Palestinian Poll:57% oppose ending intifada, 56% oppose ending

[L@mplighterM]

Monday, June 30, 2003
Palestinian Poll: 9.1% hand over weapons, 57.3% oppose ending armed intifada, 56.2% oppose ending incitement

Palestinian Poll: 9.1% hand over weapons, 57.3% oppose ending armed
intifada, 56.2% oppose ending incitement
PCPO Poll no. 112 Date: 30 Jun 2003

A poll carried out by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion (PCPO) and
prepared by President Dr. Nabil Kukali.

(64.4%) Support to varying degrees the President Arafat
(41.4%) Support, to varying degrees Mahmoud
Abbas "Abu Mazen" as a Palestinian Prime Minister.
(44.9%) support the continuation of the Intifada, while
(37.0%) call for a halt.
(65.4%) Pessimistic from the results of Al-Aqaba and Sharm Al-Sheikh
Summits regarding the future of the just peace between the
Palestinians and Israelis

Majd Kokaly-Information Department:

A poll recently conducted by the PCPO and prepared by Dr.Nabil Kukali
included a random sample of 723 adults, 18 years and older, from Gaza Strip
and West Bank including East Jerusalem.

President of the PCPO, Dr. Nabil Kukali, stated that the poll took place on
June 18-24, 2003 and the average age of the respondents was 31.6 years, and
the margin of error was 3.6+/- percent points.

Kukali also stated that the percentage of female respondents was 48.9%,
while that of the male ones was 51.1%. He also explained that the respondent
's location of residence was as follows: 54.5% city, 26.5% village, and
19.0% refugee camp. He pointed out to the average size of respondents'
families that was 7.1 persons, and the average number of schooling years was
12.07 years.

Dr. Kukali said the results of the poll were as follows:

1.If the Palestinian Authority orders "Fatah Tanzim" and other organizations
indirectly linked to the PA's security services to hand over their weapons
for confiscation or destruction. What do you believe that "Fatah Tanzim" and
other organization should do?
20 Nov 2002/23 Apr 2003/30 Jun 2003
1. Hand over their weapons for confiscation and Destruction 18.7%/19.6%/9.1%
2. Hide their weapons 48.6%/46.5%/49.2%
3. Do nothing 32.7%/33.9%/41.7%

2. If municipality or village council elections being held today, which
political party would you vote for?
1. People's Party 1.1%
2. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) 5.1%
3. Fatah 30.0%
4. Hamas 20.2%
5. Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) 3.2%
6. Islamic Jihad 7.6%
7. Fida 2.6%
8. Popular Struggle (Nidal) Front 1.0%
9. Independents 11.0%
10. None of the above/15.0%
11. Other 3.2%

3. When asked:' to what degree do you support president Arafat"?
9 Jan 2003/27 Mar 2003/30 Jun 2003
1. Strongly support 17.3%/24.8%/31.7%
2. Somewhat Support 26.7%/28.5%/32.7%
3. Somewhat oppose 25.7%/27.9%/22.3%
4. Strongly oppose 29.8%/16.4%/7.2%
5. No Opinion 0.4%/2.4%/6.1%

4. How likely is it that peace will prevail with Israel in the near future?
20 Nov 2002/27 Mar 2003/30 Jun 2003
A great possibility 8.4%/9.8%/7.2%
Possible 20.5%/41.5%/37.1%
Some what impossible 19.5%/15.9%/20.4%
Totally impossible 33.5%/20.0%/22.6%
I don't know/I refuse to answer 18.1%/12.8%/12.7%

5.Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly
oppose the current Israeli - Palestinian security coordination?
9 Jan 2003/27 Mar 2003/30 Jun 2003
1. Strongly support 10.8%/4.1%/10.4%
2. Somewhat support 31.4%/28.7%/31.0%
3. Somewhat oppose 14.7%/22.7%/13.8%
4. Strongly oppose 25.9%/31.2%/30.7%
5. No opinion 17.2%/13.3%/14.1%


6. Are you Optimistic or Pessimistic from the results of Al-Aqaba and Sharm
Al-Sheikh Summits regarding the future of the just peace between the
Palestinians and Israelis?
30 Jun 2003
1. Pessimistic 65.4%
2. Optimistic 20.3%
3. Do not know 14.3%

7. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly
oppose the notion that says that the political process (i.e. peace process)
is the best thing we can get under current conditions (i.e. international
changes):
9 Jan 2003/27 Mar 2003/30 Jun 2003
1. Strongly support 14.1%/17.0%/15.9%
2. Somewhat support 34.9%/36.8%/32.4%
3. Somewhat oppose 18.7%/17.5%/15.1%
4. Strongly oppose 20.2%/15.0%/17.2%
5. Do not know 12.1%/13.7%/19.4%


8. Some people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip support the continuation of
the Intifada, while others call for a halt to it which of these two opinions
is closer to yours?
9 Jan 2003/27 Mar 2003/30 Jun 2003
1. Continuation of the Intifada 46.9%/34.3%/44.9%
2. Halting the Intifada 40.9%/51.6%/37.0%
3. Do not know / refuse to answer 12.2%/14.1%/18.1%

9.Do you think that there is a Palestinian leader other than Yaser Arafat
who is able to sign a peace treaty with the Israelis at present, or not?
12 Nov 2002/27 Mar 2003/30 Jun 2003
Yes 26.6%/33.3%/19.7%
No 45.5%/33.8%/53.5%
I don't know 27.8%/32.8%/26.8%

