if they don't want to move and Jordan, etc. doesn't want them(what's very very likely)? Shoot them? Do you honestly believe this is a realistic, acceptable solution in the 21th century?


The solution of making Jordan the "Palestinian" State is gaining popularity all the time. Moshe Feiglin, a proponent of it, won the 20th spot in the Likud primaries and Benny Elon has traveled to the States and introduced it to several member of congress who agreed that it was the best, most realistic solution. A "two state" solution will only lead to more bloodshed for both sides.

Fortunately ethnic cleansing is not accepted by the large majority of US congressmen nor by the majority in the Israeli Knesset. Most don't consider it to be acceptable, contrary to their western values. But the fact alone that some in the pro-occupation movement consider this as a realistic serious option is chilling and demonstrates how radical and dangerous they actually are.

[Reffo]

I read it many times [Resolution 242] and I don't think you understand it. It says that you can't take lands by violence, it said Israel should withdraw from territory occupied since 1967, etc.No, you don't want to acknoledge what Resolution 242 R-E-A-L-L-Y says, it says:
Withdraw to recognized secure borders
In other words, negotiate the borders and T-H-E-N to withdraw, NOT before, NOT unilaterally.

Now I ask you: Have they had a negotiated outcome yet? No? See, that's why Israel has NOT withdrawn yet...

[takeo]

No, you don't want to acknoledge what Resolution 242 R-E-A-L-L-Y says, it says:
Withdraw to recognized secure borders
In other words, negotiate the borders and T-H-E-N to withdraw, NOT before, NOT unilaterally.

Now I ask you: Have they had a negotiated outcome yet? No? See, that's why Israel has NOT withdrawn yet...

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;


A just and lasting peace indeed, withdrawel of Israeli armed forces and recognised borders. How will that happen if Netanyahu refuses to accept an end to occupation?

further it says:
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

No Israeli leaders are prepared to discuss about that.

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

Israel is not prepared to establish demilitarised zones.

Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

Many on this forum don't seem to accept UN "meddling" in the conflict.

If you look at the resolution, the Netanyahu refusal to end occupation and withdraw within negociated secure and recognised borders, is very much in violation of this resolution.

Furthermore there's also resolution 181, the one which recognised Israel; which also recognises the right of an Arab state in Palestine.

[Reffo]

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;(i) is to happen only after (ii) .... has (ii) happened? Answer: No, therefore (i) can't happen yet either .... whose fault is that?

[Mediocrates]

He's looking for Jew Free Palestine. Ethnic cleansing is good when it happens to Jews. This is standard Marxist Leninist dogma.

[takeo]

(i) is to happen only after (ii) .... has (ii) happened? Answer: No, therefore (i) can't happen yet either .... whose fault is that?

It didn't say I is a condition of 2. It says both are conditions. Abbas recognised Israel and is ready to garantee its security as part of the general two-state solution. Abbas is ready to fulfill both conditions. But but current Israeli government is not ready to fullfill condition 1.

[takeo]

He's looking for Jew Free Palestine. Ethnic cleansing is good when it happens to Jews. This is standard Marxist Leninist dogma.

Spreading ignorant blatant lies is your speciality.
It is most certainly not standard Marxist Leninist dogma. Marx is a Jew, and the Soviet-Union was among the first countries to recognise Israel.
I always said I'm for a two state solution, and that I support the policy of your president in this issue. You are not, you are in favor of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

[Mediocrates]

No you are wrong as always. I think this sums it up rather well.

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/05/12/karl-marx-radical-antisemitism/

[Reffo]

It didn't say I is a condition of 2. Yes it does. If it wouldn't, then Israel would have had to withdraw unconditionally. Is that your interpretation of resolution 242?

It says both are conditions.Yes, BOTH have to be met not one without the other...

Abbas recognised IsraelBut he refuses recognize Israel as the state for the Jewish people (nation).

and is ready to garantee its security as part of the general two-state solution. Abbas is ready to fulfill both conditions. But but current Israeli government is not ready to fullfill condition 1.Abbas obviously did not offer sufficient security guarantees (for example he insisted on the right of return which is a major security threat for Israel). The previous Israeli government WAS prepared to agree to condition 1 but they could not convince Abbas to compromise.

[takeo]

Reffo

Yes it does. If it wouldn't, then Israel would have had to withdraw unconditionally. Is that your interpretation of resolution 242?

No, at nauseam, all conditions have to be fullfileld at the same time.

Yes, BOTH have to be met not one without the other...

That's right. Netanyahu doesn't want to fullfill one of the conditions.


But he refuses recognize Israel as the state for the Jewish people (nation).

I didn't see that condition anywhere in the resolution, nor was it a condition in Annapolis, in the road map to peace, etc.
However, a just settlement for the refugees IS one of the conditions set in the resolution, as is an end to the occupation. Netanyahu is not prepared to discuss about any of those conditions.




Abbas obviously did not offer sufficient security guarantees (for example he insisted on the right of return which is a major security threat for Israel).

He only said he wanted a just settlement for the refugee problem, which is one of the conditions in the UN resolution. He said he recognised Israel and is prepared to garantee its security, once the borders between Israel and palestine are established. Netanyahu doesn't want secure and recognised borders, he wants to continue the occupation.


The previous Israeli government WAS prepared to prepare condition 1 but they could not convince Abbas to compromise.


What more should Abbas do? He recognised Israel, stopped the violence against Israel in the territories under his control. He will not end his demand that there should be a just solution for the refugee problem, as this is one of the conditions of the UN resolution. The previous government indeed was prepared to have a two-state solution, and peace-negociations were started, after a lot of US-pressure. However if the new government refuses to accept one basic principle Israel agreed upon before and withdraws its former commitments, there can never be peace. Now it's obviously clear who's blocking peace, and the US has made that clear as well.

[Rob]

Already read it 200x time Takeo:

He only said he wanted a just settlement for the refugee problem, which is one of the conditions in the UN resolution. He said he recognised Israel and is prepared to garantee its security, once the borders between Israel and palestine are established. Netanyahu doesn't want secure and recognised borders, he wants to continue the occupation.

What more should Abbas do? He recognised Israel, stopped the violence against Israel in the territories under his control. He will not end his demand that there should be a just solution for the refugee problem, as this is one of the conditions of the UN resolution. The previous government indeed was prepared to have a two-state solution, and peace-negociations were started, after a lot of US-pressure. However if the new government refuses to accept one basic principle Israel agreed upon before and withdraws its former commitments, there can never be peace. Now it's obviously clear who's blocking peace, and the US has made that clear as well.

He only said he wanted a just settlement for the refugee problem, which is one of the conditions in the UN resolution. He said he recognised Israel and is prepared to garantee its security, once the borders between Israel and palestine are established. Netanyahu doesn't want secure and recognised borders, he wants to continue the occupation.

What more should Abbas do? He recognised Israel, stopped the violence against Israel in the territories under his control. He will not end his demand that there should be a just solution for the refugee problem, as this is one of the conditions of the UN resolution. The previous government indeed was prepared to have a two-state solution, and peace-negociations were started, after a lot of US-pressure. However if the new government refuses to accept one basic principle Israel agreed upon before and withdraws its former commitments, there can never be peace. Now it's obviously clear who's blocking peace, and the US has made that clear as well.

He only said he wanted a just settlement for the refugee problem, which is one of the conditions in the UN resolution. He said he recognised Israel and is prepared to garantee its security, once the borders between Israel and palestine are established. Netanyahu doesn't want secure and recognised borders, he wants to continue the occupation.

What more should Abbas do? He recognised Israel, stopped the violence against Israel in the territories under his control. He will not end his demand that there should be a just solution for the refugee problem, as this is one of the conditions of the UN resolution. The previous government indeed was prepared to have a two-state solution, and peace-negociations were started, after a lot of US-pressure. However if the new government refuses to accept one basic principle Israel agreed upon before and withdraws its former commitments, there can never be peace. Now it's obviously clear who's blocking peace, and the US has made that clear as well.

He only said he wanted a just settlement for the refugee problem, which is one of the conditions in the UN resolution. He said he recognised Israel and is prepared to garantee its security, once the borders between Israel and palestine are established. Netanyahu doesn't want secure and recognised borders, he wants to continue the occupation.

What more should Abbas do? He recognised Israel, stopped the violence against Israel in the territories under his control. He will not end his demand that there should be a just solution for the refugee problem, as this is one of the conditions of the UN resolution. The previous government indeed was prepared to have a two-state solution, and peace-negociations were started, after a lot of US-pressure. However if the new government refuses to accept one basic principle Israel agreed upon before and withdraws its former commitments, there can never be peace. Now it's obviously clear who's blocking peace, and the US has made that clear as well.

[Reffo]

No, at nauseam, all conditions have to be fullfileld at the same time.We have covered this before too you fool.

At the same time? How long do you think it would take for Israel to withdraw? 5 seconds? No, I'll tell you: The logistics are such that it would take weeks to months. And the other question is withdraw to what borders? Surely that is a negotiation in itself, to determine what are secure borders that both parties would be prepared to recognize.

So tell me then, how can conditions 1 and 2 be carried out at the same time? Surely they have to agree on condition 2 first and then carry out condition 1?

I can't wait for your next inane response...

[Reffo]

That's right. Netanyahu doesn't want to fullfill one of the conditions.Hamas doesn't want to fulfill any conditions. And we don't yet know what Netanyahu will actually do, he just assumed power.

I didn't see that condition anywhere in the resolutionThe creation of the Jewish state was clearly mentioned in UN resolution 181. The Palestinians rejected that in 1948 so now they clearly have to repudiate that rejection ... (more repetition forced by Takeo)

He only said he wanted a just settlement for the refugee problemBut he clearly did not and enunciate specifically what that means, is he coy or something? ...(more repetition forced by Takeo)

What more should Abbas do?Read what I said above..

[takeo]

Reffo

Hamas doesn't want to fulfill any conditions.

That's one of the problems. But again, Israel is negociating with Abbas, not with hamas.


And we don't yet know what Netanyahu will actually do, he just assumed power.

He clearly stated that a two-state solution is not an option. Perhaps the US can force his hand, but anyway that's not what his government wants.




The creation of the Jewish state was clearly mentioned in UN resolution 181. The Palestinians rejected that in 1948 so now they clearly have to repudiate that rejection ... (more repetition forced by Takeo)

They did, they recognised Israel, but Israel didn't recognise the right of Palestinian Arabs to have their own state, which is also clearly mentioned in 181.

[Reffo]

That's one of the problems. But again, Israel is negociating with Abbas, not with hamas. And Abbas cannot deliver peace (assuming he really wants to) without Hamas. Look how easily Hamas dislodged Fatah in Gaza.

He clearly stated that a two-state solution is not an option. Perhaps the US can force his hand, but anyway that's not what his government wants.So what? He has changed his mind before for example with the wye river accord..

They did, they recognised IsraelNo, Abbas clearly stated that he won't recognize Israel as the state for the Jewish people which is what UN resolution 181 clearly stated.

So what does that mean in your opinion? That he recognizes Israel as another Arab state to be? Obviously that's what it means..

[takeo]

Reffo

And Abbas cannot deliver peace (assuming he really wants to) without Hamas. Look how easily Hamas dislodged Fatah in Gaza.

You can't deny the fact that Israel and the us insisted on new elections in palestine, if you want I can give links. Also, the PA is not a real state, if it was a real state with a real army, things would have been veru different.



So what? He has changed his mind before for example with the wye river accord..

You think you can just ignore former international commitments?


No, Abbas clearly stated that he won't recognize Israel as the state for the Jewish people which is what UN resolution 181 clearly stated.

Resolution 181 also clearly stated that Israel should recognise an Arab state in palestine and also defined the borders of that.




So what does that mean in your opinion? That he recognizes Israel as another Arab state to be? Obviously that's what it means..

nonsense, he already said that he wants to take Israel's demographic concerns into consideration, but he also says it's none of his business how Israel should call itself, "It is not my job to give a description of the state. Name yourself the Hebrew Socialist Republic -- it is none of my business."

[Reffo]

Moderators

The above post is an example of Takeo's trolling. He puts words in my mouth that I never uttered. Either he is a king size fool or he is a troll who comes to this forum purely to amuse himself by baiting and annoying others... My bet is the second option.

I leave it in your hands...

[Mediocrates]

It's irrelevant what Abbas says he's willing to accept. For several reasons

History is passing him by. He will not survive another election w/o resorting to the same kind of overt fascist street violence Hamas employs. This will not gain him any advantage in the west. Whatever replaces him will be either another useless empty suit or Hamas or complete anarchy. After 2 generations of screaming at the unwashed in the streets "Death or Glory! And by Death I mean Death to the Jews!" The Palestinians aren't willing to settle for much less than that. At least from an electoral perspective. They won't re elect anyone who doesn't demand extermination (in Arabic).

He doesn't speak for all or even most Palestinians. Gaza is run under the fascist boot of Hamas. That's probably a tad under 1 million Palestinians who don't support anything to do with the PLO and its rampant corruption that's a matter of record.

As money flows into the West Bank, into places like Ramallah, the people there won't care as much as to who their corrupt crony criminal leaders are as long as they don't steal it all. Ramallah by all accounts is developing into a fairly modern vibrant town. Soon Per capital GDP-PPP will meet pre intifada levels. Once their standard of living improves suffiiciently then electoral results will be as irrelevant there as they are anywhere and everywhere else across the Arab world.

Not even Abbas can make any use of Israeli bedroom communities around Jerusalem (where most of the Jews in the West Bank are) which are economically tied to Israeli Jerusalem. They would just become festering squalorous neighborhoods full of exactly the same sized homes they already rejected and destroyed after the UN built them, for free, for them a few years ago. The Palestinians, if history is any guide, would just burn them down and leave the garbage. I doubt even Abbas wants hectares and hectares of torched lunar rubble. Remember, it would be THEIR country at that point.

[takeo]

Moderators

The above post is an example of Takeo's trolling. He puts words in my mouth that I never uttered. Either he is a king size fool or he is a troll who comes to this forum purely to amuse himself by baiting and annoying others... My bet is the second option.

I leave it in your hands...

which words?

[Reffo]

I was not addressing that post to you Takeo. I am through debating with you on your terms. From now on it will be on my terms....

[Aliyah1995]

Really? I already quoted Ben Gurion, who wanted ALL of Palestine. Then there's Netanyahu refusing a two-state solution, Shamir, etc.
On the other hand there's the Saudi peace plan, Syria offering the recognise Israel in return for Golan, Jordan which recognised Israel, Arafat and Abbas recognising Israe, etc.

Once again, leaving out the facts. Ben-Gurion, whatever he said, accepted the partition plan in 1947, as did most Jewish residents of the soon to be Jewish State. The Arab World rejected and declared war on the new-born Jewish state. The Saudi Peace Plan pretty much calls for Israel to commit national suicide (both from a security point of view, as well as from a national point of view). VERY few Israelis would even take that plan seriously, other than those who would leave Israel for the States tomorrow. Giving the Golan up would be suicide for Israel and most Israelis are against giving up the Golan. This, aside from the fact, that we won it in a defensive war and are under NO obligation to give it up.

He said it on many occasions, he officially recognised Israel and most recently told Hamas to do the same if they want to enter in a government of national unity. Abbas, as Arafat, have already said they want to compromise on the "right of return", taking Israeli demographic considerations into account. So clearly they don't want 2 palestinian states, but one palestinian and one mostly Jewish state. Settlers can't remain since they have been illegal settlers, none of them were there before 1967.
But do you really care or just mention this for the sake of the argument? Because apparently you don't want a palestinian state, under any circumstance, you want Eretz Israel. So, considering these facts, it is not exaggerated to say that you don't want peace. Because you can't honestly expect that anyone would accept their own ethnic cleansing as a reasonable solution and just let them be carried away from the are where they lived for many generations.

Abbas wants to flood with Israel with millions of so-called "refugees", which would effectively cause Israel to cease to be a Jewish State, while at the same time having a Palestinian Judenrein state. And, once again, you willfully leave out facts. There were PLENTY of Jews in Judea and Samaria, even before the founding of the state of Israel, like those who were massacred in Hebron and those who were massacred in Gush-Etzion (NOT surprisingly you leave these facts out). And PLENTY of those so-called Palestinians living in Judea and Samaria now immigrated later on, whether from other parts of Israel or from other countries all together. I am ALL in favor of a "Palestinian" state. It is called Jordan. And ENOUGH with you hypocrisy of crying "ethnic cleansing". You have NO problem with it, as long as it is Jews.

palestinians are no military match for Israel, that's why some people take resort to desperate actions. I don't support that, and I think it damages the palestinian image. (as, of course, deliberate Israeli bombing in Gaza damaged the Israeli image). but you still didn't answer my question, are attacks on IDF in occupied territory legitimate acts of self-defense?

In case you haven't noticed, Israel is surrounded by a number of hostile and much bigger Arab countries commited to our destruction. The so-called Palestinians are their pawns. Regarding your ?, you are asking the man if he has stopped beating his wife. First confirm that the man beat his wife in the first place. And also, confirm that Judea and Samaria is occupied. At any rate, I served in the IDF and always took into account that I am a fair target in war. Yet, other than someone who has been living in a cave, everyone know that suicide bombers, gunners, bulldozers, missles from Gaza and Lebanon, etc. are generally NOT targeted at soldiers, but at unarmed civilians (including women and children).

You can check on this forum that I didn't believe unilateral withdrawel was a good idea, it left a power vacuum in Gaza. Perhaps that was the goal... also you can not expect peace because you withdraw from only one part of the occupied territories, and without peace negociations, Palestine without WB and Eastern Jerusalem is not acceptable to anyone. Also, there was a truce for months with Hamas but Israel bombed some defense positions of Hamas and refused to end the blockade, etc. So the lesson from this is that any withdrawel should happen as part of a general peace-agreement, with clear conditions. As Obama said there can only be peace after a general peace-agreement, implicated as soon as possible. This means that Israel has to abandon the colonisation project, and Netanyahu doesn't want that.

A truce with Hamas....ROTFL....Do you want me to pull up a tally of how many Kassams were falling DAILY on the communities in the southern Negev between when Israel withdrew from Gaza, up until Operation Cast Lead. Are you not even just a little embarrased to cover up such BLATANT facts. And as I showed in my last post, Barak made a most generous offer and Arafat answered with the intifada. You see, Takeo, there will ALWAYS be an excuse for terrorism against Israel. You keep throwing around the word "occupation" to paint the terrorism against Israel white, yet you still haven't answered my question from several posts ago? Why did the Arabs slaughter Jews in the 1920s in Jerusalem, Hebron, Gush Etzion, Yafo (and the list goes on). There wasn't even a Jewish state, let alone "occupation"? Why did the Arabs unanimously declare war on the new-born Jewish state in 1948, when there was no "occupation"? And why did they vow to push the Jews into the Sea (a quote that is NOT denied by any but the most radical,revisionist historians) in 1967, when they still had the so-called "territories" in their hands. To me the answer is obvious, but I will let you use your imagination and answer.

No, the US is not occupying any part of Mexico. The border changes have been agreed upon by most sides and the entire international comminuty long ago.

I'm sure they don't think they are, but many in Mexico see Texas as THEIR land that was dispossed from them. Of course the international community will not call the US an occupier because the US is the most powerful country in the world. So it is not a ? of moral clarity, but who is the most powerful (militarily, economically, and otherwise). I mean who is going to protest? Belgium....LOL

That's clearly not the opinion of the international community, the US, and even a large share of Israeli public opinion. This isn't some kind of casino game, 100's of 1000's people live there, you don't want to make them Israeli citizen nor do they want that. They are never going to accept israeli occupation. So what are you going to do with them? (the options are eternal war, genocide or ethnic cleansing)

I have already stated the ONLY sane solution in my last post, which is catching on more and more. Go re-read it. And before you cry "ethnic cleansing", the transfer of Jews IS "ethnic cleansing", even if the Takeo's of this world do not consider it to be.

Of course there's still the solution preferred by the US, the palestinians and the rest of the world: the two-state solution. The mantra was always for years that Israel wanted that, and Israel officially commited itself to that commitment, but that it couldn't materialise "because of the palestinians obstructing". Now it's clear who's obstructing any talks about two-state solution, doesn't even want to talk about that: Hamas AND Israel both refuse to recognise the other side.

Like I said, I am also for a two state solution. A Jewish state that includes Judea and Samaria and another Arab State in Jordan. Of course, if the so-called Palestinians would rather emigrate to Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, or New Zealand that is their decision as well. At any rate, Israel has been offering the Takeo version of the two-state solution time and time again since the signing of Oslo and it has been rejected (VIOLENTLY rejected). We withdrew from Gaza and got missles. Land for peace has gotten us nothing but bloodshed and more and more Israelis are waking up and realizing Oslo was a mistake. Again, the last elections speak for themselves. Meretz dissolved like aspirin. Labor took their biggest beating ever and Kadima couldn't form a coalition.

[Aliyah1995]

(cont. from last post)

Quote:Most reputable historians agree that it was a defensive war:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Ar...icle.aspx/8397

You mean most ideological historians...