10. Please, express the extent of your support to appointing Mr. Mahmoud
Abbas "Abu Mazen " as a Palestinian Prime Minister?
27 Mar 2003/30 Jun 2003
1. Strongly agree 16.0%/6.1%
2. Somewhat agree 26.2%/35.3%
3. Somewhat disagree 20.5%/17.2%
4. Strongly disagree 21.2%/29.2%
5. No Opinion 16.1%/12.2%

11. Do you believe or not believe that if the Israeli government's taking
serious and sincere measures to lift the siege and security belt on the
Palestinian territories will alleviate violence?
20 November 200/29 January 2003/30 Jun 2003
1. Yes 28.7%/26.8%/29.9%
2. To some extent 35.8%/34.0%/43.2%
3. No 25.8%/32.4%/17.6%
4. Do not know 9.7%/6.8%/9.3%


12. To which extent do you agree or disagree the statement that " The start
of serious and sincere negotiations between the Palestinians and Israeli
leaderships will bring peace to the region"?
30 Jun 2003
1. Strongly agree 13.9%
2. Somewhat agree 37.0%
3. Somewhat disagree 23.7%
4. Strongly disagree 13.9%
5. No Opinion11.5%

13. The Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas "Abu Mazen" called for a
halt of the suicide attacks against the Israeli civilians to give a chance
for resuming the negotiations with the Israelis. Do you support or oppose
this call?
30 Jun 2003
1. Strongly support 15.4%
2. Somewhat support 26.1%
3. Somewhat oppose 20.6%
4. Strongly oppose 28.2%
5. Do not know 9.7%


14. Abu Mazen mentioned in his speech at Al-Aqaba summit held on June4, 2003
that "We shall exert all efforts and employ all our possibilities to bring
the armed Intifada to an end. We have to employ the peaceful means to end
the occupation and the suffering of the Palestinians and the Israelis and to
build up the Palestinian State". Do you support or Oppose this quotation?
30 Jun 2003
1. Support 24.6%
2. Oppose 57.3%
3. Do not know 18.1%

15. "Abu Mazen" mentioned in his speech: " We shall work against any form of
instigation to violence and hatred, and by whatever means such instigation
may be. We shall carry out measures from our side to warrant that no any
such instigation will arise from the Palestinian institutions". Do you
support or oppose this quotation? ?
30 Jun 2003
1. Support 24.1%
2. Oppose 56.2%
3. Do not know 19.7%


16. How do you in general evaluate the performance of Mr. Mahmoud Abbas "
Abu Mazen" at Al-Aqaba Summit, which has been attended by King Abdullah,
President George Bosh and the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon?
30 Jun 2003
1. Good 8.4%
4. Fair 31.6%
5. Bad 51.9%
6. Do not know 8.1%


http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=17432

[L@mplighterM]

This poll makes it quite clear that the inhabitants of the WB and GS are not interested in establishing peace with their neighbors. You can lead a horse to the roadmap to peace but you can’t make the Palestinians drink it.

The poll indicates that there’s an overwhelming support for terrorist organizations and that is likely to remain.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
This poll makes it quite clear that the inhabitants of the WB and GS are not interested in establishing peace with their neighbors. You can lead a horse to the roadmap to peace but you can’t make the Palestinians drink it.

The poll indicates that there’s an overwhelming support for terrorist organizations and that is likely to remain.

I think the poll gives mixed signals.

There are many people in the "somewhat support" and "somewhat oppose" as well as "don't know" categories.

Keep in mind that Palestinians have undergone years of brainwashing, and that there is no tradition of freedom of thought and expression in the Arab world.

The poll certainly exudes pessimism. But it also suggests that many Palestinians don't know what to think. I found it amazing that about 1/3 would not say they support Arafat.

[L@mplighterM]

I gave the poll a second look and it seems to me that males and females are about equally bloodthirsty. Based on the actions of the terrorists and their supporters I wouldn’t have a problem waging war on a population that holds the opinions mentioned in the poll.

Bearing in mind that all it takes is about 20% to start a revolution it seems to me that polls like this aren’t conducive to peace with Jews.

Nevertheless I wish the Israeli government and Israelis luck in their endeavor to make peace with the Palestinians.

[Independent]

There are different polls with different results. Sometimes, polls ask tricky questions. But, it is normal for humans to dislike conflict, especially when such can be avoided.

The poll, which was conducted by a Washington- and Brussels-based group called Search for Common Ground claims that 72% of Palestinians and Israelis agree to the creation of an independent Palestinian state, based on 1967 borders. The poll also states that less than one in five Palestinians aspire to a state on all of historic Palestine, and less than one in five Israelis demand a Greater Israel.

http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=ArticlePage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article^l1737&enZone=Diplomacy&enVersion=0&

[scattergood]

Independent:
There are different polls with different results. Sometimes, polls ask tricky questions. But, it is normal for humans to dislike conflict, especially when such can be avoided.

The poll, which was conducted by a Washington- and Brussels-based group called Search for Common Ground claims that 72% of Palestinians and Israelis agree to the creation of an independent Palestinian state, based on 1967 borders. The poll also states that less than one in five Palestinians aspire to a state on all of historic Palestine, and less than one in five Israelis demand a Greater Israel.

http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=ArticlePage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article^l1737&enZone=Diplomacy&enVersion=0&

It is exactly for this reason that looking at the question is important, which is why ALL the questions were actually posted above. In the article you provided a link to the questions ARE NOT listed, but the following tidbit was:

"72 percent of the Palestinians questioned said they would be willing to end violence if Israel were to agree to the creation of a Palestinian state in line with Palestinian criteria"

I take this to mean that 72% of Arabs would end violence if Israel agreed to what they were demanding. Which means that 28% don't agree to end violence, EVEN IF Israel agrees to what the Arabs are demanding.

Which then presents the very tricky issue of:

1) The way to get the 72% of Arabs to end violence is to acquiece to all of their demands,which doesn't really work for Israel in the first place. The Right of Return, Jerusalem, Jews living in Gaza and WB are all still OPEN issues even under Oslo (although the Arabs don't think they should be open issues).

2) IF Israel agrees to Arab demands, and the 28% of those that don't agree to end violence conduct some terrorist operation, what happens?

3) Will the 72% which this study claims would end all violence against Israel, take up arms against the 28% and protect Israel?

4) Will the 72% understand and allow Israel to take steps to defend themselves?

I think the only honest answer is NO to both #3 and #4. So we will be excatly where we are today, even IF we believed the study you cited and Israel did everything the Arabs were demanding.

So, let's not play games here, post the questions for the study as is done above so we can make an apples to apples comparison and not pick and choose what we want.

[MichaelC]

It is exactly for this reason that looking at the question is important, which is why ALL the questions were actually posted above. In the article you provided a link to the questions ARE NOT listed, but the following tidbit was:

"72 percent of the Palestinians questioned said they would be willing to end violence if Israel were to agree to the creation of a Palestinian state in line with Palestinian criteria"

I take this to mean that 72% of Arabs would end violence if Israel agreed to what they were demanding. Which means that 28% don't agree to end violence, EVEN IF Israel agrees to what the Arabs are demanding.

Which then presents the very tricky issue of:

1) The way to get the 72% of Arabs to end violence is to acquiece to all of their demands,which doesn't really work for Israel in the first place. The Right of Return, Jerusalem, Jews living in Gaza and WB are all still OPEN issues even under Oslo (although the Arabs don't think they should be open issues).

2) IF Israel agrees to Arab demands, and the 28% of those that don't agree to end violence conduct some terrorist operation, what happens?

3) Will the 72% which this study claims would end all violence against Israel, take up arms against the 28% and protect Israel?

4) Will the 72% understand and allow Israel to take steps to defend themselves?

I thin the only honest answer is NO to both #3 and #4. So we will be excatly where we are today, IF we believed the study you cited.

So, let's not play games here, post the questions for the study as is done above so we can make an apples to apples comparison and not pick and choose what we want.
Excellent observations, Scattergood. Puts things in a very precise perspective.

[Mediocrates]

The wonderful thing about being a tin-plated arabian autocrat is that you don't have to worry about polls and opinions. There is only opinion that exists: yours. And people don't swarm over the fence in mass human wave attacks with their bare hands. Instead there is a cadre of organized, supported, funded, recruited, trained, commanded and transported human bomb delivery systems and sniper-sapper teams that go out and kill people wherever they are bound to find them. The opinions of ordinary people don't matter all that much even if you thought you could reliably ascertain them.

Who thinks that if through some bizarre confluence of cosmic events the PLO is able to secure the 'right' of return for 50,000 Palestinians that 'ordinary' people would be given a chance? Are you smoking cactus and camel sh**t again? The first cut would be to the PLO loyal and useful as baksheesh. The next cut would be for the military wing's infrastructure. The third would be the PR/Political wing to bolster the Arab lists in the Knesset. Whatever bedraggled photo op families are left would be given scraps. And then the PLO would turn around and whine and complain about how those people are apparently treated by the bigbad Zionist devil.

Please, get serious.

[RichardP]

Yup, let’s get serious; however, I believe it’s too late for some of those who as true-believers of Arafat, the PA and their cause.
Too them, so it seems, the likes of Arafat and his bum-buddies are icons to be venerated, not the mass-murderers of Jews, and the cause of their own people’s miseries.
Though, totally preposterous, they choose to believe otherwise… as said, the Big Bad Zionist Devil.

[Elisheba]

The wonderful thing about being a tin-plated arabian autocrat is that you don't have to worry about polls and opinions...


Holy Manliness, Batman! :cool:

I've never seen such a cool post by you. WOW

[peacelover]

I think the poll gives mixed signals.

There are many people in the "somewhat support" and "somewhat oppose" as well as "don't know" categories.



Correct, and it's them we need to seize upon. I truly believe there will never be peace until the Palestinians *want* there to be peace. And these "floating voters" (for want of a better word) could be key. As you rightly say Ibrodsky, these people have been subjected to indoctrination all their lives. I personally would totally support Israel storming the Palestinian media and imposing an indoctrination of their own kind - turn your backs on terror, and your life will be better. After all, it's the truth.

Once peace with israel has been estabished as a socially acceptable opinion, hopefully we'd see a snowball effect.

Sadly, not likely in the climate there is in the Palestinian territories at the moment :(

[Mediocrates]

But where does that matter? I tend to think that you can drag anyone along kicking and screaming if they believe that in part some of what you're forcing them to do is in their interest. The fact is you will NEVER get a dePLOizination of Palestine. You will never de Nazify it and if you can't then you will always have a substantial minority who only grudgingly accept their new civilian roles. The key is, can you beat into their heads the basic premise that even that is ultimately in their own best interests? Better they should work at assembling a functioning society with courts and garbage collection and water bills and captial credit. Work not on uplifting the miserables but on improving the lives of the middle class. When they are better off, the social forces to commit mayhem drop off. The old radicals can go to the Terrorists Retirement home and talk about the good old days. And as Jesus said, "The poor will always be with you...." so don't try to eradicate that before moving on, either.