Yeah, well take a look at the name of who wrote the article I posted. Mustafa from Afganistan does not exactly strike me as the most Jewish/Zionist name.

Quote:
Re-read 242 because I don't think you REALLY understand it.

I read it many times and I don't think you understand it. It says that you can't take lands by violence, it said Israel should withdraw from territory occupied since 1967, etc.

Which does NOT apply to a defensive war. Try again.



Quote:
Anyway 1) Because they are NOT "territories", but Judea and Samaria (part and parcel of Israel)

They are not, according to international law new borders are only legal if they are recognised by a substantial number of countries, which is clearly not the case. Even the US embassy refuses to move its seat to Jerusalem, in protest to the Israeli occupation of East-Jerusalem. Apart from that the overwelming majority of the inhabitants don't call it "Judea and Samaria" and are not Israeli citizens. If you want to keep these illegally occupied territories (for whatever obscure reason) there can't be peace. (about what are you going to talk?) In that case there will be war, and Israel will continue to be isolated. The US already said that it should cooperate if they want their cooperation against Iran. On the long run an isolated Israel at war with most neighbours is not good for Israel and even dangerous. Do you really believe the Westbank, Gaza and Eastern Jerusalem are worth it?

So Israel will be isolated? We aren't now? What else is new? America told Israel by NO means to bomb the Iraq nuclear reactor back in 1981 and when Israel did (with NOBODY's help or approval) America was VERY critical and angry with Israel. Well, guess what? America not only got over it, but 22 years later one of the Israeli Air Force pilots who participated in that mission flew on a space mission with American astronauts. So all these threats of the Takeo's of this world about Israel being isolated or the US will make Israel do this or the whole world will be against Israel don't make me lose any sleep. I believe that if Israel is up to the take (militarily) Israel will do what it needs to do regarding Iran, with or without Obama's approval. In answer to your last ?, we have been there already (Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and Eastern Jerusalem being under foreign control). Thanks, but no thanks. We are not going to go back to what Aba Eban (who was said to have known how to surrender in nine languages) referred to as the Aushwitz borders.




Quote:
2) The ONLY sane choice (all others, "two state solution" and otherwise will only guarantee continued bloodshed) is to take down the refugee camps and integrate them into Jordan (which is 80% "Palestinian"), Egypt, Syria, etc. Any other solution will GUARANTEE continued bloodshed.

What you mean is ethnic cleansing right? Let's see what the public opinion in the US or president Obama would think of that... not to mention the palestinians themselves. What if they don't want to move and Jordan, etc. doesn't want them(what's very very likely)? Shoot them? Do you honestly believe this is a realistic, acceptable solution in the 21th century?

Apparently ethnic cleansing of Jews in the 21st century is still an acceptable solution.

Fortunately ethnic cleansing is not accepted by the large majority of US congressmen nor by the majority in the Israeli Knesset. Most don't consider it to be acceptable, contrary to their western values. But the fact alone that some in the pro-occupation movement consider this as a realistic serious option is chilling and demonstrates how radical and dangerous they actually are.

Ok, then why ethnically cleanse Jews?

[takeo]

I was not addressing that post to you Takeo. I am through debating with you on your terms. From now on it will be on my terms....

whatever

[takeo]

Aliyah1995

Once again, leaving out the facts. Ben-Gurion, whatever he said, accepted the partition plan in 1947, as did most Jewish residents of the soon to be Jewish State. The Arab World rejected and declared war on the new-born Jewish state.

Yes, that's history. Since Israel has occupied all of Palestine, and doesn't have any intention to leave, despite tremendous international pressure.


The Saudi Peace Plan pretty much calls for Israel to commit national suicide (both from a security point of view, as well as from a national point of view). VERY few Israelis would even take that plan seriously, other than those who would leave Israel for the States tomorrow.

Actually most Israeli want to give up the occupied territories in return for peace and recognition. The difficult part of the plan is the "right of return". In resolution 242 a "just solution for the refugees" is, however, included, and you can't just ignore them either. Both Arafat and Abbas called for a just solution, which takes Israeli demographical considerations in mind. I think that's the way to go, a compromise. Everyone knows they can't all return to Israel. Some will be able to return, others will be offered compensation and a new life (for example in a Western country). If given the choice between Israel or a Western country I think most will choose the latter. But just refusing to talk and compromise about this subject is contrary to the UN resolution and will not be accepted by ANY Palestinian leader, no matter how moderate he is.


Giving the Golan up would be suicide for Israel and most Israelis are against giving up the Golan.
really, any polls available?

This, aside from the fact, that we won it in a defensive war and are under NO obligation to give it up.

As I demonstrated already that's a nonsensical and false argument. Indonesia had to give up Eastern Timor, Iraq had to give up Kouweit, and Israel too will have to give up the occupied territories if it wants to live in peace and not in isolation. The US too wants Israel to give up these territories. Besides, Israel already negociated over Golan, the negociations stranded over some details, but there is definately willingness on both sides to compromise.





Abbas wants to flood with Israel with millions of so-called "refugees", which would effectively cause Israel to cease to be a Jewish State, while at the same time having a Palestinian Judenrein state.

Wrong, he wants to compromise and he wants to take Israeli demographic concerns into consideration. Palestine doesn't have to be Judenrein. If settlers are ready to live under Palestinian law a compromise can be found, also some settlements near Jerusalem can be attached to Israel in return for some parts of Israel. Palestinians already agreed to that. However, settlers who got the best acces to water and occupied lands which belonged to palestinian families who got expropriated by the occupying force will have to move certainly, as well as the settlers occupying the Jordan river and death sea bank.


And, once again, you willfully leave out facts. There were PLENTY of Jews in Judea and Samaria, even before the founding of the state of Israel, like those who were massacred in Hebron and those who were massacred in Gush-Etzion (NOT surprisingly you leave these facts out).

There were some, but never exeeding 5% of the population. I think those and their families should be allowed to return to live in the new Palestinian state, if Palestinians and their family will be allowed to return to Israel, that's only fair.




And PLENTY of those so-called Palestinians living in Judea and Samaria now immigrated later on, whether from other parts of Israel or from other countries all together.


Many fled from Israel in 1948, (the large majority of Gazans for example have their roots in Israel propper, and certainly also a large share of those in Westbank and eastern Jerusalem) that's true, very few come from other countries. I already demonstrated that with plenty of links and references on this thread.


I am ALL in favor of a "Palestinian" state. It is called Jordan. And ENOUGH with you hypocrisy of crying "ethnic cleansing". You have NO problem with it, as long as it is Jews.

You know that's not a realistic solution. Palestinians will not move voluntarily, Jordan will not accept them, the public opinion in the West will certainly not accept it, nor will the US. If Israel wants total isolation and its own destruction, that's the way to go. Even the majority of Israeli will not accept it, many Israeli have western democratic values, and ethnic cleansing does not fit in that.
I have a big problem with ethnic cleansing, but I don't have a problem with removing illegal settlers who moved in violation of international law and took land which doesn't belong to them with support of the army. But people who lived for many generations in a certain area can not be uprooted and deported, that's very wrong, no matter of they are Jews or Arabs.








In case you haven't noticed, Israel is surrounded by a number of hostile and much bigger Arab countries commited to our destruction.

That's why Israel should make peace with these countries. Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. have already declared they would recognise Israel if it gives up occupation. I think that's an opportunity Israel should grasp. The Camp David agreement with Egypt should be an shining example. A handful of rightwing expansionist nuts in the occupied territories shouldn't impede peace. I think many Israeli share that opinion.



The so-called Palestinians are their pawns.

Because palestinians are very hunhappy with the occupation, wouldn't you?

Regarding your ?, you are asking the man if he has stopped beating his wife. First confirm that the man beat his wife in the first place. And also, confirm that Judea and Samaria is occupied.

There are UN resolutions, international law, and even the US says these territories are occupied. The large majority of the population isn't even Israeli citizen, even Eastern Jerusalem citizens don't feel Israeli at all. We stayed in a hostel near Damascus gate and it was full of anti-occupation posters, pictures of Arafat and Palestinian flags. Also many restaurants, eateries, etc. in Eastern Jerusalem have Palestinian symbols.


At any rate, I served in the IDF and always took into account that I am a fair target in war. Yet, other than someone who has been living in a cave, everyone know that suicide bombers, gunners, bulldozers, missles from Gaza and Lebanon, etc. are generally NOT targeted at soldiers, but at unarmed civilians (including women and children).

That's very wrong and damaged the Palestinian cause. The cause is just, but the tools they use are not. It happened out of desperation because they are not a match for the IDF, but that's still not an excuse.

A truce with Hamas....ROTFL....Do you want me to pull up a tally of how many Kassams were falling DAILY on the communities in the southern Negev between when Israel withdrew from Gaza, up until Operation Cast Lead. Are you not even just a little embarrased to cover up such BLATANT facts.

There have been truces in the past. Anyway, something should be done about it. I think involving Hamas in the negociations is the only way to go. Isolating them will make them more desperate and dangerous. Another possibility is a final deal with Abbas, after which Abbas' army can terminate Hamas. There are still many Fatah sympathisers in Gaza.





And as I showed in my last post, Barak made a most generous offer and Arafat answered with the intifada.

It wasn't a generous offer at all, you should look at the details. For example Barak refused to talk about refugees, which is a UN resolution requirement, the borders would still be controlled by Israel, as would the most important water sources, etc. which people would accept that? Worst of all he refused to negociate about it.


You see, Takeo, there will ALWAYS be an excuse for terrorism against Israel.

that's why there should be a final deal with the palestinians, as with Egypt. As long as there isn't one, of course violence will continue.


You keep throwing around the word "occupation" to paint the terrorism against Israel white, yet you still haven't answered my question from several posts ago? Why did the Arabs slaughter Jews in the 1920s in Jerusalem, Hebron, Gush Etzion, Yafo (and the list goes on). There wasn't even a Jewish state, let alone "occupation"?


There were tensions between zionists and Arabs, as the zionist migration continued. But that was another era, it was under Brittish rule. Besides Jews too committed terrorist acts against the autorities in the 30's and 40's. And there have been atrocities against unarmed palestinian civilians as well, especially in 1948.

[takeo]

Why did the Arabs unanimously declare war on the new-born Jewish state in 1948, when there was no "occupation"? And why did they vow to push the Jews into the Sea (a quote that is NOT denied by any but the most radical,revisionist historians) in 1967, when they still had the so-called "territories" in their hands. To me the answer is obvious, but I will let you use your imagination and answer.

They didn't accept Israeli existence. In the meanwhile they have become more realistic, and are ready to accept a two-state solution as envisioned by resolution 181 (except some radicals)
But Israel is not without guild either. Was it necessary to take more than envisioned in 181, was it necessary to expulse most palestinians and commit atrocities against civilians, and most of all, was it necessary to keep the territories conquered in 1967 occupied and colonise them? All these steps made a solution more difficult. The only positive step Israel took was giving up the Sinai in return for peace with Egypt. and don't tell me it's for security reasons. The only war Israel almost lost was the 1973 one. A lot of efforts, money and IDF soldiers go to protecting a handfull of illegal settlers in occupied territories, I'm sure you know that. If israel could use all that to defend Israel propper and build a fense on the actual border of Israel, it would be one of the best protected borders in the world.

I'm sure they don't think they are, but many in Mexico see Texas as THEIR land that was dispossed from them. Of course the international community will not call the US an occupier because the US is the most powerful country in the world.

Texas is a recognised part of the US by the rest of the world. That's all that matters. According to international law, Texas is not occupied or part of Mexico.



So it is not a ? of moral clarity, but who is the most powerful (militarily, economically, and otherwise). I mean who is going to protest? Belgium....LOL

That's true of course, but the situation is not comparable to Israel. First of all it happened more than 150 years ago, when acquiring land trough violence and war was still accepted, as was colonisation. Since the 50's not a single country which gained land trough war has been able to keep it, except Morocco and Israel which are under heavy international pressure to end occupation. Also, most Texans are American citizens, only about 5% of Westbank citizens are Israeli citizens, the rest hates your guts. The majority in Western Sahara also don't accept Moroccan occupation.



I have already stated the ONLY sane solution in my last post, which is catching on more and more. Go re-read it. And before you cry "ethnic cleansing", the transfer of Jews IS "ethnic cleansing", even if the Takeo's of this world do not consider it to be.

It's not realistic, as I explained earlier. You think the US and the EU would accept it? The EU is Israel's largest trading partner and US support is crucial for Israel. So far the calls for an economic boycott against Israel have been muted, but in such case that would be a different situation. Also, the images of over a million of people dispossessed would provoke dangerous reactions in the Arab world. SA or others could turn off the oil to any country still trading with Israel. And I'm not sure if Israel would win against a coalition of Arab and muslim nations. And if the US would be willing to defend Israel in that case.
Also, Jordan will not accept them, and Palestinians will not move voluntarily, how would you organise it? Destroy their houses, put them on fire, bulldozer them? And how transport them to Jordan without their own and Jordanian cooperation? throw them in the river? You know as well as I do that all this is extremely unrealistic and unlikely. And also Israeli public opinion wouldn't accept it.


Like I said, I am also for a two state solution. A Jewish state that includes Judea and Samaria and another Arab State in Jordan.

That's nonsense, Palestinians don't want to go to Jordan nor does Jordan wants them.

Of course, if the so-called Palestinians would rather emigrate to Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, or New Zealand that is their decision as well

They are not willing to do that, they'll stay unless you force them out with violence or kill them. Of course there have been precedents, it is possible. But regimes who did that are rarely judged positively by history.


. At any rate, Israel has been offering the Takeo version of the two-state solution time and time again since the signing of Oslo and it has been rejected (VIOLENTLY rejected).

They have to negociate further untill a better compromise, acceptable to both parties, is found, many Israeli are in favor of that(even Olmert). It's the only way to go, and the Obama-administration seems determined to push it, whatever the Israeli government thinks of it. It would be very unwise for Israel to damage relations with the US.


We withdrew from Gaza and got missles.

It was a unilateral withdrawel from only a minor part of the occupied territories, what do you think would happen? What we need is an all-inclusive peace-deal, that's what Obama and Olmert confirmed as well, that's also what the largest party in the Knesset wants.



Land for peace has gotten us nothing but bloodshed and more and more Israelis are waking up and realizing Oslo was a mistake. Again, the last elections speak for themselves. Meretz dissolved like aspirin. Labor took their biggest beating ever and Kadima couldn't form a coalition.

But Kadima was the largest party in parliament, which is an indication that not all Israeli think like you. Also, it seems some Israeli voted for Netanyahu because they think a rightwing government could force a better deal, as did Begin. They are not necessarily against a peace-deal, even Lieberman isn't, he wants to attach some parts of Israel to palestine. If nothing happens and Netanyahu boycotts the peace-proces and damages relations with the US, I think the results of the next elections might be different. Already, some in labor are thinking about leaving the government. israeli government usually don't last long, and the US has a lot of informal influence on Israeli politics.

[Yala]

Recipe for Pad Thai:


Ingredients
1-ounce tamarind paste
3/4 cup boiling water
2 tablespoons fish sauce
2 tablespoons palm sugar
1 tablespoon rice wine vinegar
4 ounces rice stick noodles
6 ounces Marinated Tofu, recipe follows
1 to 2 tablespoons peanut oil
1 cup chopped scallions, divided
2 teaspoons minced garlic
2 whole eggs, beaten
2 teaspoons salted cabbage
1 tablespoon dried shrimp
3 ounces bean sprouts, divided
1/2 cup roasted salted peanuts, chopped, divided
Freshly ground dried red chile peppers, to taste
1 lime, cut into wedges
Directions
Place the tamarind paste in the boiling water and set aside while preparing the other ingredients.

Combine the fish sauce, palm sugar, and rice wine vinegar in a small bowl and set aside.

Place the rice stick noodles in a mixing bowl and cover with hot water. Set aside while you prepare the remaining ingredients. Once the other ingredients are measured out into separate bowls, drain the water from the noodles and set them aside. Cut the tofu into 1/2-inch wide strips, similar to French fries.

Press the tamarind paste through a fine mesh strainer and add to the sauce. Stir to combine.

Place a wok over high heat. Once hot, add 1 tablespoon of the peanut oil. Heat until it shimmers, then add the tofu. Cook the tofu until golden brown, moving constantly, for no longer than 1 minute. Remove the tofu from the pan to a small bowl and set aside.

If necessary, add some more peanut oil to the pan and heat until shimmering. Add 2/3 of the scallions and then the garlic, cook for 10 to 15 seconds. Add the eggs to the pan; once the eggs begin to set up, about 15 to 20 seconds, stir to scramble. Add the remaining ingredients in the following order and toss after each addition: noodles, sauce, cabbage, shrimp, and 2/3 of the bean sprouts and peanuts. Toss everything until heated through, but no longer than 1 to 2 minutes total. Transfer to a serving dish. Garnish with the remaining scallions, bean sprouts, and peanuts. Serve immediately with the ground chile peppers and lime wedges.

Marinated Tofu:
6 ounces extra-firm tofu, not silken

1 1/2 cups soy sauce

1 teaspoon Chinese five-spice powder

Wrap the tofu firmly in a tea towel. Place the wrapped tofu into an 8-inch cake pan. Top with another cake pan and weigh down with a 5-pound weight. (Bags of dried beans or grains work well.) Place in refrigerator and press for 12 to 15 hours.
Place pressed tofu in a 2-cup container. Combine soy sauce and five-spice powder and pour over tofu. Cover and refrigerate for 30 minutes, turning once. Remove the tofu from the marinade and use immediately or store in the refrigerator for up to 2 to 3 days.

Yield: 6 ounces tofu

[takeo]

Aliyah1



Yeah, well take a look at the name of who wrote the article I posted. Mustafa from Afganistan does not exactly strike me as the most Jewish/Zionist name.

I can't open the link. I posted reference to a lot of historical studies which have very different conclusions.


Which does NOT apply to a defensive war. Try again.

242 specifically applies to the 1967 war. Try again.



Quote:
Anyway 1) Because they are NOT "territories", but Judea and Samaria (part and parcel of Israel)

That's not how the inhabitants or the rest of the world call these territories, only the occupying power. It isn't even incorporated in Israel (unlike Golan or Eastern Jerusalem), so apparently Israel itself doesn't consider it to be truly part of Israel.


So Israel will be isolated? We aren't now?

It could be much worse, Israel still has fairly good economic relations with the EU and a few other countries. And it still gets a lot of support from the US. If that changes, than Israel will be truly isolated.



What else is new? America told Israel by NO means to bomb the Iraq nuclear reactor back in 1981 and when Israel did (with NOBODY's help or approval) America was VERY critical and angry with Israel. Well, guess what? America not only got over it, but 22 years later one of the Israeli Air Force pilots who participated in that mission flew on a space mission with American astronauts. So all these threats of the Takeo's of this world about Israel being isolated or the US will make Israel do this or the whole world will be against Israel don't make me lose any sleep. I believe that if Israel is up to the take (militarily) Israel will do what it needs to do regarding Iran, with or without Obama's approval.

Israel needs US approval to fly over Iraq. Also, Iran has a fairly developped defense system, it could retaliate and send rockets to Israel. I don't think Israel can occupy Iran. It can bomb Iran, and Iran can bomb Israel. And Israeli attacks will only make Iran more popular in the Islamic world, make the regime more popular, and strenghten its determination to build nukes. It will bring the US in a very difficult situation in Iraq, as the Iraqi government will demand the US to shoot down the Israeli airplanes invading its airspace. Without the US and the world pressuring Iran there's little Israel can do about that.
It also seems like the Obama-administration is very determined to force a two-state solution. It has different options if Israel refuses to cooperate. For example it can recognise a unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence, admit Palestine in the UN, and in that case most of the rest of the world will. It can also decide to improve relations with Syria and Iran, end the weapons embargo against these countries etc. It can postpone or cancell aid to Israel, or reduce military cooperation and acces to military technology. But first of all I think the US is going to pressure its contacts in Israel and lobby to pressure or terminate the current Israeli government.


In answer to your last ?, we have been there already (Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and Eastern Jerusalem being under foreign control). Thanks, but no thanks. We are not going to go back to what Aba Eban (who was said to have known how to surrender in nine languages) referred to as the Aushwitz borders.

Well, in that case peace is impossible, that's a deliberate choic for eternal war. But even Barak and Olmert planned to give Eastern Jerusalem to the palestinians.


Apparently ethnic cleansing of Jews in the 21st century is still an acceptable solution.

Removing illegal settlers or migrants is not ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing is removing a population which lived for many generations and legally in a certain area.

[takeo]

pad thai is very yummy...

[Mediocrates]

It's important to apply facts as opposed to overheated rhetorical nonsense. For example.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/131345
(IsraelNN.com) The Knesset has approved a request by MK Uri Ariel (National Union), authorizing the prestigious Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee to discuss the discrimination against Jews in Yesha regarding illegal construction.

MK Ariel quoted a Civil Administration report of two weeks ago, showing that in 2008, illegal Jewish structures were demolished by the government at a rate more than twice as much as illegal Arab structures.

Fewer than 300 illegal Jewish homes were reported in Judea and Samaria, yet 105 of them were torn down – a rate of 36%. In the Arab sector of Yesha, illegal Arab construction is much more rampant, yet is enforced much less strictly. Out of 646 illegal Arab structures – 2.2 times more than Jewish ones – only 17% were razed.

[takeo]

It's important to apply facts as opposed to overheated rhetorical nonsense. For example.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/131345
(IsraelNN.com) The Knesset has approved a request by MK Uri Ariel (National Union), authorizing the prestigious Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee to discuss the discrimination against Jews in Yesha regarding illegal construction.IMG]http://click.inn.co.il/info_en/a-nuke-for-a-nuke_%282%29.gif[/IMG] (http://click.inn.co.il/phpAdsNew-en-new/adclick.php?bannerid=2077&zoneid=17&clientid=1360&dest=http://samsonblinded.org/blog/a-nuke-for-a-nuke.htm)

MK Ariel quoted a Civil Administration report of two weeks ago, showing that in 2008, illegal Jewish structures were demolished by the government at a rate more than twice as much as illegal Arab structures.

Fewer than 300 illegal Jewish homes were reported in Judea and Samaria, yet 105 of them were torn down – a rate of 36%. In the Arab sector of Yesha, illegal Arab construction is much more rampant, yet is enforced much less strictly. Out of 646 illegal Arab structures – 2.2 times more than Jewish ones – only 17% were razed.



All Israeli homes in the Westbank and Eastern Jerusalem are illegal according to the Geneva conventions (Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War states in the first paragraph: “Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.”
And in the sixth paragraph: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”) and the UN. And there are 20 times more Palestinians living there than Israeli, but living on less than half of the territory.

[Mediocrates]

That is patently silly as international law is never intended to replace national law otherwise your own fair nation would be obliged to jettison much of its legal code.

[Reffo]

Takeo is NOT here to debate. He seems to be here to do two things:

To spread his propaganda...
To see his own name in the limelight..

To that end, he is guilty of using shoddy debating tactics, namely: Blind, unsubstentiated assertions to the point of lies and at times actual lies, mindless repetition, spamming, baiting, obfuscation, side tracking with irrelevant trivia etc I could go on....

Therefore, I for one am through with debating him as I would debate with a normal person, I will debate him on his own terms using an exaggerated version of his own tactics. For the record, I will stop doing that to him if he would promise to stop his shoddy tactics and adhere to that promise.... Till then, I'll do to him as he does to others.... and to me. Watch this space....

you are not able to debate without getting personal. And if you think I lied than you have to tell me where and when, and if you can't, than shut up and apologise.No problems, Takeo, your wish is my command:

Accusation of my bias #1141 Click Here
You said Israel made no mistakes. It's clear who is biased and onesided.
Both sides have been accused of ethnic cleansing that is history. Now, where did I say that Israel made no mistakes, you liar? I said that Israel too made mistakes
I don't remember you saying so, this is the first time.Good, I caught you with ANOTHER STRAIGHT OUT LIE! :rolleyes: Here is where I said it: On this very thread post #854 Click Here

Whereas I admit Arabs made mistakes too, you deny Israel ever made any mistake or harmed the Palestinian civilians unnecessary. That's means I'm balanced, I don't think in terms of "good" and "evil", but you do, you're biased, you can't admit any Israeli wrongdoings.
Show me where did I deny that Israel made mistakes too. To the contrary, I admitted it before and I still admit it. Go on now, ask me for a link ;) I can give you links to that effect even though you seem most reluctant to give me links when I ask you to give links ...

AND ADMITTING IT AGAIN

”Come come Takeo, I admitted that Israel made and does make mistakes too. I even admitted that on the balance of probabilities Israel (or some Israelis at least) contributed to the refugee problem, so while I am pro Israel I am not as one eyed as you'd like to make me out... But you know what Takeo? Let's just leave it to fair minded individuals who are neither pro Israel nor pro Arab, to judge us.... is that a fair deal Takeo?”
Post #866 Click Here


But actually the fact is that ultra-zionists support Le Pen!
Which one? Quote and link please ...Note: Takeo never responded Post #527 Turkish PM slams Jews, Israel

Resist how? Murder Israeli civilians like they have been doing for nearly 100 years now?
No, killing occupation soldiers is a justified response to continued occupation and colonisation, don't you think so?But that's not what Hamas has been doing. Hamas has been targeting mainly civilians. I would accept their "resistance" if they would ONLY target soldiers. But I would still question the wisdom of that because they could have a two state solution if they would stop their violence and seriously negotiate with Israel.

But that's not what they really want is it Takeo? Their charter states that they are fighting for the land between the river (Jordan) and the sea (the Meditarranean). In other words, for Israel proper. In other words, they are NOT fighting against the "occupation", they are fighting for CONQUEST!
Click Here for Post #1153

France has adopted a whole policy to end this kind of attacks, perpetrators are tracked down and prosecuted, ....
I thought there is no anti-Semitism in Europe? So France adopted a whole policy to end something which doesn't exist? :scratch:Oh dear ...... Takeo caught out in self contradiction ...... again :D
Click Here for post #419 on “Turkish PM slams Jews, Israel” Thread

You believe that Russia can level cities if Islamic lunatics are there but Israel can't harm a hair on the head of a Hamasnik lest it be called disproportionate.
Chechnya is a part of Russia, Gaza is not a part of Israel, that's a big difference. We get it Takeo just because Russia says that Chechnya is part of Russia even though the Chechens say that they don't want to be part of Russia, Russia has the right to level Cities and murder people by the tens thousands? Right Takeo?:rolleyes:
Post #56 Britain: China could help Afghanistan mission

Last but not least look at Takeo’s contortions and his attempts to excuse the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Arab countries and Contrast how lenient he is with the Arabs and how hard he is with Israel:
Here are the relevant posts:

…. Still what is described here are antisemitic measures, without any doubt, but nowhere have Jews been forced at gunpoint to leave the country, as was the case with many palestinians in Israel.
Post #109 Rahm Emanuel, Traitor

Now look at the reference link that I provided about what happened to Jews in various Arab countries:

I already provided information above regarding what happened in Egypt....Here is what happened in some other Arab countries:

Libya
A series of pogroms started in Tripoli in November 1945; over a period of several days more than 130 Jews (including 36 children) were killed, hundreds were injured, 4,000 were left homeless, and 2,400 were reduced to poverty. Five synagogues in Tripoli and four in provincial towns were destroyed, and over 1,000 Jewish residences and commercial buildings were plundered in Tripoli alone.[68] The pogroms continued in June 1948, when 15 Jews were killed and 280 Jewish homes destroyed.[69]

Morocco
In June 1948, soon after Israel was established and in the midst of the first Arab-Israeli war, riots against Jews broke out in Oujda and Djerada, killing 44 Jews. In 1948-9, 18,000 Jews left the country for Israel.

Syria
Rioters in Aleppo in 1947 burned the city's Jewish quarter and killed 75 people.[81] In 1948, there were approximately 30,000 Jews in Syria. The Syrian government placed severe restrictions on the Jewish community, including on emigration.

Tunisia
Following Tunisia's independence from France in 1956, a number of anti-Jewish policies led to emigration, of which half went to Israel and the other half to France. After attacks in 1967, Jewish emigration both to Israel and France accelerated.

Yemen
riots killed at least 80 Jews in Aden, a British colony in southern Yemen. In 1948 the new Zaydi Imam Ahmad bin Yahya unexpectedly allowed his Jewish subjects to leave Yemen, and tens of thousands poured into Aden.
post #113 Rahm Emanuel, Traitor

Even if one believes the worst allegations about alleged Israeli ethnic cleansing, it begs the question: In what way were Israeli actions worse than the actions of Arabs against Jews? Did the Israelis stand behind each and every single Palestinian Arab and forced them out at gun point?

[Marc39]

All Israeli homes in the Westbank and Eastern Jerusalem are illegal according to the Geneva conventions (Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War states in the first paragraph: “Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.”
And in the sixth paragraph: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”) and the UN. And there are 20 times more Palestinians living there than Israeli, but living on less than half of the territory.

Now, Takeo, you must know by now that Art. 49 applies to military occupations, not settlements. The only law that directly applies to the settlements is the Palestine Mandate, which permits Jewish settlement in the West Bank.

[Aliyah1995]

I will respond to the rest of Takeo's continued propaganda later, but regarding the continued claim that the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal,

http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/middle ... Legal$.asp

Israeli settlements in the West Bank are legal both under international law and the agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. Claims to the contrary are mere attempts to distort the law for political purposes. Yet whatever the status of the settlements, their existence should never be used to justify terrorism.

The Palestinians often claim that settlement activity is illegal and call on Israel to dismantle every settlement. In effect, they are demanding that every Jew leave the West Bank, a form of ethnic cleansing. By contrast, within Israel, Arabs and Jews live side-by-side; indeed, Israeli Arabs, who account for approximately 20% of Israel's population, are citizens of Israel with equal rights.

The Palestinian call to remove all Jewish presence from the disputed territories is not only discriminatory and morally reprehensible; it has no basis either in law or in the agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.

The various agreements reached between Israel and the Palestinians since 1993 contain no prohibitions on the building or expansion of settlements. On the contrary, they specifically provide that the issue of settlements is reserved for permanent status negotiations, which are to take place in the concluding stage of the peace talks. The parties expressly agreed that the Palestinian Authority has no jurisdiction or control over settlements or Israelis, pending the conclusion of a permanent status agreement.

It has been charged that the provision contained in the Israel-Palestinian Interim Agreement prohibiting unilateral steps that alter the status of the West Bank implies a ban on settlement activity. This position is disingenuous. The prohibition on unilateral measures was designed to ensure that neither side take steps that would change the legal status of this territory (such as by annexation or a unilateral declaration of statehood), pending the outcome of permanent status talks. The building of homes has no effect on the final permanent status of the area as a whole. Were this prohibition to be applied to building, it would lead to the unreasonable interpretation that neither side is permitted to build houses to accommodate the needs of their respective communities.

As the Israeli claim to these territories is legally valid, it is just as legitimate for Israelis to build their communities as it is for the Palestinians to build theirs. Yet in the spirit of compromise, successive Israeli governments have indicated their willingness to negotiate the issue and have adopted a voluntary freeze on the building of new settlements as a confidence-building measure.

Furthermore, Israel had established its settlements in the West Bank in accordance with international law. Attempts have been made to claim that the settlements violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which forbids a state from deporting or transferring "parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." However, this allegation has no validity in law as Israeli citizens were neither deported nor transferred to the territories.

Although Israel has voluntarily taken upon itself the obligation to uphold the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel maintains that the Convention (which deals with occupied territories) was not applicable to the disputed territory. As there had been no internationally recognized legal sovereign in either the West Bank or Gaza prior to the 1967 Six Day War, they cannot be considered to have become "occupied territory" when control passed into the hands of Israel.

Yet even if the Fourth Geneva Convention were to apply to the territories, Article 49 would not be relevant to the issue of Jewish settlements. The Convention was drafted immediately following the Second World War, against the background of the massive forced population transfers that occurred during that period. As the International Red Cross' authoritative commentary to the Convention confirms, Article 49 (entitled "Deportations, Transfers, Evacuations") was intended to prevent the forcible transfer of civilians, thereby protecting the local population from displacement. Israel has not forcibly transferred its citizens to the territory and the Convention does not place any prohibition on individuals voluntarily choosing their place of residence. Moreover, the settlements are not intended to displace Arab inhabitants, nor do they do so in practice. According to independent surveys, the built-up areas of the settlements (not including roads or unpopulated adjacent tracts) take up about 3% of the total territory of the West Bank.

Israel's use of land for settlements conforms to all rules and norms of international law. Privately owned lands are not requisitioned for the establishment of settlements. In addition, all settlement activity comes under the supervision of the Supreme Court of Israel (sitting as the High Court of Justice) and every aggrieved inhabitant of the territories, including Palestinian residents, can appeal directly to this Court.

The Fourth Geneva Convention was certainly not intended to prevent individuals from living on their ancestral lands or on property that had been illegally taken from them. Many present-day Israeli settlements have been established on sites that were home to Jewish communities in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) in previous generations, in an expression of the Jewish people's deep historic and religious connection with the land. Many of the most ancient and holy Jewish sites, including the Cave of the Patriarchs (the burial site of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) and Rachel's Tomb, are located in these areas. Jewish communities, such as in Hebron (where Jews lived until they were massacred in 1929), existed throughout the centuries. Other communities, such as the Gush Etzion bloc in Judea, were founded before 1948 under the internationally endorsed British Mandate.

The right of Jews to settle in all parts of the Land of Israel was first recognized by the international community in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. The purpose of the Mandate was to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish national home in the Jewish people's ancient homeland. Indeed, Article 6 of the Mandate provided for "close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use."

For more than a thousand years, the only time that Jewish settlement was prohibited in the West Bank was under the Jordanian occupation (1948-1967) that resulted from an armed invasion. During this period of Jordanian rule, which was not internationally recognized, Jordan eliminated the Jewish presence in the West Bank (as Egypt did in the Gaza Strip) and declared that the sale of land to Jews was a capital offense. It is untenable that this outrage could invalidate the right of Jews to establish homes in these areas, and accordingly, the legal titles to land that had already been acquired remain valid to this day.

In conclusion, the oft-repeated claim regarding the illegality' of Israeli settlements has no legal or factual basis under either international law or the agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. Such charges can only be regarded as politically motivated. Most importantly, any political claim -- including the one regarding settlements -- should never be used to justify terrorist attacks on innocent civilians.

[Aliyah1995]

Also, Takeo wanted polls on Israelis opposing giving up the Golan:

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90854/6416465.html

http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2009/p31ejoint.html

63% of Israelis oppose full evacuation of the Golan Heights in return for a complete peace agreement with Syria, and 28% support it. If in the peace agreement, Syria will commit to disconnect itself from Iran and stop its support of Hizbulla and Hamas, support increases to 39%.

http://rss.xinhuanet.com/newsc/english/2008-05/22/content_8228616.htm

About 68 percent of the individuals surveyed want to preserve the existing situation including keeping the West Bank and Golan in Israel's hands, according to the poll, which was conducted by the Maagar Mochot research institute to assess the sovereignty and independence of the 60-year-old Jewish state.

http://truman.huji.ac.il/poll-view.asp?id=220

59% of Israelis oppose full evacuation of the Golan Heights in return for a complete peace agreement with Syria, and 25% support it.

Also, one more thing in the meantime, notice the ONLY reason Takeo is against suicide bombings, missles, shootings, bulldozer attacks, etc. against innocent civilians within the "green line":

That's very wrong and damaged the Palestinian cause. The cause is just, but the tools they use are not. It happened out of desperation because they are not a match for the IDF, but that's still not an excuse.

In other words [from Takeo's own words] he/she is against them because they damaged the Palestinian cause, not because it is morally wrong to wantonly target non-combatant civilians (including women and babies) or because it is against the Internation Law on War 101, but because it damaged the Palestinian cause. Need I say more?!?!

[Rob]

In other words [from Takeo's own words] he/she is against them because they damaged the Palestinian cause, not because it is morally wrong to wantonly target non-combatant civilians (including women and babies) or because it is against the Internation Law on War 101, but because it damaged the Palestinian cause. Need I say more?!?!

The Takeos of the world should remember everybody why Israel exists and should realize Israel is doing the right thing.

[takeo]

That is patently silly as international law is never intended to replace national law otherwise your own fair nation would be obliged to jettison much of its legal code.

the problem is that Westbank, Eastern Jerusalem, etc. are not recognised parts of Israel, so Israeli laws have no value there. The Geneva conventions apply to conflict zones, it is clear that the occupied territories are conflict zones.

[takeo]

The Takeos of the world should remember everybody why Israel exists and should realize Israel is doing the right thing.

You mean colonising and occupying is the right thing?

[takeo]

Now, Takeo, you must know by now that Art. 49 applies to military occupations, not settlements. The only law that directly applies to the settlements is the Palestine Mandate, which permits Jewish settlement in the West Bank.

Article 49 applies to all decisions taken in occupied territory.


The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

[takeo]

Now, Takeo, you must know by now that Art. 49 applies to military occupations, not settlements. The only law that directly applies to the settlements is the Palestine Mandate, which permits Jewish settlement in the West Bank.

Article 49 applies to all decisions taken in occupied territory by the occupying power.

Art. 85 – Repression of breaches of this Protocol


The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Without prejudice to the application of the Conventions and of this Protocol, grave breaches of these instruments shall be regarded as war crimes.

[takeo]

I will respond to the rest of Takeo's continued propaganda later, but regarding the continued claim that the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal,

http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/middle ... Legal$.asp

Israeli settlements in the West Bank are legal both under international law and the agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. Claims to the contrary are mere attempts to distort the law for political purposes. Yet whatever the status of the settlements, their existence should never be used to justify terrorism.

The Palestinians often claim that settlement activity is illegal and call on Israel to dismantle every settlement. In effect, they are demanding that every Jew leave the West Bank, a form of ethnic cleansing. By contrast, within Israel, Arabs and Jews live side-by-side; indeed, Israeli Arabs, who account for approximately 20% of Israel's population, are citizens of Israel with equal rights.

The Palestinian call to remove all Jewish presence from the disputed territories is not only discriminatory and morally reprehensible; it has no basis either in law or in the agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.

The various agreements reached between Israel and the Palestinians since 1993 contain no prohibitions on the building or expansion of settlements. On the contrary, they specifically provide that the issue of settlements is reserved for permanent status negotiations, which are to take place in the concluding stage of the peace talks. The parties expressly agreed that the Palestinian Authority has no jurisdiction or control over settlements or Israelis, pending the conclusion of a permanent status agreement.

It has been charged that the provision contained in the Israel-Palestinian Interim Agreement prohibiting unilateral steps that alter the status of the West Bank implies a ban on settlement activity. This position is disingenuous. The prohibition on unilateral measures was designed to ensure that neither side take steps that would change the legal status of this territory (such as by annexation or a unilateral declaration of statehood), pending the outcome of permanent status talks. The building of homes has no effect on the final permanent status of the area as a whole. Were this prohibition to be applied to building, it would lead to the unreasonable interpretation that neither side is permitted to build houses to accommodate the needs of their respective communities.

As the Israeli claim to these territories is legally valid, it is just as legitimate for Israelis to build their communities as it is for the Palestinians to build theirs. Yet in the spirit of compromise, successive Israeli governments have indicated their willingness to negotiate the issue and have adopted a voluntary freeze on the building of new settlements as a confidence-building measure.

Furthermore, Israel had established its settlements in the West Bank in accordance with international law. Attempts have been made to claim that the settlements violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which forbids a state from deporting or transferring "parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." However, this allegation has no validity in law as Israeli citizens were neither deported nor transferred to the territories.

Although Israel has voluntarily taken upon itself the obligation to uphold the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel maintains that the Convention (which deals with occupied territories) was not applicable to the disputed territory. As there had been no internationally recognized legal sovereign in either the West Bank or Gaza prior to the 1967 Six Day War, they cannot be considered to have become "occupied territory" when control passed into the hands of Israel.

Yet even if the Fourth Geneva Convention were to apply to the territories, Article 49 would not be relevant to the issue of Jewish settlements. The Convention was drafted immediately following the Second World War, against the background of the massive forced population transfers that occurred during that period. As the International Red Cross' authoritative commentary to the Convention confirms, Article 49 (entitled "Deportations, Transfers, Evacuations") was intended to prevent the forcible transfer of civilians, thereby protecting the local population from displacement. Israel has not forcibly transferred its citizens to the territory and the Convention does not place any prohibition on individuals voluntarily choosing their place of residence. Moreover, the settlements are not intended to displace Arab inhabitants, nor do they do so in practice. According to independent surveys, the built-up areas of the settlements (not including roads or unpopulated adjacent tracts) take up about 3% of the total territory of the West Bank.

Israel's use of land for settlements conforms to all rules and norms of international law. Privately owned lands are not requisitioned for the establishment of settlements. In addition, all settlement activity comes under the supervision of the Supreme Court of Israel (sitting as the High Court of Justice) and every aggrieved inhabitant of the territories, including Palestinian residents, can appeal directly to this Court.

The Fourth Geneva Convention was certainly not intended to prevent individuals from living on their ancestral lands or on property that had been illegally taken from them. Many present-day Israeli settlements have been established on sites that were home to Jewish communities in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) in previous generations, in an expression of the Jewish people's deep historic and religious connection with the land. Many of the most ancient and holy Jewish sites, including the Cave of the Patriarchs (the burial site of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) and Rachel's Tomb, are located in these areas. Jewish communities, such as in Hebron (where Jews lived until they were massacred in 1929), existed throughout the centuries. Other communities, such as the Gush Etzion bloc in Judea, were founded before 1948 under the internationally endorsed British Mandate.