[MGB8]

I don't know if I'm quite that pessimistic, Medio.

I believe that democratization and De-Jihadization of the Pal Arabs will happen AFTER other Arab nations are de-Jihadid and Democratized.

If Iraq is succesful...if Jordan continues on a path towards more representation...if Qatar continues its steps... and if these successes force a challenge to the status quo in the rest of the Arab world...then, and really, only then, will we see the Pal Arabs follow their brethren.

[Hisardut]

He pointed out to the average size of respondents'
families that was 7.1 persons

this is why democracy wont work

[Mediocrates]

I don't know if I'm quite that pessimistic, Medio.

I believe that democratization and De-Jihadization of the Pal Arabs will happen AFTER other Arab nations are de-Jihadid and Democratized.

If Iraq is succesful...if Jordan continues on a path towards more representation...if Qatar continues its steps... and if these successes force a challenge to the status quo in the rest of the Arab world...then, and really, only then, will we see the Pal Arabs follow their brethren.


I don't doubt that those other places have potential. I have no doubt that the Palestinians have no potential. Palestine is the sine qua non of everything the arab world loves to hate about everything on earth. It's the monument to their own failure they can't live without.

[KettleWhistle]

I say, wall them off. That will be their first test of independence. Cut off water, electricity. They can get these in through the tunnels. Shoot anything that moves too close to the fence.

[gorin002]

i wander what if a palistine wil say no to jihad or intifada ?
he get killed by the hamas
so he must do what plo or hamas do.
do are voises of people some palistines are tired of this

i do not agree of simple hit anny anny one,what shooting or cut of water or
elctricity,if you hurt innocent to your not better than terrorist

but i bet arabs in israel are happy be in israel cause of freedom

[Independent]

This poll makes it quite clear that the inhabitants of the WB and GS are not interested in establishing peace with their neighbors. You can lead a horse to the roadmap to peace but you can’t make the Palestinians drink it.

The poll indicates that there’s an overwhelming support for terrorist organizations and that is likely to remain.

Why are the illegal settlements still growing? Have you ever wondered what it would be like to be slowly pushed out of your homeland?

[Independent]

I say, wall them off. That will be their first test of independence. Cut off water, electricity. They can get these in through the tunnels. Shoot anything that moves too close to the fence.

Are you sure that genocide is better than racial cleansing? Which method works the best, in your opinion? It's very entertaining when people praise "terrorism", especially when they live in the US!! :eek:

[KettleWhistle]

Are you sure that genocide is better than racial cleansing? Which method works the best, in your opinion? It's very entertaining when people praise "terrorism", especially when they live in the US!! :eek:
I have no idea what you mean by any of the above.

[MGB8]

What makes the settlements illegal? For that matter, what makes the WB the Pal Arabs "homeland?" Because they claim it is? Because they adopted the Roman name for the region that the British used? What about "Western Palestine" (Jordan).

Are you arguing that mass murder is the same as relocation?

What about the "ethnic cleansing" of the Germans from Poland and other "anschluss" countries after WWII? What about the ethnic cleansing of Turks and Greeks, or Indians and Pakistanis (really just a religious swap).

What about the attempt to push Israel into the sea, by military, by terror, and by invasion via birth rate?

What gives the Pal Arabs soverign title (as opposed to individual titles to small parcells of land) to the WB and Gaza, land won by Israel from Jordan in a defensive war (Jordan attacked first, even if you make the assinine and falacious argument that Israel's textbook pre-emptive strike on Egypts airforce after Egypts blockade and mobalization was somehow not defensive), and the land was kept after the Syria/Egyptian sneak attack on Yom Kippur in 1973?

[Independent]

I have no idea what you mean by any of the above.

Of course you don't. That's a normal problem in such situations.

[KettleWhistle]

Of course you don't. That's a normal problem in such situations.
You normally blabber nonsense in "such situations?"

[Independent]

What makes the settlements illegal? For that matter, what makes the WB the Pal Arabs "homeland?" Because they claim it is? Because they adopted the Roman name for the region that the British used? What about "Western Palestine" (Jordan).

Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot. The settlements are not illegal. Israel is simply an apartheid state. Thanks for reminding me, I almost forgot. :)

What gives the Pal Arabs soverign title (as opposed to individual titles to small parcells of land) to the WB and Gaza, land won by Israel from Jordan in a defensive war

Yes, you are right, of course. Israel must racially cleanse Palestinians from the Eretz Israel or simply kill them all. There is really no other way to do it since Israel won the land after it found a reason to attack Egypt.

Which do you think is the best method?

[Independent]

You normally blabber nonsense in "such situations?"

Funny. :D

Shoot anything that moves too close to the fence.

When Hitler said the same thing, was he serious?

[Mediocrates]

Why are the illegal settlements still growing?

Which ones would those be?

[Mediocrates]

Are you sure that genocide is better than racial cleansing? Which method works the best, in your opinion? It's very entertaining when people praise "terrorism", especially when they live in the US!! :eek:

Whatever does that prattling nonsense mean?

[Mediocrates]

Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot. The settlements are not illegal. Israel is simply an apartheid state. Thanks for reminding me, I almost forgot. :)



Yes, you are right, of course. Israel must racially cleanse Palestinians from the Eretz Israel or simply kill them all. There is really no other way to do it since Israel won the land after it found a reason to attack Egypt.