The right of Jews to settle in all parts of the Land of Israel was first recognized by the international community in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. The purpose of the Mandate was to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish national home in the Jewish people's ancient homeland. Indeed, Article 6 of the Mandate provided for "close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use."

For more than a thousand years, the only time that Jewish settlement was prohibited in the West Bank was under the Jordanian occupation (1948-1967) that resulted from an armed invasion. During this period of Jordanian rule, which was not internationally recognized, Jordan eliminated the Jewish presence in the West Bank (as Egypt did in the Gaza Strip) and declared that the sale of land to Jews was a capital offense. It is untenable that this outrage could invalidate the right of Jews to establish homes in these areas, and accordingly, the legal titles to land that had already been acquired remain valid to this day.

In conclusion, the oft-repeated claim regarding the illegality' of Israeli settlements has no legal or factual basis under either international law or the agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. Such charges can only be regarded as politically motivated. Most importantly, any political claim -- including the one regarding settlements -- should never be used to justify terrorist attacks on innocent civilians.


A lot of beating around the bush, but the reality is that:
1) Israeli occupation has never been legalised or recognised by any country so it remains occupation, and Israel's claim is not "legally valid".
2) The Geneva conventions apply to all international conflicts and warzones, and all occupation. Noone can deny that Israel is occupying Westbank, since it has never been recognised as part of Israel. Indeed these are disputed territories, and as long as they remain disputed, the term "occupation" remains in use. Israel DID transfer its own population into the occupied territories. It doesn't say "forced" transfer, but transfer, which can be voluntary as well. Israel protected the settlers, build accomodation for them, made settlements a state policy and an ideological project....
3) the Balfour declaration has been replaced by resolution 181 which ordered a Jewish and Arab state in Palestine. (which didn't contain Transjordan at that time). Furthermore there's resolution 242 which calls for Israel to withdraw from occupied territories occupied since 1967. The term occupied territories was explictly used, which confirms that the Geneva conventions do apply in this case.
4) The Palestinians nor the international community ever accepted the settlements on their territory, not during Oslo and not later. The question would be dealth with at a later stage as part of a final solution, which never happened.

5) UN resolution 452 "calls upon the Government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem."

[takeo]

6) uN resolution 465

The Security Council,

Taking note of the reports of the Commission of the Security Council established under resolution 446 (1979) to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, contained in documents S/13450 and Corr. 1 and S/13679,

Taking note also of letters from the Permanent Representative of Jordan (S/13801) and the Permanent Representative of Morocco, Chairman of the Islamic Group (S/13802),

Strongly deploring the refusal by Israel to co-operate with the Commission and regretting its formal rejection of resolutions 446 (1979) and 452 (1979),

Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

Deploring the decision of the Government of Israel to officially support Israeli settlement in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967,

Deeply concerned over the practices of the Israeli authorities in implementing that settlement policy in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, and its consequences for the local Arab and Palestinian population,

Taking into account the need to consider measures for the impartial protection of private and public land and property, and water resources,

Bearing in mind the specific status of Jerusalem and, in particular, the need for protection and preservation of the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the Holy Places in the city,

Drawing attention to the grave consequences which the settlement policy is bound to have on any attempt to reach a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,

Recalling pertinent Security Council resolutions, specifically resolutions 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967, 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969 and 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, as well as the consensus statement made by the President of the Security Council on 11 November 1976,

Having invited Mr. Fahd Qawasmeh, Mayor of Al-Khalil (Hebron), in the occupied territory, to supply it with information pursuant to rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure,

1. Commends the work done by the Commission in preparing the report contained in document S/13679;

2. Accepts the conclusions and recommendations contained in the above-mentioned report of the Commission;

3. Calls upon all parties, particularly the Government of Israel, to co-operate with the Commission;

4. Strongly deplores the decision of Israel to prohibit the free travel of Mayor Fahd Qawasmeh in order to appear before the Security Council, and requests Israel to permit his free travel to the United Nations headquarters for that purpose;

5. Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

6. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

7. Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connexion with settlements in the occupied territories;

8. Requests the Commission to continue to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, to investigate the reported serious depletion of natural resources, particularly the water resources, with a view to ensuring the protection of those important natural resources of the territories under occupation, and to keep under close scrutiny the implementation of the present resolution;

9. Requests the Commission to report to the Security Council before 1 September 1980, and decides to convene at the earliest possible date thereafter in order to consider the report and the full implementation of the present resolution.

[Marc39]

Article 49 applies to all decisions taken in occupied territory by the occupying power.

But, Israel is not occupying the West Bank, invalidating the application of Art. 49. Israel is neither militaily nor governmentally controlling the West Bank. Furthermore, accompanying commentary on Art. 49 clearly indicates it was intended to apply to occupations during wartime.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Israel is not an occupying power in the West Bank. The PA is the governing power. Israel is neither deporting nor transfering settlers.

Without prejudice to the application of the Conventions and of this Protocol, grave breaches of these instruments shall be regarded as war crimes. [/quote]

Irrelevant to the facts on the ground.

[Marc39]

A lot of beating around the bush, but the reality is that:
1) Israeli occupation has never been legalised or recognised by any country so it remains occupation, and Israel's claim is not "legally valid".

The Palestine Mandate provides the legal basis for the Israeli settlements. Other countries' recognition is irrelevant. Israel's claim is legally sound.

2) The Geneva conventions apply to all international conflicts and warzones, and all occupation.

Settlements do not constitute a military occupation. You are applying the GC inappropriately.

Noone can deny that Israel is occupying Westbank, since it has never been recognised as part of Israel.

Wrong. The 51 nations comprising the League of Nations included Jewish settlement in the WB, and Gaza, for that matter, when they ratified the Palestine Mandate.

Indeed these are disputed territories, and as long as they remain disputed, the term "occupation" remains in use.

Not according to the Palestine Mandate, which represents international law.

Israel DID transfer its own population into the occupied territories.

Wrong. Settlers move to the WB of their on accord. Israel cannot force its citizens to move to the WB.

It doesn't say "forced" transfer, but transfer, which can be voluntary as well.

Wrong.
ARTICLE 49
"Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive."

Israel protected the settlers, build accomodation for them, made settlements a state policy and an ideological project....

Now, you're whining.

the Balfour declaration has been replaced by resolution 181 which ordered a Jewish and Arab state in Palestine. (which didn't contain Transjordan at that time).

Which the Pals rejected.

Furthermore there's resolution 242 which calls for Israel to withdraw from occupied territories occupied since 1967.

Res. 242 is non-binding. Furthermore, it calls for withdrawal predicated on peace with Israel's neighbors. The PLO and Hamas charters would need to be overhauled.

The term occupied territories was explictly used, which confirms that the Geneva conventions do apply in this case.

Wrong. Israel is not occupying the WB based on the Geneva Conv. definition of an occupation.

The Palestinians nor the international community ever accepted the settlements on their territory, not during Oslo and not later. The question would be dealth with at a later stage as part of a final solution, which never happened.

The Pals rejected the UN Partition Plan, which would have accorded the WB to them. There is no basis for the WB being Pal territory.

UN resolution 452 "calls upon the Government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem."

Non-binding.

Got anything else I can dispute?

[takeo]

Marc39

The Palestine Mandate provides the legal basis for the Israeli settlements. Other countries' recognition is irrelevant. Israel's claim is legally sound.

The Brittish and Palestinian Mandate are history, as is the League of Nations.
The Geneva conventions and UN resolutions are mandatory for all member states.


Settlements do not constitute a military occupation. You are applying the GC inappropriately.

the Israeli military presence not aurotised by any international body in territories not belonging to Israel does. And THUS Israel is legally bound by the Geneva conventions it signed.




Not according to the Palestine Mandate, which represents international law.

It doesn't, it's history, replaced by resolution 181. UN resolutions and Geneva conventions represent international law.




Wrong. Settlers move to the WB of their on accord. Israel cannot force its citizens to move to the WB.

as I mentioned earlier even non-forced transfer is forbidden under the Geneva conventions, it doesn't make a difference between forced and non-forced transfer.





Wrong.
ARTICLE 49
"Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive."

Yes, but there's another stipulation:

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies


Which the Pals rejected.

Which doesn't change the legitimacy of 181.

Res. 242 is non-binding.

What? Resolution 242 is absolutely binding, noone doubts that.


Furthermore, it calls for withdrawal predicated on peace with Israel's neighbors. The PLO and Hamas charters would need to be overhauled.

It doesn't talk about charters but about peace with Israel's neighbours and state-to-state recognition.



Wrong. Israel is not occupying the WB based on the Geneva Conv. definition of an occupation.

of course it is.



The Pals rejected the UN Partition Plan, which would have accorded the WB to them. There is no basis for the WB being Pal territory.

Some Palestinians rejecting in 1948 doesn't make 181 less legitime. It still stands as long as there's no other UN-resolution overhauling it.

[takeo]

Marc39

But, Israel is not occupying the West Bank, invalidating the application of Art. 49.

It is, speciifically mentioned in resolution 242.

Israel is neither militaily nor governmentally controlling the West Bank.

of course it is, over half of the territory is directly controlled by Israel militarily, including all settlements.


Furthermore, accompanying commentary on Art. 49 clearly indicates it was intended to apply to occupations during wartime.

Occupation is always an act of war. As long as the occupation lasts there's no peace.



Israel is not an occupying power in the West Bank. The PA is the governing power. Israel is neither deporting nor transfering settlers.

PA controlls less than half of the Westbank, it doesn't controll any Israeli settlements. Israel IS transfering settlers, they could never have come there without specific conditions created by the occupation power to accomodate them.

[takeo]

Also, Takeo wanted polls on Israelis opposing giving up the Golan:

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90854/6416465.html

http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2009/p31ejoint.html



http://rss.xinhuanet.com/newsc/english/2008-05/22/content_8228616.htm



http://truman.huji.ac.il/poll-view.asp?id=220



Also, one more thing in the meantime, notice the ONLY reason Takeo is against suicide bombings, missles, shootings, bulldozer attacks, etc. against innocent civilians within the "green line":



In other words [from Takeo's own words] he/she is against them because they damaged the Palestinian cause, not because it is morally wrong to wantonly target non-combatant civilians (including women and babies) or because it is against the Internation Law on War 101, but because it damaged the Palestinian cause. Need I say more?!?!

If Israeli don't want to give back Golan, than they shouldn't expect Syria or other countries to recognise Israel and they shouldn't expect syria to stop supporting anti-Israeli actions nor its alliance with Iran. You can't have it all, occupation is an act of war, if that's your deliberate choice, than stop whining about anti-Israeli violence.

However I found that the majority of Israeli would accept a two-state solution and a Palestinian state in the occupied territories, and they would also accept negociating with Hamas if necessary to establish peace.

67% of the Israelis support and 29% oppose mutual recognition of Israel as the state for the Jewish people and Palestine as the state for the Palestinian people as part of a permanent status agreement. Among Palestinians, 55% support and 44% oppose this step.

http://www.kas.de/proj/home/pub/19/2/dokument_id-13331/index.html



Attacking Palestinian civilians is harming the Palestinian state and as morally wrong of course, I said that many times on this forum. However I have a question for you: do you think ethnic cleansing is morally wrong? Do you think harming Palestinian civilians on purpose in morally wrong?

[Marc39]

It is, speciifically mentioned in resolution 242.

And, the UN is neutral? 242 is non-binding, so, in the end, who cares about it?

of course it is, over half of the territory is directly controlled by Israel militarily, including all settlements.

The IDF is present in the West Bank not as an occupier, not to govern the WB, but, merely to provide security against Pal violence against Jewish residents.

Occupation is always an act of war. As long as the occupation lasts there's no peace.

What was Israel occupying when the Arabs went to war with Israel in '48 and '67?

PA controlls less than half of the Westbank, it doesn't controll any Israeli settlements.

Why would it? It's not a Pal country.

Israel IS transfering settlers, they could never have come there without specific conditions created by the occupation power to accomodate them.

You're reaching.

[Aliyah1995]

If Israeli don't want to give back Golan, than they shouldn't expect Syria or other countries to recognise Israel and they shouldn't expect syria to stop supporting anti-Israeli actions nor its alliance with Iran. You can't have it all, occupation is an act of war, if that's your deliberate choice, than stop whining about anti-Israeli violence.

a) I couldn't give a darn if Syria recognizes Israel
b) If Syria didn't want to risk losing the Golan, then why did they take part in the declared war of driving the Jews into the Sea.
c) So, as long as Israel has the Golan, it is OK for Hizbullah to launch missles at schools, playgrounds, hospitals, etc.? In other words, you are painting terrorism as white (like usual). And, if you don't give a darn about Israeli blood, you should give a darn about this going against the International Law of war and engagement, considering you are always quoting International Law like the Holy Bible (even if you twist and or leave out critical parts of it to suit your agenda).

However I found that the majority of Israeli would accept a two-state solution and a Palestinian state in the occupied territories, and they would also accept negociating with Hamas if necessary to establish peace.

67% of the Israelis support and 29% oppose mutual recognition of Israel as the state for the Jewish people and Palestine as the state for the Palestinian people as part of a permanent status agreement. Among Palestinians, 55% support and 44% oppose this step.

http://www.kas.de/proj/home/pub/19/2...331/index.html

The "two-state" solution that even the most left-wing Israelis support (I know because I have a distant cousing who ran for Meretz and participated in the signing of the Geneva Initiative) allows Israel to hold on to "settlements" where there is a large concentration of Jews and mostly around and near Jerusalem, which is where most the of the so-called settlements are. So, even according to the Meretz version of a "two-state" solution, Israel is NOT obligate to withdraw 100% to the 1967 borders and uproot all Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

http://www.chicagopeacenow.org/Geneva-Summary.html

Attacking Palestinian civilians is harming the Palestinian state and as morally wrong of course, I said that many times on this forum. However I have a question for you: do you think ethnic cleansing is morally wrong? Do you think harming Palestinian civilians on purpose in morally wrong?

I think deliberately targeting innocent/non-combatant civilians is wrong. The IDF works on the ethic of reducing enemy civilian casualties as little as possible. If that wasn't the case then Operation Cast Lead would have been finished in 48 hours and there would be a heck of a lot less Israeli families mourning the death of their loved ones lost fighting in Israel's wars.

Do I think both the Jews and the "Palestinians" can live together in harmony in the little sliver of land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan. I am being honest, rather than naive and politically correct, when I say no. As far as transferring is concerned, why is it ALWAYS ok for Jews, but NOT for others. The so-called "settlements" being "illegal" is just another excuse in the quest to chop up Israel, and transfer yet more Jews, until the next phase of wiping Israel off the map begins. For the umpteemth time, the ONLY sane solution is to take down the refugee camps set up by the UNRWA, stop using these so-called "Palestinians" as pawns and integrate them into their countries.

Oh, BTW, before quoting UN laws and obligations, surely you are aware that Israel is NOT and NEVER has been allowed to sit on the UN security council:

http://www.caje.org/learn/israel-un.htm

Of the 189 member nations of the United Nations, 188 may be elected to serve on the powerful Security Council. Libya, for example, may serve on the council. So may North Korea, Iran and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq (President Bush called them the “axis of evil”). So, too, may Syria, which is now serving a two-year term on the Security Council. Only one country in the world today may not sit on the Security Council. That country is Israel.

http://www.science.co.il/arab-israeli-conflict/articles/Newman-2000-08-01.asp

"Believe it or not, Israel is the only one of the 185 member countries ineligible to serve on the United Nations Security Council, the key deliberative group of the world body. Even Iraq is eligible. So is Iran. And so, too, are Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria. Why is it that these seven nations, all cited by the U.S. State Department as sponsors of terrorism, are eligible to serve rotation terms on the Security Council, yet Israel, a democratic nation and member of the UN since 1949, is not?

In otherwords, Israel is basically an observer at the UN and not much (if anything more). Israel does NOT have full UN rights that a member of the UN is supposed to have. So, why should Israel take anything they say seriously?

Any other questions? (or answers)

[takeo]

Marc39

And, the UN is neutral? 242 is non-binding, so, in the end, who cares about it?

242 is binding


The IDF is present in the West Bank not as an occupier, not to govern the WB, but, merely to provide security against Pal violence against Jewish residents.

An army of another country present in areas not belonging to that country without consent of international instances or local government IS illegal.



What was Israel occupying when the Arabs went to war with Israel in '48 and '67?

There was no real peace either between 1948 and 1967, but no real war either, except for Israel participating to the colonial war against Egypt. The colonisation and occupation of 1967 made the whole situation more complicated and worse.

[takeo]

Aliyah1995


c) So, as long as Israel has the Golan, it is OK for Hizbullah to launch missles at schools, playgrounds, hospitals, etc.? In other words, you are painting terrorism as white (like usual). And, if you don't give a darn about Israeli blood, you should give a darn about this going against the International Law of war and engagement, considering you are always quoting International Law like the Holy Bible (even if you twist and or leave out critical parts of it to suit your agenda).

These organisations don't belong to Syrian army, so Syria is not responsible for their actions. Syria helps them tough, as the US helped and funded the contra guerilla's and the Afghan terrorists. If Israel wants Syria to refrain from that, and help Israel against Hezbollah and Hamas, than they should give back the Golan heights, it's as simple as that. Also, as long as Israel keeps the Golan occupied, Syria will remain an ally of Iran, which doesn't exactly help US or Israeli interests in the region.
Most Druzes living there never accepted Israeli nationality and refused to renounce their Syrian citizenship, they consider this are to be part of Syria.



The "two-state" solution that even the most left-wing Israelis support (I know because I have a distant cousing who ran for Meretz and participated in the signing of the Geneva Initiative) allows Israel to hold on to "settlements" where there is a large concentration of Jews and mostly around and near Jerusalem, which is where most the of the so-called settlements are.

In return for an equal part of Israel. I don't think Palestinians did object to that.




So, even according to the Meretz version of a "two-state" solution, Israel is NOT obligate to withdraw 100% to the 1967 borders and uproot all Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

Yes, it is, unless Palestinians agree to a exchange of lands.


I think deliberately targeting innocent/non-combatant civilians is wrong. The IDF works on the ethic of reducing enemy civilian casualties as little as possible.

Not according to plenty of international, UN- and human rights groups reports.


If that wasn't the case then Operation Cast Lead would have been finished in 48 hours and there would be a heck of a lot less Israeli families mourning the death of their loved ones lost fighting in Israel's wars.

Israel could have bombed the entire Gaza to pieces, but that would be genocide. I don't think it would have been positive for US-Israel relations.




Do I think both the Jews and the "Palestinians" can live together in harmony in the little sliver of land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan. I am being honest, rather than naive and politically correct, when I say no.

So, in that case you should be in favor of a two-state solution. Then they don't live together but in two different states.


As far as transferring is concerned, why is it ALWAYS ok for Jews, but NOT for others.

It's not ok for Jews and not for Palestinians. Mind you, the removal of settlers who moved there from Israel during the last years and who had no right to move to the occupied territories under international law, is not considered ethnic cleansing. Nor is the removal of illegal migrants in Israel. And as I said, according to me they don't HAVE to move, if they want to live under Palestinian law. But most are ideological nuts who came exactly there because they believe in Eretz Israel.
But Palestinians are not illegal settlers in Palestine, most lived there for many generations and have their roots there, except the ones ethnically cleansed from Israel in 1948.


The so-called "settlements" being "illegal" is just another excuse in the quest to chop up Israel, and transfer yet more Jews, until the next phase of wiping Israel off the map begins.

Nonsense, why does Israel need Westbank, Gaza, Golan, eastern Jerusalem full of palestinians, Druzes, etc. isn't Israel good enough? Israel was recognised in 1948, and managed without these territories. These territories mean a lot of trouble for Israel, and most Israeli want to get rid of them. Besides they are NEVER going to be recognised by any country as part of Israel, nor is there ever going to be peace if Israel sticks to them.





For the umpteemth time, the ONLY sane solution is to take down the refugee camps set up by the UNRWA, stop using these so-called "Palestinians" as pawns and integrate them into their countries.

So you mean ethnically cleansed them? What if they don't cooperate and "other countries" don't want them, what is extremely likely? And how do you think this will be received by the international community? And do you think these millions of ethnically cleansed people will just accept it? Palestinian refugee camps are very fertile recruiting grounds for anti-Israeli action, and without a just solution for them, they are going to haunt Israel.


Oh, BTW, before quoting UN laws and obligations, surely you are aware that Israel is NOT and NEVER has been allowed to sit on the UN security council:

http://www.caje.org/learn/israel-un.htm



http://www.science.co.il/arab-israeli-conflict/articles/Newman-2000-08-01.asp

Because Israel has very few friends in the world, as a result of its refusal to apply UN-resolutions and to search a just compromise with the palestinians.




In otherwords, Israel is basically an observer at the UN and not much (if anything more). Israel does NOT have full UN rights that a member of the UN is supposed to have. So, why should Israel take anything they say seriously?

Because total isolation doesn't benefit Israel.