Which do you think is the best method?

The method where All of Yesha is rendered Jew free like the rest of your blighted homeworld.

What's it like to be a flat out racist pig?

[Independent]

land won by Israel from Jordan in a defensive war

What should Israel do, practice racial cleansing or genocide? Which method works the best in terms of removing the people from the land that Israel won?

[Mediocrates]

Funny. :D



When Hitler said the same thing, was he serious?
Better to wrap bombs in children and send them off to do your job.

[Independent]

What gives the Pal Arabs soverign title (as opposed to individual titles to small parcells of land) to the WB and Gaza, land won by Israel from Jordan in a defensive war

I am patient. :) You say that the land belongs to Israel, so I am asking you how Isreal can remove the people living on it? Should Israel practice racial cleansing or genocide? Which works the best?

[KettleWhistle]

racially cleanse What does "racially cleanse" mean?

And "aparteid state?" No it isn't, stop lying

Israel Is Not An Apartheid State

Even before the State of Israel was established, Jewish leaders consciously sought to avoid the situation that prevailed in South Africa. As David Ben-Gurion told Palestinian nationalist Musa Alami in 1934:


We do not want to create a situation like that which exists in South Africa, where the whites are the owners and rulers, and the blacks are the workers. If we do not do all kinds of work, easy and hard, skilled and unskilled, if we become merely landlords, then this will not be our homeland (Shabtai Teveth, Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs: From Peace to War, London: Oxford University Press, 1985, p. 140). Today, within Israel, Jews are a majority, but the Arab minority are full citizens with voting rights and representation in the government. Under apartheid black South Africans could not vote and were not citizens of the country in which they are the overwhelming majority of the population.


The situation of Palestinians in the territories—won by Israel in a defensive war forced upon it by its neighbors—is different. The security requirements of the nation, and a violent insurrection in the territories, have forced Israel to impose restrictions on Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip that are not necessary inside Israel’s pre-1967 borders. The Palestinians in the territories, typically, dispute Israel’s right to exist whereas blacks did not seek the destruction of South Africa, only the apartheid regime.

If Israel were to give Palestinians full citizenship, it would mean the territories had been annexed. No Israeli government has been prepared to take that step.

Meanwhile, Palestinians from the territories are allowed to work in Israel and receive similar pay and benefits to their Jewish counterparts. They are allowed to attend schools and universities. Palestinians have been given opportunities to run many of their own affairs. None of this was true for South African blacks.

[Independent]

Better to wrap bombs in children and send them off to do your job.

Yes, that might remove Palestinians from Eretz Israel. Do you think that it would do the trick?

[Independent]

What does "racially cleanse" mean?

And "aparteid state?" No it isn't, stop lying
[news]
Israel Is Not An Apartheid State



Thanks for telling me why Palestinians are not allowed to live in Jewish-only settlements and walk along Jewish-only roads.

An everlasting occupation under such conditions is, of course, nothing other than the slow practice of racial cleansing due to conditions of apartheid.

So, you believe in slow racial cleansing rather than fast racial cleansing.

[MGB8]

Now you are a liar. When did I say that Israel must cleanse them all.

You are also a coward, for not answering my questions.

Nor is Israel an apartheid state. Another lie. The Arabs in Israel proper are full citizens of Israel, with voting rights etc. That is more than Arabs in any Arab state. That is more than "Palestinian" rights in most Arab states, where Pal Arabs have restrictions on ownership, voting where there is a pretextual parliament, and job fields.

The "settlements" are housing developments on disputed land, that is militarilly controlled by Israel, but that has no "sovereign". The final status of the land is still in question. It is you who would ethnically cleanse the Jews from that land, and you who probably support genocide of the Jews from Israel, since you don't seem to make a distinction between relocation and genocide.

Meanwhile, I personally don't have a problem with relocation, either of Jews from Gaza or parts of the WB, or of Arabs from Israel. That is real life. Not some utopian fantasy.



Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot. The settlements are not illegal. Israel is simply an apartheid state. Thanks for reminding me, I almost forgot. :)



Yes, you are right, of course. Israel must racially cleanse Palestinians from the Eretz Israel or simply kill them all. There is really no other way to do it since Israel won the land after it found a reason to attack Egypt.

Which do you think is the best method?

[KettleWhistle]

I am patient. :) You say that the land belongs to Israel, so I am asking you how Isreal can remove the people living on it? Should Israel practice racial cleansing or genocide? Which works the best?
Who is removing Arabs from the land where they live? Nobody.

Now here's a link for you to review: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/israel.html

It has answers to most of what you posted. Read what it says, and come back here once you are done or if you need clarification. Otherwise, if you continue to post your repetitive and historically inaccurate nonsense I will be deleting it.

And one more thing. There is no such thing as "racial cleansing." It is something you made up because such terminology does not officially exist.

[MGB8]

Maybe because they people who aren't allowed on the property are by and large trying to kill the people on the property, and therefor, as a matter of protection and realism, access is restricted? Moreover, I'm not sure that other Israelis, non-Jewish Israelis, Arab, Christian, Muslim, would not be allowed on those road - do you have a non-Arab propagandist source? But, in essence, if a Jewish private entity purchased the land and roads, and then decided to restrict access to members of the entity for real security reasons, that would be reasonable.

Thanks for telling me why Palestinians are not allowed to live in Jewish-only settlements and walk along Jewish-only roads.