[Sharona]

I don't really understand this 'give it back' thing - as if it's been stolen.:scratch:

When war happens, ground is taken - that's how war works. War is a grown-up thing. You can't attack a country, lose, and then demand your marbles back. There has to be a deterant factor operating, too. If a country attacks, loses but gets to reclaim all they had before -well, why not just keep rinsing and repeating? Just keep attacking, then demanding your ground back? That's not the way it works.

Boot on the other foot, Takeo, would there be any remote chance that Syria, capturing a part of Israel, could be persuaded to just hand it back? No penalty, no change?

[Mediocrates]

Palestinians have never and will never agree to anything. It doesn't matter what antisemite communist polemics say.

[Mediocrates]

But perhaps their ethos of "No Never!" will work out for them. This is why unilateral actions by Israel are the only plausible way forward. Bibi can agree to 'talks' because they don't mean anything. In parallel he can take down the so called 'outposts' while bolstering Jewish communities in and around Jerusalem. As far as East Jerusalem is concerned, it's a straightforward cost benefit equation. To bring E Jerusalem up to modern standards it will take billions in infrastructure investment. So they need to take the Palestinians at their word and give them the parts of E Jerusalem that are nearly or entirely Palestinian and make running a city their problem to solve.

All residents of Jewish Yesha which are to be incorporated into Israel would be made Israeli citizens regardless. If they are Arab Muslim, Christian, Jew. All of them. Since the point of redistricting is a combination of practical survivable boundaries and maintaining a Jewish presence, it would tend to be a minor nit to the right who insist on a Jewish majority. This would in effect bring another half million Jews into the legal incorporated entity that is Israel as well as a few thousand non Jews. Call that 'Right of Return' for the Palestinians.

The border fence stays up: 2 different countries, one border. If the EU doesn't like it, tough. The colonial empire is dead and they don't get a say.

The 30,000 or so Jews in Yesha left on the other side of the border are given a simple option: stay and take your chances or come back. Either one is a hard choice for them and expensive. Deal with it.

Set a timeline for all rollbacks including the separation of infrastructure services and roads. All checkpoints on the other side of the new line are taken down. All issues with Palestinian Christians are punted to Christian authorities and the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, etc.

All Palestinian border issues in fact all Palestinian issues with all other Arab countries both contiguous and non are solely the responsibilty of the parties involved. Including all so called refugees in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere.

Set a timeline for shared water resource planning. Water resource planning is a regional not a national issue. Israel and Jordan can operate much as they do today in the venue of regional planning and sharing. The Palestinians would be given a timeline to get on board, or not. Perhaps they can work out some other deal with Syria which has a large water surplus.

Trade and transport through, into, out of or across Israel are standard international trade and transport issues. Law, especially contract law applies. Parties who disregard law will be ignored and abandoned to seek other arrangements.

The border with Gaza is left intact. Restrictions through designated crossings is left intact and managed as they are today. Freight, cargo and passenger traffic for Palestinians between Gaza and the West Bank Palestine are permitted, tolled and monitored. Violations are criminal matter. The sea border with Gaza is patrolled and virturally closed out to internationally recognized limits of 12 miles in a straight line from the line separating Gaza from Israel. Gaza has free use of its own coastline out to internationally recognized limits. Violations are a matter of Admiralty Law.

Airspace access is by international treaty. Hostile acts by Palestinian aircraft over commonly treatied airspace will be acted upon as such up to an including defensive military action. International aircraft access from non treatied nations including any and all Arab or Iranian aircraft will be via other Arab partner nations and not via Israeli airspace.

Palestinians may create whatever military forces and defensive infrastructure as they see fit. Any attack upon Israel using those forces or that equipment or manpower will be acted upon as an act of aggression by that nation in its official capacity regardless of statements to the contrary.

Palestine with or without Gaza will issue its own currency, erect its own banking system, judiciary, laws and official documentation requirements however they see fit. The operation and constitution of Palestinian civil and religious society will be left entirely to them. Palestine with or without Gaza can enter into any formal or informal political agreement, treaty, trade group freely at the discretion of all parties involved solely on their own with no external pressure or neglect. Palestine will entirely determine and define the conditions of their own citizenship.

Trade and all economic intercourse with Israel will be through whatever common means exist whether public or private. Investment in Palestine and/or Israel by the other party is subject to whatever common trade laws, tariffs and restrictions apply to international commerce.

[takeo]

I don't really understand this 'give it back' thing - as if it's been stolen.:scratch:

When war happens, ground is taken - that's how war works. War is a grown-up thing. You can't attack a country, lose, and then demand your marbles back. There has to be a deterant factor operating, too. If a country attacks, loses but gets to reclaim all they had before -well, why not just keep rinsing and repeating? Just keep attacking, then demanding your ground back? That's not the way it works.

Boot on the other foot, Takeo, would there be any remote chance that Syria, capturing a part of Israel, could be persuaded to just hand it back? No penalty, no change?

You're dead wrong. Since 1950, the establishment of the UN, only Israel and Morocco have been able to keep territories they stole during a war. Indonesia and Iraq were forced to give it back, and Israel and Morocco are heavily pressured to give it back.
Your rule is one from the colonial 19th century, not included in contemporary international law. Contemporary international law and the UN have exactly been created to avoid this, not by coincidence a few years after Japan and Germany tought they could conquer other lands without consequences.
If Syria would capture a part of Israel, I will explain to you what would happen: an international coalition led by the US will attack Syria and force it to give it back, as happened when another Arab country invaded a US-ally, in 1990. The only difference in this case is that Israel is a US-ally and Syria a US-ennemy, that's why the response has not been the same.

[takeo]

Mediocrates

But perhaps their ethos of "No Never!" will work out for them. This is why unilateral actions by Israel are the only plausible way forward. Bibi can agree to 'talks' because they don't mean anything.

Obama seems to have another opinion, let's see what ha has to say about Netanyahu in his Cairo speech for the Arab world, in which he wants to fundamentally change hostility between the US and the Arab world...




In parallel he can take down the so called 'outposts' while bolstering Jewish communities in and around Jerusalem. As far as East Jerusalem is concerned, it's a straightforward cost benefit equation. To bring E Jerusalem up to modern standards it will take billions in infrastructure investment. So they need to take the Palestinians at their word and give them the parts of E Jerusalem that are nearly or entirely Palestinian and make running a city their problem to solve.

All residents of Jewish Yesha which are to be incorporated into Israel would be made Israeli citizens regardless. If they are Arab Muslim, Christian, Jew. All of them. Since the point of redistricting is a combination of practical survivable boundaries and maintaining a Jewish presence, it would tend to be a minor nit to the right who insist on a Jewish majority. This would in effect bring another half million Jews into the legal incorporated entity that is Israel as well as a few thousand non Jews. Call that 'Right of Return' for the Palestinians.

So what you are proposing is another unilateral solution? Didn't you learn from Gaza? Unilateral withdrawel from a part of the occupied territories doesn't work. Also, how are you going to divide the old city, which is mostly palestinian?



Set a timeline for shared water resource planning. Water resource planning is a regional not a national issue. Israel and Jordan can operate much as they do today in the venue of regional planning and sharing. The Palestinians would be given a timeline to get on board, or not. Perhaps they can work out some other deal with Syria which has a large water surplus.

If the Jordan river will not be liberated, than of course you are not even loyal to your own plan of Israel + some areas around Jerusalem and than Palestinians won't cooperate, ever. Jordan valley is as far from Israel and Jerusalem as possible. Without it, Palestine will just be a Bantustan as it already is today.



Palestinians may create whatever military forces and defensive infrastructure as they see fit. Any attack upon Israel using those forces or that equipment or manpower will be acted upon as an act of aggression by that nation in its official capacity regardless of statements to the contrary.

That's only fair, once a two-state solution has been agreed upon.

concerning the rest, I agree to this text. But iyt can only happen with mutual recognition as part of a final solution.

[Yala]

The Nazis frequently used euphemistic language to disguise the true nature of their crimes. They used the term “Final Solution” to refer to their plan to annihilate the Jewish people. It is not known when the leaders of Nazi Germany definitively decided to implement the "Final Solution." The genocide or mass destruction of the Jews was the culmination of a decade of increasingly severe discriminatory measures.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005151

[Aliyah1995]

Another Takeo Claim: that Jews did not live in Judea and Samaria until after 1967, which doesn't stand the scrutiny of FACTS:

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_current_settlements.php

The Jewish presence there has been continuous, except for 19 years from 1948 to 1967 when the area became Judenrein . And during that 19 year period, the Jordanians and Arabs of the remaining portion of "Palestine" desecrated Jewish holy sites and cemeteries in an attempt to deny that the Jews ever lived there.

http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/2940.html

Those who advocate the dismantling of the Jewish communities in this territory are advocating a policy of ethnic cleansing. This may sound extreme, but from the early 1900s, the Arabs carried out a policy of ethnic cleansing that included the massacre and pogroms in 1929 and 1936 in Hebron. Both the spirit and practice of ethnic cleansing are being continued in the current conflict (see http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php ).

http://www.peacefaq.com/settlements.html

[takeo]

The Nazis frequently used euphemistic language to disguise the true nature of their crimes. They used the term “Final Solution” to refer to their plan to annihilate the Jewish people. It is not known when the leaders of Nazi Germany definitively decided to implement the "Final Solution." The genocide or mass destruction of the Jews was the culmination of a decade of increasingly severe discriminatory measures

Many rightwing Americans and Israeli also use euphemistic terms to disguise the true nature of what they want. "Transfer" means simply ethnic cleansing, their "final solution" for the "Palestinian problem". They also propose different discriminatory measures against both Israeli Arabs and Palestinians.

[takeo]

Another Takeo Claim: that Jews did not live in Judea and Samaria until after 1967, which doesn't stand the scrutiny of FACTS:

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_current_settlements.php



http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/2940.html



http://www.peacefaq.com/settlements.html


Israeli who can prove that their family lived in the Westbank before 1948, should have the right to return, under international law, and become citizens of the new Palestinian state, as long as Palestinians who can prove that their family lived in what is today Israel before 1948, have the right to return as well and become Israeli citizens.
But very few or none of the current settlers in the Westbank are desendants of the 1% to 5% Jewish population in that area before 1948.

[Marc39]

Israeli who can prove that their family lived in the Westbank before 1948, should have the right to return, under international law...

No need to go through such a process. The Palestine Mandate allows any Jew to live in the West Bank. After all, it's not the West Bank, it's Judea and Samaria.

and become citizens of the new Palestinian state

What new Palestinian state? I don't see any stinking new Palestinian state. Unless, of course, you mean Jordan.

as long as Palestinians who can prove that their family lived in what is today Israel before 1948, have the right to return as well and become Israeli citizens.

No, they do not. Why would Israel allow entry of more hostile Arabs? Israel has enough headaches with a hostile Arab population that denies the Holocaust and who are not even supportive of their own country's right to exist. Israel needs fewer Arabs, not more.

But very few or none of the current settlers in the Westbank are desendants of the 1% to 5% Jewish population in that area before 1948.

Doesn't matter. The Palestine Mandate places no such restraints on Jewish immigration. By the way, can Jews with a legitimate familial tie to Gaza live there?

[Mediocrates]

Would that the communists could all wave their wands and declare 'etnic' purity over our moral betters, the Arabs. Perish the thought they be stained with our Jewish contagion. Every state, according to them must be a melange of all creeds, except of course all of the Arab states, which must be as pure as the bright white of their robes and purged of the hook nosed other.

[wat0n]

Israeli who can prove that their family lived in the Westbank before 1948, should have the right to return, under international law, and become citizens of the new Palestinian state, as long as Palestinians who can prove that their family lived in what is today Israel before 1948, have the right to return as well and become Israeli citizens.
But very few or none of the current settlers in the Westbank are desendants of the 1% to 5% Jewish population in that area before 1948.

So for example those who were expelled from Hebron because of the 1929 massacre shouldn't have right of return under that scheme?

[takeo]

So for example those who were expelled from Hebron because of the 1929 massacre shouldn't have right of return under that scheme?

Yes, those too.

[takeo]

Marc39

No need to go through such a process. The Palestine Mandate allows any Jew to live in the West Bank. After all, it's not the West Bank, it's Judea and Samaria.

The Palestine mandate is history.



What new Palestinian state? I don't see any stinking new Palestinian state. Unless, of course, you mean Jordan.

The one described in resolution 181, as well as in the Oslo-agreements, the roadmap to peace, Annapolis, etc. and the one Obama told Netanyahu will be erected in the next 4 years.




No, they do not. Why would Israel allow entry of more hostile Arabs?

Because it's mentioned in different UN-resolutions, including 242. Why would Palestinians allow the entry of more hostile illegal Israeli settlers?

Israel has enough headaches with a hostile Arab population that denies the Holocaust and who are not even supportive of their own country's right to exist. Israel needs fewer Arabs, not more.

Fewer? How are you going to achieve that? Tell me, don't be afraid...



Doesn't matter. The Palestine Mandate places no such restraints on Jewish immigration.

doesn't matter, it is history, the mandate also mentioned that Jews in Palestine should respect the rights of the Arab population and don't do anything that could harm them.

By the way, can Jews with a legitimate familial tie to Gaza live there?

Yes, but only if Palestinians can return too to what is now Israel.

[Aliyah1995]

Israeli who can prove that their family lived in the Westbank before 1948, should have the right to return, under international law, and become citizens of the new Palestinian state, as long as Palestinians who can prove that their family lived in what is today Israel before 1948, have the right to return as well and become Israeli citizens.
But very few or none of the current settlers in the Westbank are desendants of the 1% to 5% Jewish population in that area before 1948.

1) As no where near as many "Palestinians" are actual "refugees" as people might think, but are DESCENDANTS of those that lived here in 1948. Another interesting thing to note, that the Takeo's of this world omit, is that the "Palestinians" are the only people for which descendants not just to the first generation, but to the second generation (something that applies to NO other people, CERTAINLY not to descendants of Holocaust survivors):

http://www.danielpipes.org/1206/unrwa-the-refugee-curse

2) Do you have a survey of what percentage of Jews living in Judea and Samaria are descendants of those who lived there before or are you just throwing out assumptions that fit your agenda? Well I googled myself and the closest thing I could come up with was this:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1228728202944

Most of the settlers are native Israelis, 82.6%, compared with 69.5%in the rest of the country.

In 2006, 3.9% of new immigrants went to live in Judea and Samaria, of whom 38.8% were from the United States, 25.8% were from the former Soviet Union while 19.7% came from France or England.

So, for sure, the stereotype of the typical "settler" having a Brooklyn accent can be thrown out the window. Now, what percentage of the 82.6% of native Israelis living in Judea and Samaria are descendants of those who lived in 1948 before being displaced? My googling falls short to give me an answer, but my guess is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than 5%.

[takeo]

Aliyah1995

1) As no where near as many "Palestinians" are actual "refugees" as people might think, but are DESCENDANTS of those that lived here in 1948.

As I proved above, with plenty of historical studies, only a small percentage of Palestinians are desendants of people from outside Palestine.




Another interesting thing to note, that the Takeo's of this world omit, is that the "Palestinians" are the only people for which descendants not just to the first generation, but to the second generation (something that applies to NO other people, CERTAINLY not to descendants of Holocaust survivors):

http://www.danielpipes.org/1206/unrwa-the-refugee-curse

Jews are ethnic Germans who can prove their great-great parents lived in Germany, usually can get German nationality. Venezuelans or Colombians who can prove their great-great parents came from Spain can obtain Spanish nationality, etc.


2) Do you have a survey of what percentage of Jews living in Judea and Samaria are descendants of those who lived there before or are you just throwing out assumptions that fit your agenda? Well I googled myself and the closest thing I could come up with was this:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1228728202944



So, for sure, the stereotype of the typical "settler" having a Brooklyn accent can be thrown out the window. Now, what percentage of the 82.6% of native Israelis living in Judea and Samaria are descendants of those who lived in 1948 before being displaced? My googling falls short to give me an answer, but my guess is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than 5%.

I didn't say that, what I said is that only very few of them are desendants of the Jewish minority who were ethnically cleansed from the Westbank.

[Aliyah1995]

Takeo-



As I proved above, with plenty of historical studies, only a small percentage of Palestinians are desendants of people from outside Palestine.

Well, it seems like this is, at best, subject to debate and, at worst, a willful distortion of history:

http://www.peacefaq.com/palestinians.html

Are the Palestinians native to the land where Israel now exists?

"The fact is that today's Palestinians are immigrants from the surrounding nations! I grew up well knowing the history and origins of today's Palestinians as being from Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Christians from Greece, Muslim Sherkas from Russia, Muslims from Bosnia, and the Jordanians next door. The civil and tribal wars between Yemmenites (from Yemen) and Kessites (from Banu Kais of Saudi Arabia) ... are well known among Palestinians.
"My grandfather, who was a dignitary in Bethlehem, almost lost his life by Abdul Qader Al-Husseni (the leader of the Palestinian revolution) after being accused of selling land to Jews. He used to tell us that his village Beit Sahur (The Shepherds Fields) in Bethlehem County was empty before his father settled in the area with six other families. The town has now grown to 30,000 inhabitants."

- Walid, a Palestinian Arab defector, talking about the recent immigration of Arabs to Palestine.
quoted from "Answering Islam"

Jews are ethnic Germans who can prove their great-great parents lived in Germany, usually can get German nationality. Venezuelans or Colombians who can prove their great-great parents came from Spain can obtain Spanish nationality, etc.

Germany is the only country that I know of where descendants can claim citizenship. Not aware of any others. Even so, Jewish descendants of Holocaust survivors/refugees are NOT considered "refugees" by the UN, while descendants of the so-called Palestinians are (even those who are living VERY comfortable lives in western countries).

I didn't say that, what I said is that only very few of them are desendants of the Jewish minority who were ethnically cleansed from the Westbank

And do you have a link to prove this (I believe 5% was the figure you threw out of nowhere)? If almost 90% of Jews living in Judea and Samaria are native Israeli, IMO, it is far-fetched to say that only 5% of them are descendants of those who were displaced in 1948 by the Jordanians. At any rate, this whole argument is red-herring because, even if the Geneva Initiave (proposed by ultra-dove Yossi Beillin) is the accepted agreement in the end, most of the so-called "settlements" (about 80%) would remain under Israel Sovereignty with a slight modification of the "green line" and some land swaps. Israel, like any other country, has a right to decide who is entitled to citizenship and who is not and, once a citizen, one is allowed to live wherever they choose within that sovereign territory.

[takeo]

Aliyah1995





Well, it seems like this is, at best, subject to debate and, at worst, a willful distortion of history:

http://www.peacefaq.com/palestinians.html

Are the Palestinians native to the land where Israel now exists?


Well, I prefere to rely on historians (including Israeli Jewish historians) than on "peacefaq". Do a quick google and you'll find out that this theory is completely BS.






Germany is the only country that I know of where descendants can claim citizenship. Not aware of any others.

Spain, France, japan (Fujimori, ...), etcetera. There are many.




Even so, Jewish descendants of Holocaust survivors/refugees are NOT considered "refugees" by the UN, while descendants of the so-called Palestinians are (even those who are living VERY comfortable lives in western countries).

Because the Holocaust happened before the establishment of the UN, the so-called "Naqba" happened when the UN was already established. Nevertheless, many descendants of Jewish refugees have been compensated for the lost properties of their parents/gransparents/great-greatparents.


And do you have a link to prove this (I believe 5% was the figure you threw out of nowhere)?

I said that 5% or less of the population of Westbank was Jewish before 1948.


If almost 90% of Jews living in Judea and Samaria are native Israeli, IMO, it is far-fetched to say that only 5% of them are descendants of those who were displaced in 1948 by the Jordanians.

I didn't say that. But now we're at it, I have no idea, but I think even less than 5 %. Would be interesting to get some statistics on this subject. I can proove that less than 5 % of the population was Jewish before 1948, if you want, already did on this forum. (wikipedia: "palestinians")
And, I think ethni cleansing is bad, no matter who's the perpetrator. Cleansing Jews who lived since ma,ny generations on the Westbank and in East-Jerusalem was an evil act, as was the eviction of many palestinians from Israel in 1948.


At any rate, this whole argument is red-herring because, even if the Geneva Initiave (proposed by ultra-dove Yossi Beillin) is the accepted agreement in the end, most of the so-called "settlements" (about 80%) would remain under Israel Sovereignty with a slight modification of the "green line" and some land swaps. Israel, like any other country, has a right to decide who is entitled to citizenship and who is not and, once a citizen, one is allowed to live wherever they choose within that sovereign territory.

yes, but Westbank, Eastern Jerusalem, etc. is not considered a part of Israel by the rest of the world. If Palestinians agree, there can be some land swaps, but untill that moment any Israeli settler on land occupied since 1967 is considered an illegal immigrant under international law.

[redcake]

Because the Holocaust happened before the establishment of the UN, the so-called "Naqba" happened when the UN was already established. Nevertheless, many descendants of Jewish refugees have been compensated for the lost properties of their parents/gransparents/great-greatparents.