An everlasting occupation under such conditions is, of course, nothing other than the slow practice of racial cleansing due to conditions of apartheid.

So, you believe in slow racial cleansing rather than fast racial cleansing.

[Independent]

Who is removing Arabs from the land where they live? Nobody.

And one more thing. There is no such thing as "racial cleansing." It is something you made up because such terminology does not officially exist.

It's more wise to ask, why are people leaving because of the conditions of an endless occupation? There are fast and slow ways to practice racial cleansing.

If there is no such thing as racial cleansing, then equality is shared with everyone in Eretz Isreal, but that is not the case, unfortunately.

[Independent]

The "settlements" are housing developments on disputed land

This means that the land is no longer disputed from the perspective of many, including you since you agree that some people in Eretz Israel can have small parcells of land in Eretz Israel even though they are denied citizenship and equality. Thus, apartheid exists, but you know that.

[Independent]

Maybe because they people who aren't allowed on the property are by and large trying to kill the people on the property, and therefor, as a matter of protection and realism, access is restricted? Moreover, I'm not sure that other Israelis, non-Jewish Israelis, Arab, Christian, Muslim, would not be allowed on those road - do you have a non-Arab propagandist source? But, in essence, if a Jewish private entity purchased the land and roads, and then decided to restrict access to members of the entity for real security reasons, that would be reasonable.

This is a problem often experienced in States suffering from apartheid. People are treated unequally and thus conditions of violence exist. If everyone was treated equally in Eretz Israel, then conditions would exist as seen in Isreal where steps towards equality has made more progress.

[scattergood]

It is with much chagrin that I read Independent's responses on this thread, for his replies have every typical rhetorical device for not actually replying:

1) Dismiss your opponent without dealing with the issues: "Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot. The settlements are not illegal. Israel is simply an apartheid state. Thanks for reminding me, I almost forgot. "

2) Twist the arguement to the most extreme: " Yes, you are right, of course. Israel must racially cleanse Palestinians from the Eretz Israel or simply kill them all. There is really no other way to do it since Israel won the land after it found a reason to attack Egypt."

3) Compare what they said to Hitler: "When Hitler said the same thing, was he serious?"

I really don't think that Independent can actually discuss a fact or have a counter position based in fact, and that really is the problem. So I will ask for a straight answer from Independent and try to answer:

Causes of War
===========
a) Was the 1967 war started as an Israeli war of aggression?
b) If the answer to a is yes, then do you feel a need to reconcile that with Egyptian closing of the Straits of Tiran, which was an international water way, and the closing of all international water ways is de facto a causus belli in the international community.
c) If the asnwer to b is no, then aren't you offering preferrential treatment to Egypt over Israel?

Results of War
==========
a) Did Jordan hold sovereignty over the West Bank and Egypt hold soveregnty over Gaza prior to 1967?
b) If the answer to a is yes, then didn't Israel capture the land from the above mentioned countries?
c) If the answer to b is yes, then what is the status of this land since in each peace agreement the Jordanians and the Egyptians rennounced all claim and sovereignty to them?

Please Independent, try to answer the above with a few facts. I am only interested in what you can discuss factually, I am not making any statements of racial purity, clensing, or genocide, so please don't create any.

[KettleWhistle]

It's more wise to ask, why are people leaving because of the conditions of an endless occupation? There are fast and slow ways to practice racial cleansing.

If there is no such thing as racial cleansing, then equality is shared with everyone in Eretz Isreal, but that is not the case, unfortunately.
What is "racial cleansing?" I never heard this term used before. I have no idea what it means. Nor do I know how someone can practice something that does not exist.

[MGB8]

More lies by someone clearly Not Independent.

You are trying to confuse general, intra sovereign laws with the impact of wars and the law of war.

Individual real property rights are generally granted via the sovereign. That's why a sovereign can nationalize industries or take land by eminent domain.

In other words, my right to a house here in philly is dependent on the US and the State of Philadelphia - if a new sovereign came to power, there is nothing that guarantees that "right" - because the source of that right has changed. Now, nations may choose to give credit to pre-existing claims of title for various reasons, ie. general peace, or whatnot. But it does not have to.

This is reality, the sovereignty rights which are applied to every nation except Israel.

meanwhile, no sources, no reponses to analogy to Germany and Turkey and India/Pakistan.

The WB, otoh, since it has no sovereign, is currently having Israel take that role in parts and the PA in other parts. Even without the PA, Israel would only be a "psuedo-sovereign" - which gives it authority to grant land rights, but this is more tenuous and limited than if it were full sovereignty as within "Israel proper". Granted, Israel should have decided long ago whether it was going to Annex all of the WB, part of it, or none, and then gone ahead and done that. But, for whatever reasons, it did not. If it did annex all or some of the territories, all people in the annexed should be made citizens if they are not so already. If Israel decides that in order to prevent endless war and possible genocide of its people that it needs to relocate the non-citizens on land it has claim to and is annexing - so be it. Its not comparable at all with Genocide, and if YOU don't know that, then you are either an idiot or a monster.

[scattergood]

Independent:

This is a problem often experienced in States suffering from apartheid. People are treated unequally and thus conditions of violence exist. If everyone was treated equally in Eretz Israel, then conditions would exist as seen in Isreal where steps towards equality has made more progress.

Ok, to test a theorem it is usually a good idea to invert the test and see if it holds true. I am taking the above to be:

Because the Jewish state of Israel discriminates against Muslims, conditions of violence exist.

Well let's test the first inversion:

Because the Jewish state of Israel discriminates against the (B'Hai, Christians, Hindus, Druze), conditions of violence exist.

Well, how many Druze suicide bombers have there been? Or terrorist attacks by Hindus or Christians on night clubs?

Now let's move on to total inversion:

Because the Islamic state of Iran discriminates against the Jews, conditions of violence exist.

Hmm, how many Jewish suicide bombers in Iran have gone off in the last, oh I don't know, EVER? How many demonstrations calling for the destruction of Iran by the majority of Israeli's have there been, um, EVER?

So the conclusion that must be reached is that the standard of discrimination leading to violence in all States is False. Maybe there is another reason for it? Like societies that preach intolerance, hatred, violence, and totalitarianism create people who are intolerant, full of hate, prone to violence, and totalitarian?

[Independent]

Hmm, how many Jewish suicide bombers in Iran have gone off in the last, oh I don't know, EVER?

Violence is not suicide bombings alone. Other forms of violence exist and have been practiced by many different cultural groups, including Jews.

[Mediocrates]

Thanks for telling me why Palestinians are not allowed to live in Jewish-only settlements and walk along Jewish-only roads.

An everlasting occupation under such conditions is, of course, nothing other than the slow practice of racial cleansing due to conditions of apartheid.

So, you believe in slow racial cleansing rather than fast racial cleansing.

Tell me why 9% of the population being Jewish is a justification for terrorism which necessitates a military response.

[Independent]

What is "racial cleansing?" I never heard this term used before. I have no idea what it means. Nor do I know how someone can practice something that does not exist.

To understand "racial cleansing", one must think about how one can create Eretz Israel with a Jewish majority.

[Mediocrates]

I do not know why people use violence instead of protests to challenge apartheid. Why don't you ask them? :)

Sorry, can't hear them over the explosions of your brethren. BTW are you a flack from EI?

[scattergood]

Independent:

People behave differently in different locations, given that different conditions exist in different locations. Nevertheless, conditions of apartheid do encourage people of any race, culture or religion to use violence. No one cultural group is any better than any other.

Ahhh, now I see it, it's the bit about 'no one cultural group is any better than any other'. Well, that's just idiotic.

You once compared something somebody said to Hitler, so I will bring it back to you, if there is no difference between cultural groups, then the Nazis were no better nor any worse than say, the British during WWII. They just didn't understand each other properly?

It is idiotic, stupid, and assine to believe the way you do. You don't even live your life like that. Do you go hang out in East London at a pub, or in South Central LA for some BBQ? I mean those cultural groups are no better or worse than a Mid-Town bar in NY or a nice restaurant in The City in London.

Of course there are differences among groups, and of course those differences matter, some are better and some are worse at certain goals and achievements.

If you disagree, go move to Syria, or Darfur, or the Congo, or North Korea and tell me how much you love the freedoms, culture, and societies.

[Mediocrates]

It's buzzword laden trolling for the most part. Page 2 of the Electronic Intifada rip-n-read I think. You will never hear them offer up anything useful or constructive or insightful about their own impending 'elections' either. One would think they might have more than zero interest. Oh well back to the racist trolling; white girl dreds and a nosering is what goes for politics anyway...

[Independent]

You once compared something somebody said to Hitler, so I will bring it back to you, if there is no difference between cultural groups, then the Nazis were no better nor any worse than say, the British during WWII. They just didn't understand each other properly?

Of course there are differences among groups, and of course those differences matter, some are better and some are worse at certain goals and achievements.

If you disagree, go move to Syria, or Darfur, or the Congo, or North Korea and tell me how much you love the freedoms, culture, and societies.

There are good and bad things in every group. Just because one can't see the good in things that one doesn't understand, that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Schindler was a Nazi and yet he is loved and respected in Israel. It is true, however, that many Nazis believed that some groups were better than other groups.

[Mediocrates]

Yes, I don't know much about it because the non-Israeli press doesn't talk about it much, but maybe you can enlighten me, given that you know so much about it? :) Tell me more about the dream of the Kahane and others to create Eretz Israel with a Jewish majority. I would love to learn more!!

narc'd as trolling to the admins.

[KettleWhistle]

narc'd as trolling to the admins.
and deleted as apropos. "Independent," I've warned you before.

To other members: please PM moderators if something got deleted by mistake, and we'll restore you posts.

[KettleWhistle]

To understand "racial cleansing", one must think about how one can create Eretz Israel with a Jewish majority.
No, to understand the terminology you made up you need to define it for us. Until you do that, and otherwise start debating like an adult, you will find your posts deleted.

[MGB8]

Don't worry, when the Chineese or Indians start immigrating in mass numbers, these same people will start talking about how states need to be able to protect their charater and limit immigration.

Muslims try to shift the default to poputation because they outgrow westerners, but if they were faced with similar population rate peoples, how quickly their notes would change.

Their supporters, too.

Its all just pretext for Jew-hatred or Islamic-Imperialism or just wacky anarchist/communist nutjobs.

[KettleWhistle]

They are doing it already.

[Independent]

and deleted as apropos. "Independent," I've warned you before.


KettleWhistle, don't be silly. If I am banned because of rude people, then all that I can do is laugh and smile! If one cannot talk in a polite manner, then don't blame me, it's not my fault! :) Sometimes, people need to recognize their own faults. Isreal can learn from this forum! You are welcome to delete all of my comments. I am only attempting to help you see things from a different perspective and I understand that doing such is uncomfortable. By deleting discussions about the Kahane, does that mean that one prefers to not discuss such?