There are no Jews collecting compensation for their refugee great-grandparents. There are a few sporadic cases of Jewish families taken legal action to reclaim their families property using judicial systems. There's no comparison. The number Palestinian families which has received like minded compensation because they did have the proof, and took appropriate actions, should overshadow whatever misleading logic you're using here, but like most people claiming to be Palestinians, you have no desire to represent the truth. After all, the Naqba crowd isn't just after some compensation. They're after blood. Jewish blood.



yes, but Westbank, Eastern Jerusalem, etc. is not considered a part of Israel by the rest of the world. If Palestinians agree, there can be some land swaps, but untill that moment any Israeli settler on land occupied since 1967 is considered an illegal immigrant under international law.

Wait, what? If you were really trying to make an honest argument, Palestinian Arabs would also fall into that immigrant category....but the West Bank, and Eastern Jerusalem are within Israel's recognized borders, and it really doesn't matter what fantasy is in your head, or the head of her enemies. So stop the charade. If you truly believed the land was occupied, it would be occupied JORDANIAN land.

Palestinian squatters have absolutely no legal claim to that land. Period. It's a gift that their dreams and desires are even being considered.

So take your phony stats and come back when you can be honest about what you're really advocating.

[takeo]

redcake


There are no Jews collecting compensation for their refugee great-grandparents.

Yes, there are. And they are right. We would have done the same thing in their situation.




There are a few sporadic cases of Jewish families taken legal action to reclaim their families property using judicial systems. There's no comparison. The number Palestinian families which has received like minded compensation because they did have the proof, and took appropriate actions, should overshadow whatever misleading logic you're using here, but like most people claiming to be Palestinians, you have no desire to represent the truth. After all, the Naqba crowd isn't just after some compensation. They're after blood. Jewish blood.

The "Naqba crowd" is not after Jewish blood, and many even recognise Israel.
What they're after generally is the recognition that the 1948 ethnic cleansing was desasterous for the Palestinian people. I think Israel should recognise that, as Turkey should recognise the Armenian genocide and Germany did recognise the Holocaust. (I'm not saying these acts are equal on the scale of "evilness", clearly the Holocaust was a much worse crime, which doesn't mean the "Naqba" was a "fait divers", and should be forgotten). Also, they are absolutely right to claim compensation and a "just solution" for the ongoing problem of the refugees. Some Israeli politicians think so as well, even some (left-wing) Jewish Israeli politicians. If Israel would be a mature Western democracy, it should come to terms with its history, as the US and Australia came to terms (more or less) with their history of oppression, genocide and ethnic cleansing against the indigenous peoples, Belgium and France came to terms with its bloody colonialist past, etcetera. The fact alone that this question remains a taboo among Jewish Israeli (except a few such as Morris who want to end the taboo) means they didn't come to terms with history. This on its turn can be used (and is used) by ennemies of Israel.
If Israel came to terms with its past and with the refugee-problems, this can't be used anymore by its ennemies as an excuse to fight Israel and deny its existence.

Wait, what? If you were really trying to make an honest argument, Palestinian Arabs would also fall into that immigrant category....

Why? Most live there since many generations, since at least the Arab invasion and probably even earlier according to most historians.(including Israeli historians)


but the West Bank, and Eastern Jerusalem are within Israel's recognized borders

Recognised by whom? Not by the UN, EU, US or any other country on earth. And not by the overwelming majority of inhabitants either, who are not Israeli citizens and don't want to be Israeli citizens. Saying that means you live in some kind of virtual reality, not the real world.

, and it really doesn't matter what fantasy is in your head, or the head of her enemies. So stop the charade. If you truly believed the land was occupied, it would be occupied JORDANIAN land.

Not only do I believe it, the UN, US and every other country on earth believes so. Every country refuses to move their embassy to Jerusalem as long as the occupation continues, including the US.



Palestinian squatters have absolutely no legal claim to that land. Period. It's a gift that their dreams and desires are even being considered.

Why not? A people living there since so many generations? And why should Israel have a legal claim to that land?
Anyway, if that's your opinion and the opinion of the Israeli government, it means peace is impossible and Israel should be isolated, boycotted and fought untill it changes its position. The world did the same when Iraq occupied Kouweit. Also, the Obama-administration is determined to force a two-state solution. They have friends within the Israeli government and if Netanyahu and Lieberman don't change their position I will predict that this government is not going to last long. Most Israeli by the way are in favor of a two-state solution and good relations with the US. If you extremists persist, you're going loose in the long run.







So take your phony stats and come back when you can be honest about what you're really advocating.

I'm honest, and so are you. I want peace, you want war and isolation. Occupation is an act of war. Ongoing occupation means ongoing war and no safety or international recognition for Israel.

[baggi]

war and isolation.. but you support giving land to fatah and hamas ?

[Reffo]

(I'm not saying these acts are equal on the scale of "evilness", clearly the Holocaust was a much worse crime, which doesn't mean the "Naqba" was a "fait divers", and should be forgotten)But you ARE comparing the Naqba and the holocaust even though it is like comparing apples to oranges. One came about as a result of a state's industrial scale deliberate policy of indiscriminate genocide against innocents (the Holocaust). And the other came about as a result of a genocidal war in which the side that declared it's intention to commit another genocide lost the war and as a result it's own population fled because they were fearful of the possible consequences (The Naqba).

If Israel would be a mature Western democracy, it should come to terms with its history, as the US and Australia came to terms (more or less) with their history of oppression, genocide and ethnic cleansing against the indigenous peoples, Belgium and France came to terms with its bloody colonialist past, etcetera. Again, you are comparing apples to oranges. Because all those western countries that you mention clearly carried out their acts against the native populations in places that they invaded and their acts of repentance occurred only many years later once they had complete peace and security and no possible threat to themselves.

The Jewish people on the other hand have been facing attack for nearly 100 years to this day. And even though the Arabs, the Muslims and people like you, justify those attacks on the basis that the Jews were invading colonialists, that is a malicious and BLATANT LIE. It is a lie, because it is a well documented historical fact, supported by archeology, that the holy land was and is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people and it is a land that had continuous Jewish presence for thousands of years.

Now don't get me wrong, I do have a measure of sympathy to thousands of ordinary Palestinians who lost their homes and properties in the Naqba. But unlike you and people like you (I am being polite), I don't believe that those Palestinians have any right to blame Israel for their predicament. I believe on the other hand that they have every right and that they should blame their own successive leaders for taking them down on the foolish road of trying to stop another people (the Jewish people) from liberating themselves. All they had to do was to share the land, agree to the two state solution that was offered in 1948, which the Jewish people accepted, and there would have been NO Naqba...

[bararallu]

If I made toilet paper I would call it 'Neqba.' I'm sure it would then be called the Toilet- humor-riot, which will lead to the next "Neqba"... which will lead to a new brand of toilet paper.

[Mediocrates]

There is a group in Israel now who is (are?) petitioning the courts to forbid Jewish housing buildouts in Jaffo. Arab only.

[takeo]

war and isolation.. but you support giving land to fatah and hamas ?

Not to Hamas if they refuse to recognise Israel and garantee its security.

[takeo]

Reffo

But you ARE comparing the Naqba and the holocaust even though it is like comparing apples to oranges.

Many supporters of the occupation compare Hamas shooting a few rockets on Israel to the holocaust, which is even much less comparable...
What's comparable is that 100000's of people suffered frrom these policies, it were largescale operations with the aim to change the ethnic composition of the population in certain areas.


One came about as a result of a state's industrial scale deliberate policy of indiscriminate genocide against innocents (the Holocaust). And the other came about as a result of a genocidal war in which the side that declared it's intention to commit another genocide lost the war and as a result it's own population fled because they were fearful of the possible consequences (The Naqba).

No, they fled as a result of a systematic policy to chase them, which was not an indespensible consequence of the war. The most impôrtant difference with the Holocaust is that it was not the aim to "terminate" them.


Again, you are comparing apples to oranges. Because all those western countries that you mention clearly carried out their acts against the native populations in places that they invaded and their acts of repentance occurred only many years later once they had complete peace and security and no possible threat to themselves.

Well, you have a point there. Still, I don't see any reason why Israel shouldn't recognise the "Naqba" as a tragedy for the Palestinians, as a part of a final deal with the Palestinians and a "healing proces". (the Palestinians on their turn should recognise that terrorism against Israeli civilians was wrong and should never be repeated). The problem is that the radicals on both sides are still too strong.




The Jewish people on the other hand have been facing attack for nearly 100 years to this day. And even though the Arabs, the Muslims and people like you, justify those attacks on the basis that the Jews were invading colonialists, that is a malicious and BLATANT LIE. It is a lie, because it is a well documented historical fact, supported by archeology, that the holy land was and is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people and it is a land that had continuous Jewish presence for thousands of years.

It is also a proven fact that this same land is the ancestral homeland of the Arabspeaking Palestinians, who live there since many centuries, and who's DNA closely resembles the Jewish DNA. (which means they have common ancestors). Yet this fact is denied by rightwing Israeli, who want to chase them and take the Holy land for themselves only. The reality is that both peoples have the right to live there and establish their state there. As long as some powerfull Israeli and some powerfull Palestinians refuse to recognise that simple fact, there will never be peace.
Now since Oslo, and in fact since resolution 181, there is a world consensus that there should be two states.
I don't think all Israeli should be chased from the occupied territories. But transfer under occupation is illegal and unacceptable. It can only happen in normal conditions, and with the autorisation of legal autorities. Israel doesn't accept any Palestinians to move to Israel, even those born in Israel, but it transplants its own population in occupied territories, without any legal framework accepted by the people inhzbiting the area or the international community.









Now don't get me wrong, I do have a measure of sympathy to thousands of ordinary Palestinians who lost their homes and properties in the Naqba. But unlike you and people like you (I am being polite), I don't believe that those Palestinians have any right to blame Israel for their predicament. I believe on the other hand that they have every right and that they should blame their own successive leaders for taking them down on the foolish road of trying to stop another people (the Jewish people) from liberating themselves.


They can blame their own leaders (and they do so) but the 1948 declaration of war was no reason for massive ethnic cleansing carried out by Israel. Also, it's no reason to refuse refugees returning once the war was over. By doing so Israel violated several UN resolutions. So Israel too is to blame.




All they had to do was to share the land, agree to the two state solution that was offered in 1948, which the Jewish people accepted, and there would have been NO Naqba...

Yes, but there has been a Naqba, and Israel did have other choices. It could not have harmed any civilian not involved in the fighting, but that clearly didn't happen, civilians have been targetted on purpose. Turks used the war as an excuse to carry out genocide against Armenians, whom they accused of "collaboration with the russians". (which was true in some cases). Still, that was of course no excuse at all.

[Reffo]

Yes, but there has been a Naqba, and Israel did have other choices.Now let's see how consisten you are:

You blame the Nakba on Israel even though it came about in a war that was initiated and perpetrated by the Arabs in which they openly declared their intention to exterminate the Jewish Palestinians. Now let's see how your own favourite historian (Benny Morris) described what the Jews did in 1947/48:
According to your findings, how many acts of Israeli massacre were perpetrated in 1948?

Twenty-four. In some cases four or five people were executed, in others the numbers were 70, 80, 100 ........

You have to put things in proportion. These are small war crimes. All told, if we take all the massacres and all the executions of 1948, we come to about 800 who were killed. In comparison to the massacres that were perpetrated in Bosnia, that’s peanuts. In comparison to the massacres the Russians perpetrated against the Germans at Stalingrad, that’s chicken feed. When you take into account that there was a bloody civil war here and that we lost an entire 1 percent of the population, you find that we behaved very well.
He also forgot to mention that the above was carried out in a climate in which Arabs too massacred Jews and openly declared that their intention was to drive the Jews into the sea ....

Now let's see Takeo, you call the alleged killings Arabs in a war in which 6000 Jews died (1% of the then Jewish population of Palestine) as ethnic cleansings by Israel. Yet how did you describe what happened to Jews in Arab countries? Let's see:

…. Still what is described here are antisemitic measures, without any doubt, but nowhere have Jews been forced at gunpoint to leave the country, as was the case with many palestinians in Israel.
Post #109 Rahm Emanuel, Traitor

Now look at the reference link that I provided about what happened to Jews in various Arab countries:

I already provided information above regarding what happened in Egypt (which was much worse than what's listed below)....Here is what happened in some other Arab countries:

Libya
A series of pogroms started in Tripoli in November 1945; over a period of several days more than 130 Jews (including 36 children) were killed, hundreds were injured, 4,000 were left homeless, and 2,400 were reduced to poverty. Five synagogues in Tripoli and four in provincial towns were destroyed, and over 1,000 Jewish residences and commercial buildings were plundered in Tripoli alone.[68] The pogroms continued in June 1948, when 15 Jews were killed and 280 Jewish homes destroyed.[69]

Morocco
In June 1948, soon after Israel was established and in the midst of the first Arab-Israeli war, riots against Jews broke out in Oujda and Djerada, killing 44 Jews. In 1948-9, 18,000 Jews left the country for Israel.

Syria
Rioters in Aleppo in 1947 burned the city's Jewish quarter and killed 75 people.[81] In 1948, there were approximately 30,000 Jews in Syria. The Syrian government placed severe restrictions on the Jewish community, including on emigration.

Tunisia
Following Tunisia's independence from France in 1956, a number of anti-Jewish policies led to emigration, of which half went to Israel and the other half to France. After attacks in 1967, Jewish emigration both to Israel and France accelerated.

Yemen
riots killed at least 80 Jews in Aden, a British colony in southern Yemen. In 1948 the new Zaydi Imam Ahmad bin Yahya unexpectedly allowed his Jewish subjects to leave Yemen, and tens of thousands poured into Aden.
post #113 Rahm Emanuel, Traitor

Even if one believes the worst allegations about alleged Israeli ethnic cleansing, it begs the question: In what way were Israeli actions worse than the actions of Arabs against Jews? Did the Israelis stand behind each and every single Palestinian Arab and forced them out at gun point?

Can one say that you are suffering from a severe case of double standards, Takeo?

[Reffo]

Still, I don't see any reason why Israel shouldn't recognise the "Naqba" as a tragedy for the Palestinians, as a part of a final deal with the Palestinians and a "healing proces". (the Palestinians on their turn should recognise that terrorism against Israeli civilians was wrong and should never be repeated). The problem is that the radicals on both sides are still too strong.When the Palestinian Arabs will decide to fess up to their many crimes against Palestinian Jews (and even other Jews as well as non Jews), the Israelis should do likewise but certainly not before...

[takeo]

Now let's see how consisten you are:

[QUOTE]You blame the Nakba on Israel even though it came about in a war that was initiated and perpetrated by the Arabs in which they openly declared their intention to exterminate the Jewish Palestinians. Now let's see how your own favourite historian (Benny Morris) described what the Jews did in 1947/48:
According to your findings, how many acts of Israeli massacre were perpetrated in 1948?

Twenty-four. In some cases four or five people were executed, in others the numbers were 70, 80, 100 ........

You have to put things in proportion. These are small war crimes. All told, if we take all the massacres and all the executions of 1948, we come to about 800 who were killed. In comparison to the massacres that were perpetrated in Bosnia, that’s peanuts. In comparison to the massacres the Russians perpetrated against the Germans at Stalingrad, that’s chicken feed. When you take into account that there was a bloody civil war here and that we lost an entire 1 percent of the population, you find that we behaved very well.

Can you give me a link please? Especially of the last paragraph.
Also, you omitted the part where he explicitly admitted that Israel purposely carried out large scale ethnic cleansing (which isn't the same as genocide), ordered by the highest levels, with the goal to create a Jewish majority.




He also forgot to mention that the above was carried out in a climate in which Arabs too massacred Jews and openly declared that their intention was to drive the Jews into the sea ....

Now let's see Takeo, you call the alleged killings Arabs in a war in which 6000 Jews died (1% of the then Jewish population of Palestine) as ethnic cleansings by Israel. Yet how did you describe what happened to Jews in Arab countries? Let's see:

Wrong! Ethnic cleansing doesn't necessarily mean "killing" but can also mean "chasing". I already gave you the definition.

[takeo]

Now look at the reference link that I provided about what happened to Jews in various Arab countries:

Your list is very one-sided:

let's take the example of Morocco:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Morocco
In 1940, the Nazi-controlled Vichy government issued antisemitic decrees excluding Jews from public functions and imposing the wear of yellow Magen David star. Sultan Mohammed V refused to apply these racist laws and, as sign of defiance, insisted on inviting all the rabbis of Morocco to the 1941 throne celebrations[1].

In 1948, approximately 265,000 Jews lived in Morocco. Between 12,000 and 17,000 live there now, mostly in Casablanca, but also in Fes and other main cities.

In June 1948, soon after Israel was established and in the midst of the first Arab-Israeli war, riots against Jews broke out in Oujda and Djerada, killing 44 Jews. In 1948-9, 18,000 Jews left the country for Israel. After this, Jewish emigration continued (to Israel and elsewhere), but slowed to a few thousand a year. Through the early fifties, Zionist organizations encouraged emigration, particularly in the poorer south of the country, seeing Moroccan Jews as valuable contributors to the Jewish State.


The Aben Danan synagogue in Fes
Zaouit el Bir Dades Cemetery South MoroccoIn 1956, Morocco attained independence. Jews occupied several political positions, including three Members of the Parliament of Morocco and a Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. However, emigration to Israel jumped from 8,171 in 1954 to 24,994 in 1955, increasing further in 1956. Beginning in 1956, emigration to Israel was prohibited until 1963, when it resumed[33]. In 1961, the government informally relaxed the laws on emigration to Israel and when Mohammed V died, Jews joined Muslims in a national day of mourning. Over the three following years, more than 80,000 Moroccan Jews emigrated there. By 1967, only 60,000 Jews remained in Morocco.

You can clearly see that the large majority of Jews didn't flee in 1948 but rather gradually emigrated to Israel and other countries troughout the 50's and especially the 60's, when they were not persecuted in Morocco( they even had jewish parliamentarians and ministers, and there is still a Jewish advisor of the kiing untill today).


Even if one believes the worst allegations about alleged Israeli ethnic cleansing, it begs the question: In what way were Israeli actions worse than the actions of Arabs against Jews?

It depends which Arab country. Clearly there's not even a comparison possible between what happened to Arab Palestinians and to Jewish Moroccans. And this question doesn't matter. It's not because some Arab countries treated their minorities badly, that it excuses Israeli behavior against the Palestinians. But nowhere in the Arab world has the majority of the population been ethnically cleansed as happened in Israel.







Did the Israelis stand behind each and every single Palestinian Arab and forced them out at gun point?


according to Morris:


"That can't be chance. It's a pattern. Apparently, various officers who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacres."

What you are telling me here, as though by the way, is that in Operation Hiram there was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion order. Is that right?

"Yes. One of the revelations in the book is that on October 31, 1948, the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population. Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the Northern Command in Nazareth. There is no doubt in my mind that this order originated with Ben-Gurion. Just as the expulsion order for the city of Lod, which was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, was issued immediately after Ben-Gurion visited the headquarters of Operation Dani [July 1948]."

Are you saying that Ben-Gurion was personally responsible for a deliberate and systematic policy of mass expulsion?

"From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is created."

Ben-Gurion was a "transferist"?

"Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist."

I don't hear you condemning him.

"Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here."

Can one say that you are suffering from a severe case of double standards, Takeo?

What I can say is that I didn't say anything I can't prove with historical sources. you on the contrary try to legitimise the "Naqba" by referring to Arab treatment of Jews and to the war Arab leaders provoked in 1948. As you can see above not all Arab countries expulsed their Jews (by the way Morocco is not just a case-study, I think many if not most Arab Jews in Israel ]come from Morocco) and the Naqba wasn't a result of the war but of a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing ordered by the highest commander in Israel.

[Reffo]

Can you give me a link please?
Survival of the Fittest? An Interview with Benny Morris - By Avi Shalit

Also, you omitted the part where he explicitly admitted that Israel purposely carried out large scale ethnic cleansing Did I? Oh, how silly of me ...... perhaps I omitted it because it was just his opinion and he wasn't even there, recognize your own excuses for denying the relevance of Benny Morris blaming Arafat for the failure of Ehud Barak's peace offer in 2000/2001? This is what your favourite historian, Benny Boy said about the so called ethnic cleansing in 1948:
From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer.
No explicit Order? Nothing in writing? Sure sounds like his opinion to me and an opinion that has been pooh poohed by other respected historians, like Efraim Karsh.

But even if one would accept Benny's opinion, tell me Takeo: What is the difference between what the Zionists allegedly did, to what the Arabs did? You still have not answered that question even though I asked you before? Why can't you answer my question Takeo?

Wrong! Ethnic cleansing doesn't necessarily mean "killing" but can also mean "chasing". I already gave you the definition. Are you saying that murdering Jewish men, women, children and burning down schools and synagogues is not chasing? What are you saying?

I repeat my question: Why is the murder of Jews by Arabs a lesser crime than what some Jews no doubt also did in the heat of a genocidal war that the Arabs started against the Jews?

[Reffo]

Your list is very one-sided:

let's take the example of Morocco:You gotta laugh .... MY list is one sided? I mentioned Libya, Morocco, Syria, Yemen, Tunisia and Egypt but all you want to talk about is Morocco? Not the rest? Why not the rest Takeo? Perhaps you are trying to be one sided Takeo?

that it excuses Israeli behavior against the Palestinians.And what excuses the behaviour of Palestinian Arabs against Palestinian Jews? The fact that the Jews managed to stop them carrying out their threats against the Jews? Yet as a consequence 1% of Palestine's Jewish population still lost their lives...... That would be equivalent to 1.4 million Russians dying in a war started by someone else against them. How do you think Russians would react to such a death rate?

But nowhere in the Arab world has the majority of the population been ethnically cleansed as happened in Israel.There you go again: You are showing your double standards again....Why do you say that? Don't you think that Jews too get scared when their brothers and sisters are targeted by Arab governments, murdered and their homes, synagogues and schools get burned down by Arab government incited mobs? And Arab governments randomly jail them and some of them are never heard of again? You don't consider that ethnic cleansing? Then what do you call that?

Can one say that you are suffering from a severe case of double standards, Takeo?
What I can say is that I didn't say anything I can't prove with historical sources.I gave you sources too and you are deliberately side stepping my sources and only want to talk about what suits you..

you on the contrary try to legitimise the "Naqba" by referring to Arab treatment of JewsI don't legitimise any atrocity, all attrocites, by any side should be condemned. You on the other hand denied or at least attempted to minimize Arab crimes against Jews. That is why I keep on reminding you about your double standards..

and to the war Arab leaders provoked in 1948Yes, because that fact is highly relevant to the context of what happened. Would you excuse any apologists for Germany if they constantly tried to overlook what Germany did to russia in the Great War and would only want to talk about Russian atrocities? I doubt it...

As you can see above not all Arab countries expulsed their JewsWhoopie do .... but what about the many arab countries that did? Why DID you say in your past posts that Jewish Refugees from Arab countries haven't got the same rights as Palestinian Arab refugees?

[takeo]

Reffo;


This is what your favourite historian, Benny Boy said about the so called ethnic cleansing in 1948:
From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer.
No explicit Order? Nothing in writing?

This is what he said:
"Yes. One of the revelations in the book is that on October 31, 1948, the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population. Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the Northern Command in Nazareth. There is no doubt in my mind that this order originated with Ben-Gurion. Just as the expulsion order for the city of Lod, which was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, was issued immediately after Ben-Gurion visited the headquarters of Operation Dani [July 1948]."

Are you saying that Ben-Gurion was personally responsible for a deliberate and systematic policy of mass expulsion?

"From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is created."

Ben-Gurion was a "transferist"?

"Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist."

Sure sounds like his opinion to me and an opinion that has been pooh poohed by other respected historians, like Efraim Karsh.

Milosevic didn't give any clear orders on paper either, nor did the Sudanese president, but they were in charge at the moment. commanders did issue orders to start the removal of the civilian population, that's proven. They did so after visiting the highest leader in command, and they have never been prosecuted for doing so. In any contemporary international court Ben Gurion would not get away with it.


president
But even if one would accept Benny's opinion, tell me Takeo: What is the difference between what the Zionists allegedly did, to what the Arabs did? You still have not answered that question even though I asked you before? Why can't you answer my question Takeo?


Which Arabs, in which country and in which period? Is there any example of ethnic cleansing of the majority of the population? And were the antisemitic outburst in some countries like Egypt ordered from the highest level?


Are you saying that murdering Jewish men, women, children and burning down schools and synagogues is not chasing? What are you saying?

Of course it is, but it is only ethnic cleansing if it happens on a large scale, resulting in the majority of the targetted population fleeing as a reason of these actions, never to return.


I repeat my question: Why is the murder of Jews by Arabs a lesser crime than what some Jews no doubt also did in the heat of a genocidal war that the Arabs started against the Jews?

I didn't say it's a lesser crime, but you have to be more specific, as the situation in each Arab country was different. Clearly, in Morocco, where most Arab Jews in Israel come from, as I demonstrated, there was no orchestrated policy of ethnic cleansing, there were no expulsion orders, and Jews didn't flee as a result of such a policy. There has been a massacre of 44 people in 1948, but most Moroccan Jews only left Morocco 5, 10, 20 or even 30 years later.

In other countries such as Yemen or Egypt, that might be different.

[Reffo]

Takeo

I was very specific, read my above posts again and stop trying to be evasive. My question will not go away... (my list of arab countries is on post #141 and it wasn't the first time that I presented it either).

[takeo]

Reffo

You gotta laugh .... MY list is one sided? I mentioned Libya, Morocco, Syria, Yemen, Tunisia and Egypt but all you want to talk about is Morocco? Not the rest? Why not the rest Takeo? Perhaps you are trying to be one sided Takeo?

No, I specificly used Morocco as a case-study to proove that your listing is one sided, you omitted the 50's and 60's when most Jews left Morocco. I've mentioned those other countries before, as I said the situation in each country is different. But you can't say that "Arabs" expulsed the Jews, that happened in some cases, but certainly not in every Arab country.






And what excuses the behaviour of Palestinian Arabs against Palestinian Jews? The fact that the Jews managed to stop them carrying out their threats against the Jews? Yet as a consequence 1% of Palestine's Jewish population still lost their lives......

most of them in combat. And palestinian civilians should not be held responsible for the decisions of Arab leaders.


That would be equivalent to 1.4 million Russians dying in a war started by someone else against them. How do you think Russians would react to such a death rate?

Actually more than 20 million died during WWII.

There you go again: You are showing your double standards again....Why do you say that? Don't you think that Jews too get scared when their brothers and sisters are targeted by Arab governments, murdered and their homes, synagogues and schools get burned down by Arab government incited mobs? And Arab governments randomly jail them and some of them are never heard of again? You don't consider that ethnic cleansing? Then what do you call that?

Again, depends which country and which period. In some cases, one can say that there was a pattern of ethnic cleansing, such as in Yemen or Egypt.


I don't legitimise any atrocity, all attrocites, by any side should be condemned. You on the other hand denied or at least attempted to minimize Arab crimes against Jews.

I didn't, I said there have been cases of open persecution, murder and ethnic cleansing against Jews in Arab countries, not in all Arab countries. But you can't say all Arab Jewsw migrating/fleeing to Israel as a result of ethnic cleansing, that's simply not true, as I demonstrated with the case-study of Morocco. But nearly all Palestinians fled Israel in 1948, at the same time Israel carried out largescale ethnic cleansing.

Yes, because that fact is highly relevant to the context of what happened. Would you excuse any apologists for Germany if they constantly tried to overlook what Germany did to russia in the Great War and would only want to talk about Russian atrocities? I doubt it...

I think this comparison is like comparing apples and oranges. I don't see any analogies between those two wars. Germans were not trying to defend their own land, as Palestinians did. It was a pure colonial war, whereas in 1948 two peoples were fighting over the same land.




Whoopie do .... but what about the many arab countries that did? Why DID you say in your past posts that Jewish Refugees from Arab countries haven't got the same rights as Palestinian Arab refugees?

I didn't say that, I said it's a matter between Israel and the subsequent Arab countries involved, it's not part of the Israeli-Palestinian problem.
I think Jews who have been ethnically cleansed should have the right to return or get compensation.

[Reffo]

I didn't, I said there have been cases of open persecution, murder and ethnic cleansing against Jews in Arab countriesYou did deny it, this is what you said:
…. Still what is described here are antisemitic measures, without any doubt, but nowhere have Jews been forced at gunpoint to leave the country, as was the case with many palestinians in Israel.
Post #109 Rahm Emanuel, Traitor

[Reffo]

Actually more than 20 million died during WWII.And the Russians just took it in their stride, they did not commit atrocities in return?

[Reffo]

Yes, because that fact is highly relevant to the context of what happened. Would you excuse any apologists for Germany if they constantly tried to overlook what Germany did to russia in the Great War and would only want to talk about Russian atrocities? I doubt it...
I think this comparison is like comparing apples and oranges. I don't see any analogies between those two wars. Germans were not trying to defend their own land, as Palestinians did. It was a pure colonial war, whereas in 1948 two peoples were fighting over the same land.The Palestinian Arabs were trying to defend their own land when they attacked the newly declared state of Israel, the one that the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 endorsed?

Now you are attempting to re-write history Takeo :rolleyes:

[Reffo]

Whoopie do .... but what about the many arab countries that did? Why DID you say in your past posts that Jewish Refugees from Arab countries haven't got the same rights as Palestinian Arab refugees?
I didn't say thatYes, you intimated it by saying that Jewish refugees left voluntarily .... the only places that you admitted that it was not voluntary you said were Egypt and yemen but why would you say that Libya and syria were any different and yes, even Morocco? Jews were intimidated in most of the Arab countries, some places more, some places less but they felt that they had to leave sooner or later and that's exactly what happened. Look at my post #141 again!!!
Now tell me: How many Jews are still living in Arab countries?
Most left, but voluntarily....
Bottom of Post #92 Rahm Emanuel, Traitor Thread

[Reffo]

baggi

Are you there? Can you see a pattern of evasion and denial by Takeo? Oh and you want to see a case when he was actually lying too? Here is ONE example:

Accusation of my bias #1141 Click Here
You said Israel made no mistakes. It's clear who is biased and onesided.
Both sides have been accused of ethnic cleansing that is history. Now, where did I say that Israel made no mistakes, you liar? I said that Israel too made mistakes
I don't remember you saying so, this is the first time.Good, I caught you with ANOTHER STRAIGHT OUT LIE! :rolleyes: Here is where I said it: On this very thread post #854 Click Here

Whereas I admit Arabs made mistakes too, you deny Israel ever made any mistake or harmed the Palestinian civilians unnecessary. That's means I'm balanced, I don't think in terms of "good" and "evil", but you do, you're biased, you can't admit any Israeli wrongdoings.
Show me where did I deny that Israel made mistakes too. To the contrary, I admitted it before and I still admit it. Go on now, ask me for a link ;) I can give you links to that effect even though you seem most reluctant to give me links when I ask you to give links ...

AND ADMITTING IT AGAIN

”Come come Takeo, I admitted that Israel made and does make mistakes too. I even admitted that on the balance of probabilities Israel (or some Israelis at least) contributed to the refugee problem, so while I am pro Israel I am not as one eyed as you'd like to make me out... But you know what Takeo? Let's just leave it to fair minded individuals who are neither pro Israel nor pro Arab, to judge us.... is that a fair deal Takeo?”
Post #866 Click Here

Baggi, does it appear more feasible to you now that Takeo misquoted me? I am not trying to badger you but you seemed interested ....

Anyway, please let me know if you feel that I am badgering you because I don't want to do it to you. However, Takeo is a different matter entirely....

[Reffo]

Post #145 Clinton: Israel's demolition of East Jerusalem homes harms peace efforts
Also, you omitted the part where he explicitly admitted that Israel purposely carried out large scale ethnic cleansing
Did I? Oh, how silly of me ...... perhaps I omitted it because it was just his opinion and he wasn't even there, recognize your own excuses for denying the relevance of Benny Morris blaming Arafat for the failure of Ehud Barak's peace offer in 2000/2001? This is what your favourite historian, Benny Boy said about the so called ethnic cleansing in 1948:
From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer.
No explicit Order? Nothing in writing? Sure sounds like his opinion to me and an opinion that has been pooh poohed by other respected historians, like Efraim Karsh.
Milosevic didn't give any clear orders on paper either, nor did the Sudanese president, but they were in charge at the moment. commanders did issue orders to start the removal of the civilian population, that's proven. They did so after visiting the highest leader in command, and they have never been prosecuted for doing so. In any contemporary international court Ben Gurion would not get away with it.

Contrast Takeo’s attitude to our previous interchange about what Benny Morris said about Arafat whom Benny blamed fairly and squarely for the collapse of the 2000/2001 peace negotiations. In that instance Takeo dismissed Benny Morris’s finding as “..just his personal opinion” Sure sounds to me like Takeo's pre-conceived filter is working overtime. He accepts what suits him and he rejects anything that goes against his pre-conceived notions :rolleyes:


Post #91 Rahm Emanuel, Traitor
He wasn't the only historian who researched what happened in 1947/48 nor does everyone agree with his findings but it doesn' matter because you, Takeo, don't agree with him about everything either. Benny Morris blamed Arafat for the collapse of the peace talks in 2000/2001 but you don't accept Benny Morris's account about that, do you Takeo? Could it be because you are just a hypocrite? A hypocrite who quotes someone selectively when you think he supports your preconceived ideology but ignore him when he does NOT?!

I repeat, he didn't extensively study the 2000/2001 peace talks. How could he, since he wasn't there, and there are no neutral sources available as to what has been said... what he said was his personal opinion. However, there were plenty of sources about what happened in 1947/1948, there are population census, there are plenty of witnesses, archives, etc. He said that the etnic cleansing was the right thing to do, that's his personal opinion, but the study he made wasn't his personal opinion, but fact.Of course, Takeo's response begs the question: Was Benny Morris there in 1948? No explicit Order? Nothing in writing? Sure sounds like his opinion to me

[Sharona]

My Middle Eastern/North African extended family were born in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia and Morocco.

I can assure you that the underlying reason for leaving their respective countries was either fear or expulsion. There was no cosy wandering out because they fancied a change of scenery.

[takeo]

The Palestinian Arabs were trying to defend their own land when they attacked the newly declared state of Israel, the one that the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 endorsed?

Now you are attempting to re-write history Takeo :rolleyes:

Since they lived there, it was their land too.

According to 181, they are still fighting for their land, which was promised by them in 181.

[takeo]

baggi

blablabla takeo liar yadayada

As I promised I will not respond anymore to personal bashing. I'm just reminding you to the "last edited" episode in your ranting... :rolleyes:

[Reffo]

The Palestinian Arabs were trying to defend their own land when they attacked the newly declared state of Israel, the one that the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 endorsed? :rolleyes:

Now you are attempting to re-write history Takeo
Since they lived there, it was their land too.

According to 181, they are still fighting for their land, which was promised by them in 181. Fighting whom and why? Who attacked the Palestinian Arabs? All the Jews did was declare their own state which the UN voted for. The Jews accepted the UN resolution and therefore they accepted the Arab state too.

Even the arabs themselves admitted that they started the war against the Jews in 1947/48, they even boasted about it at the time. I gave you a reference link to that effect in the past, why are you ignoring it?

[takeo]

Post #145 Clinton: Israel's demolition of East Jerusalem homes harms peace efforts


Contrast Takeo’s attitude to our previous interchange about what Benny Morris said about Arafat whom Benny blamed fairly and squarely for the collapse of the 2000/2001 peace negotiations. In that instance Takeo dismissed Benny Morris’s finding as “..just his personal opinion” Sure sounds to me like Takeo's pre-conceived filter is working overtime. He accepts what suits him and he rejects anything that goes against his pre-conceived notions :rolleyes:


Post #91 Rahm Emanuel, Traitor
Of course, Takeo's response begs the question: Was Benny Morris there in 1948? No explicit Order? Nothing in writing? Sure sounds like his opinion to me

It was all pretty obvious. You think local commanders would issue these without his consent, just after they visited the supreme leader? You know as well as I do that's extremely unlikely, and before an international court, his defense wouldn't stand.

Benny Morris said Arafat was to blame for the failure of Camp David. If someone or something is to blame or not, is an opinion. You can say Bush is to blame for the economic crisis, or that Sarkozy is a great leader, that's an opinion, and you can give arguments, you can say "that's partly true", but if you say Saddam gave orders to gaspoison the Kurds, or that the Holocaust really happened, that's not an opinion but a fact or a lie, it can't be partly true.
Saying that someone gave strict orders to carry out a largescale campaign, is either a fact or a lie, but can't be an opinion. You can't discuss about it, it is either true or not true. I have noticed in the past that you have difficulties with the difference between facts and opinions.







.

[bararallu]

I gave you a reference link to that effect in the past, why are you ignoring it?

Of course he's ignoring it. Why? Because he propagates the big lie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie). Deny, Obfuscate, create distracting Strawmen.... and when all things fail, Lie. And we here wash rinse repeat after him. Thats why answering this cretin is worthless Reffo.

... in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

—Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X[1]

[takeo]

Reffo

Fighting whom and why? Who attacked the Palestinian Arabs?

They didn't accept the two-state solution. You can criticise their decision, But since this involved their land as well (Palestinians lived on the Jewish part as well) you can still say it's their country, it's where they were born, and raised, where their family lived for generations.
Today most Palestinians accept a two-state solution but Israel doesn't.


All the Jews did was declare their own state which the UN voted for. The Jews accepted the UN resolution and therefore they accepted the Arab state too.

Yes, but after the war they forgot that commitment.


Even the arabs themselves admitted that they started the war against the Jews in 1947/48, they even boasted about it at the time. I gave you a reference link to that effect in the past, why are you ignoring it?

I didn't say they didn't start the war in 1948.

[takeo]

See who's mentioning nazism yet again?
Well, we all know rightwing radicals and the truth are not compatible... we had the Bush-Cheney example, I had a recent little argument with reffo in another thread where he even changed (or asked to change) the "last edited" settings of the forum to prove his point and hide his lies. etcetera. I also caught mediocrates, Shvravan and bararalu lying about me.
One said that I said "Israel killed most palestinians" the other said that I "denied the Holocaust", and the last one said I "demand a Jew Free Palestine from the mediterranean to Amman". I never said those things not on this forum, not anywhere else either. LIARS.

[Reffo]

All the Jews did was declare their own state which the UN voted for. The Jews accepted the UN resolution and therefore they accepted the Arab state too.
Yes, but after the war they forgot that commitment.You mean Jordan and Egyp did. They ended up controlling the West Bank and Gaza at the end of the 1948 war.

Even the arabs themselves admitted that they started the war against the Jews in 1947/48, they even boasted about it at the time. I gave you a reference link to that effect in the past, why are you ignoring it?
I didn't say they didn't start the war in 1948.Didn't you? Then what did you mean by this.....?

post #152 Clinton: Israel's demolition of East Jerusalem homes harms peace efforts
Yes, because that fact is highly relevant to the context of what happened. Would you excuse any apologists for Germany if they constantly tried to overlook what Germany did to russia in the Great War and would only want to talk about Russian atrocities? I doubt it...
I think this comparison is like comparing apples and oranges. I don't see any analogies between those two wars. Germans were not trying to defend their own land, as Palestinians did. It was a pure colonial war, whereas in 1948 two peoples were fighting over the same land.
The Palestinian Arabs were trying to defend their own land when they attacked the newly declared state of Israel, the one that the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 endorsed?What was the difference between the Germans and the Palestinian Arabs aggression? They each thought that they had a god given right to attack their "enemies" and they BOTH did!

[bararallu]

Oi... like there was nothing called Sudetenland, or Prussia, or Alsace....

[takeo]

You mean Jordan and Egyp did. They ended up controlling the West Bank and Gaza at the end of the 1948 war.

Didn't you? Then what did you mean by this.....?

post #152 Clinton: Israel's demolition of East Jerusalem homes harms peace efforts
What was the difference between the Germans and the Palestinian Arabs aggression? They each thought that they had a god given right to attack their "enemies" and they BOTH did!

They didn't accept 181. But Israel did, and it never gave palestinians their own state, also not after they conquered the rest of the historical palestine in 1967.

By this I mean that it was their land too, since they lived there as well, even on the Jewish part. They might have taken the wrong decision, but they were nevertheless directly concerned. The Germans on the other hand didn't attack the Soviet-Union in 1941 to conquer or defend lands where Germans historically lived, unlike both Israel and the Palestinians.

[Reffo]

They didn't accept 181. But Israel did, and it never gave palestinians their own stateAre you saying that Resolution UN 181 didn't give Palestinian Arabs their own state?

also not after they conquered the rest of the historical palestine in 1967.What's 1967 got to do with our discussion? Are you trying to obfuscate the issues again?

Reminder:
What we were discussing was that the Palestinian Arabs were the aggressors in 1947/48, like the Germans against the Russians. You also tried to intimate that Israel didn't give the Pal Arabs their own state after the 1947/48 war and I reminded you that Jordan ended up controlling the West Bank and egypt controlled Gaza at the end of the war, NOT Israel...

[takeo]

Reffo

Are you saying that Resolution UN 181 didn't give Palestinian Arabs their own state?

No, it did, Israel didn't.


What's 1967 got to do with our discussion? Are you trying to obfuscate the issues again?

You said Israel accepted 181, so why didn't they apply the two-states principle (the core of 181) since 1967?


You also tried to intimate that Israel didn't give the Pal Arabs their own state after the 1947/48 war and I reminded you that Jordan ended up controlling the West Bank and egypt controlled Gaza at the end of the war, NOT Israel...

Yes, but since 1967, Israel did, and it STILL didn't give Palestinians their own state.

[Reffo]

Takeo

I am simply not going to talk to you about 1967 until we finish our discussion about 1947/48. You have made a number of assertions, falsehoods and denied real history. We are going to finish that off one way or the other before I am willing to move on to 1967 which is an entirely separate discussion.

Stop trying to wriggle out and obfuscate, finish what you started first...:rolleyes:

In fact, let's continue from your last point: Why didn't Jordan and Egypt establish a Palestinian state after the 1947/48 war? And why didn't the Palestinian Arabs demand their own state from them on the West Bank and Gaza, between 1949 and 1967?

[Reffo]

It was all pretty obvious. You think local commanders would issue these without his consent, just after they visited the supreme leader? You know as well as I do that's extremely unlikely, and before an international court, his defense wouldn't stand.Maybe they would, maybe they would NOT, No explicit Order? Nothing in writing? Most people would not classify that as proof. At best, they would could call it circumstancial evidence. Even you said this:

Post #368 Your POV On Charges Settlements Built On Arab Land?
... it's all false untill you can prove it's true.

Did you or did you not say that Takeo? And did you mean what you said for everyone? Or do you believe that Israel is a special case and that ANY allegation against Israel is sufficient proof in itself?

[Reffo]

Takeo

Here is an alternative hypothesis (at least a partial explanation perhaps?) as to why Palestinian Arabs fled in the 1947/48 war. Your Benny Morris himself said that it will be in his next book so it must be true right Takeo?

“Q: Benny Morris, in the month ahead the new version of your book on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem is due to be published. Who will be less pleased with the book - the Israelis or the Palestinians?

...it turns out that there was a series of orders issued by the Arab Higher Committee and by the Palestinian intermediate levels to remove children, women and the elderly from the villages. So that on the one hand, the book reinforces the accusation against the Zionist side, but on the other hand it also proves that many of those who left the villages did so with the encouragement of the Palestinian leadership itself.”

Unless of course once again you will consider this to be just his opinion because it disagrees with your preconceived notion?

[takeo]

Maybe they would, maybe they would NOT, No explicit Order? Nothing in writing? Most people would not classify that as proof. At best, they would could call it circumstancial evidence. Even you said this:

Post #368 Your POV On Charges Settlements Built On Arab Land?


Did you or did you not say that Takeo? And did you mean what you said for everyone? Or do you believe that Israel is a special case and that ANY allegation against Israel is sufficient proof in itself?

There is proof that local commanders issued expulsion orders, and there is proof that Ben Gurion was the highest in command, and THUS responsible for the warcrimes of his army. Enough for conviction. (it was certainly enough for international courts to issue arrest warrants for Al-Basheer and Milosevic, and it was also enough to arrest several highranking Ruandans of the former regime, altough there was never a written explicit order to carry out the genocide)

[takeo]

Takeo

I am simply not going to talk to you about 1967 until we finish our discussion about 1947/48. You have made a number of assertions, falsehoods and denied real history. We are going to finish that off one way or the other before I am willing to move on to 1967 which is an entirely separate discussion.

Stop trying to wriggle out and obfuscate, finish what you started first...:rolleyes:

In fact, let's continue from your last point: Why didn't Jordan and Egypt establish a Palestinian state after the 1947/48 war? And why didn't the Palestinian Arabs demand their own state from them on the West Bank and Gaza, between 1949 and 1967?


They were more comfortable living under Jordan and Egypt occupation, as these are Arab brother nations that didn't build settlements, etc. and Jordan gave them citizenship, Egypt gave them an own government. Yet there have been acts of resistance as well.

You also have to know that most Gazans didn't consider Gaza their home, as most were expulsed from Israel and hoping to return. Now this is less because the generations have passed and they became used to living in Gaza.

[takeo]

Takeo

Here is an alternative hypothesis (at least a partial explanation perhaps?) as to why Palestinian Arabs fled in the 1947/48 war. Your Benny Morris himself said that it will be in his next book so it must be true right Takeo?

“Q: Benny Morris, in the month ahead the new version of your book on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem is due to be published. Who will be less pleased with the book - the Israelis or the Palestinians?

...it turns out that there was a series of orders issued by the Arab Higher Committee and by the Palestinian intermediate levels to remove children, women and the elderly from the villages. So that on the one hand, the book reinforces the accusation against the Zionist side, but on the other hand it also proves that many of those who left the villages did so with the encouragement of the Palestinian leadership itself.”

Unless of course once again you will consider this to be just his opinion because it disagrees with your preconceived notion?


Removing children, women and elderly from warzones is nothing special anywhere in the world. He said that can account for some of the refugees, but he also said that there was an explicit expulsion orders in many parts of Israel, and that ethnic cleansing was a deliberate Israeli policy.
Anyway, even barring refugees to come home after the war is also a form of ethnic cleansing. As we discussed above not the majority of Jews in Arab countries were directly expulsed, most left because they felt they were threatened or discriminated.

[Reffo]

There is proof that local commanders issued expulsion orders, and there is proof that Ben Gurion was the highest in command, and THUS responsible for the warcrimes of his army. Enough for conviction. (it was certainly enough for international courts to issue arrest warrants for Al-Basheer and Milosevic, and it was also enough to arrest several highranking Ruandans of the former regime, altough there was never a written explicit order to carry out the genocide) First of all, please don't muddle the waters by trying to compare apples with oranges. This is what your Benny Morris wrote about the war crimes that Israel has been accused of:

You have to put things in proportion. These are small war crimes. All told, if we take all the massacres and all the executions of 1948, we come to about 800 who were killed. In comparison to the massacres that were perpetrated in Bosnia, that’s peanuts. In comparison to the massacres the Russians perpetrated against the Germans at Stalingrad, that’s chicken feed.Secondly, please don't forget the context in which those war crimes occurred. They occurred in a war started by the Palestinian Arabs in which they openly declared at the outset their intent to commit another genocide against the Jewish population of Palestine. And indeed, the Palestinian Arabs too committed war crimes against the Jews.

Now, about your so called "proof" that Ben Gurion was responsible. That is total BS and you know it. It is BS because there were No explicit orders signed by Ben Gurion and there was nothing in writing. Benny Morris clearly said that. So, it was just Benny Morris's opinion based on circumstancial evidence that Ben Gurion was culpable. And there was no corraborative evidence to support that opinion therefore no one would be convicted on that basis...

However, people like you (I am being polite when I say "people") selectively accept the opinions of historians like Benny Morris when they support your pre-conceived biases. On the other hand, you reject their "opinion" when they conclude that Arafat was responsible for the failure of the 2000/2001 peace talks and the ensuing violence that broke out. Why? Because that "opinion" conflicts with your own pre-conceived biases... Nuff said :rolleyes:

[Reffo]

They were more comfortable living under Jordan and Egypt occupation, as these are Arab brother nations that didn't build settlements, etc. and Jordan gave them citizenship, Egypt gave them an own government. Yet there have been acts of resistance as well.

You also have to know that most Gazans didn't consider Gaza their home, as most were expulsed from Israel and hoping to return. Now this is less because the generations have passed and they became used to living in Gaza.First of all, Egypt did NOT give them their own government, they were governed by Egyptian military governor/s.

Secondly, you are right, they were happy to be part of Egypt (the Gazans) and Jordan (the people of the West Bank). And that tells me that the Palestinian Arabs were NOT interested in having THEIR OWN state. All they were interested in was the destruction of the Jewish state, because it was a NON ARAB state...

[Reffo]

Here is an alternative hypothesis (at least a partial explanation perhaps?) as to why Palestinian Arabs fled in the 1947/48 war. Your Benny Morris himself said that it will be in his next book so it must be true right Takeo?

“Q: Benny Morris, in the month ahead the new version of your book on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem is due to be published. Who will be less pleased with the book - the Israelis or the Palestinians?

...it turns out that there was a series of orders issued by the Arab Higher Committee and by the Palestinian intermediate levels to remove children, women and the elderly from the villages. So that on the one hand, the book reinforces the accusation against the Zionist side, but on the other hand it also proves that many of those who left the villages did so with the encouragement of the Palestinian leadership itself.”

Unless of course once again you will consider this to be just his opinion because it disagrees with your preconceived notion?
Removing children, women and elderly from warzones is nothing special anywhere in the world. He said that can account for some of the refugees, but he also said that there was an explicit expulsion orders in many parts of Israel, and that ethnic cleansing was a deliberate Israeli policy.
Anyway, even barring refugees to come home after the war is also a form of ethnic cleansing. As we discussed above not the majority of Jews in Arab countries were directly expulsed, most left because they felt they were threatened or discriminated. At best, he presented some evidence that some ethnic cleansing was carried out by some local commanders in some areas. Of course, the Jordanian Arab legion and the Palestinian Arab irregular forces too carried out ethnic cleansings and massacred Jews. It is quite likely that many Palestinian Arabs fled because:

They were losing the war and they thought that the Jews would do to them what the Palestinian Arabs threatened to do to the Jews..
They heard exaggerated stories about massacres...
Their own leaders urged them to evecuate their civilians from the war zones

As you say, such fears and responses are common to most (I would even say ALL) wars... What's more: Your Benny Morris says it (my last dot point), so it must be right, eh Takeo?

[takeo]

At best, he presented some evidence that some ethnic cleansing was carried out by some local commanders in some areas. Of course, the Jordanian Arab legion and the Palestinian Arab irregular forces too carried out ethnic cleansings and massacred Jews. It is quite likely that many Palestinian Arabs fled because:

They were losing the war and they thought that the Jews would do to them what the Palestinian Arabs threatened to do to the Jews..
They heard exaggerated stories about massacres...
Their own leaders urged them to evecuate their civilians from the war zones

As you say, such fears and responses are common to most (I would even say ALL) wars... What's more: Your Benny Morris says it (my last dot point), so it must be right, eh Takeo?

Once again, he said there was a coordinated effort all over the country to carry out ethnic cleansing, so it's very likely this had a real impact on the number of people who (were forced to) left. And of course one of the tactics was to terrorise Palestinians, so that they would flee even before the troops arrived. That's a classic one. But many others were forced to leave, at gunpoint.
Anyway, it was not something to be proud of. And you can repeat a million times it were the Arabs who started the war and that they too committed warcrimes, that still doesn't excuse ethnic cleansing.

[Reffo]

Once again, he said there was a coordinated effort all over the country to carry out ethnic cleansing

there were No explicit orders signed by Ben Gurion and there was nothing in writing. Benny Morris clearly said that.Once again: What you say in your post, mentioning Benny Morris, is just his opinion which you selectively quote yet you arbitrarily reject Benny's opinion when it disagrees with your preconceived notions. For example, you reject Benny's assessment that Arafat was responsible for the failure of the peace talks of the 2000/2001 and the ensuing violence thereby he gave up the chance to form an independent Palestinian state at that time..

And as far as the Pal Arab refugee problem, as I said, it is much more likely that it arose as a result of the following factors:

They were losing the war and they thought that the Jews would do to them what the Palestinian Arabs threatened to do to the Jews..
They heard exaggerated stories about massacres...
Their own leaders urged them to evecuate their civilians from the war zones

Even Benny Morris mentions the last dot point as a factor.

Last but not least, Benny Morris could not provide any corroborating evidence to back up his assertion that the orders came from above (Ben Gurion). Yet there is an obvious evidence that Benny was wrong because had there been an organised policy of ethnic cleansing by the fledgling Israeli government, there would not be now 1 million Arab citizens living in Israel. All Arabs would have been ethnically cleansed ....

[takeo]

Once again: What you say in your post, mentioning Benny Morris, is just his opinion which you selectively quote yet you arbitrarily reject Benny's opinion when it disagrees with your preconceived notions. For example, you reject Benny's assessment that Arafat was responsible for the failure of the peace talks of the 2000/2001 and the ensuing violence thereby he gave up the chance to form an independent Palestinian state at that time..

And as far as the Pal Arab refugee problem, as I said, it is much more likely that it arose as a result of the following factors:

They were losing the war and they thought that the Jews would do to them what the Palestinian Arabs threatened to do to the Jews..
They heard exaggerated stories about massacres...
Their own leaders urged them to evecuate their civilians from the war zones

Even Benny Morris mentions the last dot point as a factor.

Last but not least, Benny Morris could not provide any corroborating evidence to back up his assertion that the orders came from above (Ben Gurion). Yet there is an obvious evidence that Benny was wrong because had there been an organised policy of ethnic cleansing by the fledgling Israeli government, there would not be now 1 million Arab citizens living in Israel. All Arabs would have been ethnically cleansed ....

We have all discussed this before. The goal was not, according to Morris, who did extensive research, to cleanse all Arabs from Israel, but to have a decisive Jewish majority.
And Ben Gurion was the supreme leader in charge. Local commanders took decisions after visiting him personally. That would be conclusive in any court, even considering the lack of written proof.
He said Arab leaders calling for the evacuation of children and women was a factor, but the decisive factor was the deliberate ethnic cleansing carried out by Israeli troops. Exaggerated stories about massacres? There have been massacres, and usually these kind of massacres are carried out to frighten the remaning population into fleeing.

Again, I pointed out to you that there's a difference between historical facts, which can be true or not true, and opinions or analyses, which can be debated. You can say "Bush is responsible for the economic crisis", that's an opinion, but if you say "Saddam invaded Kouweit" that's not an opinion but fact. You can't discuss about it, it is either true or not true.

[Reffo]

Exaggerated stories about massacres? There have been massacres, and usually these kind of massacres are carried out to frighten the remaning population into fleeing.You don't think the stories were exaggerated? ..... This is what YOUR VERY OWN Benny Morris said about them:

And you take that in stride? War crimes? Massacres? The burning fields and the devastated villages of the Nakba?

You have to put things in proportion. These are small war crimes. All told, if we take all the massacres and all the executions of 1948, we come to about 800 who were killed. In comparison to the massacres that were perpetrated in Bosnia, that’s peanuts. In comparison to the massacres the Russians perpetrated against the Germans at Stalingrad, that’s chicken feed. When you take into account that there was a bloody civil war here and that we lost an entire 1 percent of the population, you find that we behaved very well.

Now, please stop repeating yourself. If you have something new to say then say it. Otherwise, please shut the F@#K up, OK Takeo?

[Reffo]

Local commanders took decisions after visiting him personally. That would be conclusive in any court, even considering the lack of written proof.How many times did you repeat this sentence already, Takeo?

OK, since you repeat it, I will repeat too....

Morris mentioned two such visits by Ben Gurion to local commendars. That's hardly a pattern, more like coincidence and at best, in the absence of any written proof (which Morris clearly concedes), it is circumstatial evidence. And if you knew anything about law Takeo, then you would know that circumstantial evidence could only lead to conviction if there would be corroborating evidence too. But of course, no such corroborating evidence was produced by YOUR Morris, so his conclusion is no less "Just an Opinion" than what you claim that it's just Morris's "Opinion" to blame Arafat for the failure of the Peace talks in 2000/2001 and the resultant violence. In fact, one could say that there was a lot more corroborating evidence for that than for what happened in 1948. Yet you choose to treat one as an opinion and the other as fact. Why? Because you are a hypocrite, Takeo ...

[takeo]

You don't think the stories were exaggerated? ..... This is what YOUR VERY OWN Benny Morris said about them:



Now, please stop repeating yourself. If you have something new to say then say it. Otherwise, please shut the F@#K up, OK Takeo?

There have been massacres, and so there have been people telling about these massacres.

[takeo]

How many times did you repeat this sentence already, Takeo?

OK, since you repeat it, I will repeat too....

Morris mentioned two such visits by Ben Gurion to local commendars. That's hardly a pattern, more like coincidence and at best, in the absence of any written proof (which Morris clearly concedes), it is circumstatial evidence. And if you knew anything about law Takeo, then you would know that circumstantial evidence could only lead to conviction if there would be corroborating evidence too. But of course, no such corroborating evidence was produced by YOUR Morris, so his conclusion is no less "Just an Opinion" than what you claim that it's just Morris's "Opinion" to blame Arafat for the failure of the Peace talks in 2000/2001 and the resultant violence. In fact, one could say that there was a lot more corroborating evidence for that than for what happened in 1948. Yet you choose to treat one as an opinion and the other as fact. Why? Because you are a hypocrite, Takeo ...

There is certainly corroborating evidence, which is the fact that he was the commander in chief. That makes him responsible for the orders of his commanders. And you claim that noone can get convicted based on circumstantial evidence? In the Yugoslavia war, written proof was rare, yet many military leaders have been convicted.

[Reffo]

There is certainly corroborating evidence, which is the fact that he was the commander in chief.You obviously don't know what corroborating evidence is, do you? :)

In the Yugoslavia war, written proof was rare, yet many military leaders have been convicted.And unless you give specifics so that we can compare circumstances, that is as relevant as the phase of the moon on July the 5th 811 BC .... Anything else?

[Marc39]

We have all discussed this before. The goal was not, according to Morris, who did extensive research, to cleanse all Arabs from Israel, but to have a decisive Jewish majority.
And Ben Gurion was the supreme leader in charge. Local commanders took decisions after visiting him personally. That would be conclusive in any court, even considering the lack of written proof.
He said Arab leaders calling for the evacuation of children and women was a factor, but the decisive factor was the deliberate ethnic cleansing carried out by Israeli troops. Exaggerated stories about massacres? There have been massacres, and usually these kind of massacres are carried out to frighten the remaning population into fleeing.

Again, I pointed out to you that there's a difference between historical facts, which can be true or not true, and opinions or analyses, which can be debated. You can say "Bush is responsible for the economic crisis", that's an opinion, but if you say "Saddam invaded Kouweit" that's not an opinion but fact. You can't discuss about it, it is either true or not true.

I take everything Benny Morris writes with a large grain of salt. He is an ideologue with an agenda that is often not consistent with legitimate historical methodology. Despite the declassification of millions of pages of documents related to the '48 war, no Zionist master plan for the expulsion of Arabs during the '48 war has ever been found. Why would there need to be one given UN Res. 181 called for an Arab state, with an Arab minority? Massacres are unnecessarily messy.

[Marc39]

Since they lived there, it was their land too.

According to 181, they are still fighting for their land, which was promised by them in 181.


The Pals revoked their part of UN res. 181, which would have accorded them statehood, when they rejected it and proceeded to launch a war with Israel.

[Marc39]

But you can't say that "Arabs" expulsed the Jews, that happened in some cases, but certainly not in every Arab country.

You can say nearly 900,000 Jews were expelled.

most of them in combat.

Really? Entire families just took up arms and engaged in armed conflict?

And palestinian civilians should not be held responsible for the decisions of Arab leaders.

Why not? They chose to abandon Israel in a dire time of need. They are traitors and cowards.

I didn't, I said there have been cases of open persecution, murder and ethnic cleansing against Jews in Arab countries, not in all Arab countries. But you can't say all Arab Jewsw migrating/fleeing to Israel as a result of ethnic cleansing, that's simply not true, as I demonstrated with the case-study of Morocco. But nearly all Palestinians fled Israel in 1948, at the same time Israel carried out largescale ethnic cleansing.

How many Arab countries allow Jewish immigration? Virtually none.

I think this comparison is like comparing apples and oranges. I don't see any analogies between those two wars. Germans were not trying to defend their own land, as Palestinians did. It was a pure colonial war, whereas in 1948 two peoples were fighting over the same land.

Jews legitimately owned the land. Arabs, not so much.

[Kachah]

takeo: "But nearly all Palestinians fled Israel in 1948, at the same time Israel carried out largescale ethnic cleansing".
Yep, the current 2 mil Israeli Arabs came from Mars.
Freakin' loony.

[Reffo]

For those with a bit of patience, here are five u-Tube videos which outline what Benny Morris REALLY says about the Palestinian Arab refugees. It sounds fairly plausible and realistic to me ...

Benny Morris: Palestinian refugees of 1948 (1/5) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQZ1w4QtKH4&feature=related)

Benny Morris: Palestinian refugees of 1948 (2/5) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDudWSTl7Oc&feature=related)

Benny Morris: Palestinian refugees of 1948 (3/5) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPH9TC3IPRA&feature=related)

Benny Morris: Palestinian refugees of 1948 (4/5) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9w_w2iyKD44&feature=related)

Benny Morris: Palestinian refugees of 1948 (5/5) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p5a7L5LiHg&feature=related)

The pertinent thing is that it sounds NOTHING like Takeo's polemics on the subject even though Takeo tries to pretend that what Benny Morris says backs up his own polemics on the subject. It certainly does NOT!!!

[dayag]

Benny Morris gave a good balanced account of the origins of the refugee problem. Thanks for posting the links, Reffo.

[Reffo]

Thanks Dayag

Yes, I thought that his account was balanced and seemed plausible.

As an aside, I watched a debate between Benny Morris and that angry Fa*t Finkelstein. Benny was very cool and he put Finky in his place after Finky jumped up and down like a yappy little dog and tried to belittle Benny. He reminded Finky how Finky quoted his own work (Benny's) when it suited him.

Benny seems to be the only new historian who is capable of divorcing his politics from his writings and keep a balanced perspective ...