[Independent]

No, to understand the terminology you made up you need to define it for us. Until you do that, and otherwise start debating like an adult, you will find your posts deleted.

Do as you wish. You are a smart individual and have no need for simple definitions that everyone understands. As I said before, racial cleansing means creating Eretz Israel with a Jewish majority. How can it be done? Of course, you know.

[KettleWhistle]

Do as you wish. You are a smart individual and have no need for simple definitions that everyone understands. As I said before, racial cleansing means creating Eretz Israel with a Jewish majority.Eretz Israel with a Jewish majority is what Israel is right now.

As I told you before several times, I have never encountered such term. I have heard of ethnic cleansing, but it's not happening in Israel. I don't know what "racial cleansing" means, and I don't believe anyone else does, since it is something you just made up.

This is a forum for policy discussions by people who understand the conflict. You neither show any form of understanding of the issues or history, nor any willingness to discuss anything. Now, go back to post #36 (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showpost.php?p=125865&postcount=36)in this in thread and read what I wrote. You may also want to take at look at the forum policy. (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=11)

[Independent]

Eretz Israel with a Jewish majority is what Israel is right now.

Eretz Israel, meaning Israeli including Yesha (occupied territories) does not have a Jewish majority. Furthermore, if you believe that Eretz Israel is Israel, then you recognize the existence of apartheid.

As I told you before several times, I have never encountered such term. I have heard of ethnic cleansing, but it's not happening in Israel. I don't know what "racial cleansing" means, and I don't believe anyone else does, since it is something you just made up.

Then why are the people of Eretz Isreal not given full rights and citizenship? Why does one want to remove them from Yesha (occupied territories)?

This is a forum for policy discussions by people who understand the conflict. You neither show any form of understanding of the issues or history, nor any willingness to discuss anything. Now, go back to

It is true that I see the conflict from a different perspective, but just because I don't agree with your views, that doesn't mean much.

[KettleWhistle]

Eretz Israel, meaning Israeli including Yesha (occupied territories) does not have a Jewish majority. Furthermore, if you believe that Eretz Israel is Israel, then you recognize the existence of apartheid.

Then why are the people of Eretz Isreal not given full rights and citizenship? Why does one want to remove them from Yesha (occupied territories)?
Eretz Israel means "The country of Israel" in Hebrew. All of Israel's citizens have full rights.


It is true that I see the conflict from a different perspective, but just because I don't agree with your views, that doesn't mean much.
It has nothing to do with your perspective, and everything to do with your trolling and refusal to have a civil debate. Stop acting like a troll and people here will stop treating you like one.

[scattergood]

Independent:

Do as you wish. You are a smart individual and have no need for simple definitions that everyone understands. As I said before, racial cleansing means creating Eretz Israel with a Jewish majority. How can it be done? Of course, you know.

This is a jackass sort of statement. If racial cleansing meant a country with a Jewish majority, then the Irish and the British have been conducting racial cleansing for a few centuries. Each sought to have a Catholic and Protestant majority in various parts of Ireland or on the whole of the island. For that matter, the French, Germans, Italians, Spaniards, hell EVERY country by your definition conducts racial clensing. The Chinese in Nepal are clearly doing it, but not a peep from you.

Intependent:

Eretz Israel, meaning Israeli including Yesha (occupied territories) does not have a Jewish majority. Furthermore, if you believe that Eretz Israel is Israel, then you recognize the existence of apartheid.

Another stupidity. First of all Yesha today has a majority that is Jewish. According to a post elsewhere in this forum: http://www.israelforum.com/board/showpost.php?p=126016&postcount=153.

In it it states that there are 81% of 6.75 million people in Israel are Jewish and 'other nationalities' so that's 5.47M Jews. The 'territories' have 3.6M Muslims added to the 1.28M non-Jews in Israel still only makes 4.88M.

I know the math might be hard for you but 5.47M Jews > 4.88M Arabs, hence a majority. Please try stating actual FACTS, it may be difficult, but it will be helpful.

Independent:

Then why are the people of Eretz Isreal not given full rights and citizenship? Why does one want to remove them from Yesha (occupied territories)?

Why do you think that the State of Israel wants to remove ALL non-Jews from the West Bank and Gaza? Is that why their populations have more than DOUBLED since 1967, or that schools, roads, hospitals, and other infrastructure have been put in. Is that why the standard of living of an Arab in the West Bank and Gaza was THE HIGHEST IN THE ARAB WORLD before the start of the Intifada. No wait, maybe your proof is in the MULTIPLE offers to live in peace with an Arab state in those territories.

And to use one of your favorite ploys: Why aren't Jews given full rights and citizenship in all off the 22 Arab countries, or all of the even more Muslim countries. To demand one thing of Israel and another of the rest of the world is just racist.

Independent:

I am only attempting to help you see things from a different perspective and I understand that doing such is uncomfortable.

Ahh, well we are only here trying to help you actually use your brain, but it seems you don't really have one to use. Please state a FACT, a REFERENCE, anything that supports your claims. Please answer any of the points I have made with something other than "well we are just different". The difference is that some of us actually look at the facts and draw conclusions with information, instead of you who draws a conclusion and looks for facts to support it.

[Independent]

Eretz Israel means "The country of Israel" in Hebrew. All of Israel's citizens have full rights.
If this were the case, then the illegal settlements wouldn't exit. But, they do, so you are wrong. Eretz Israel means Israel including Yesha as the illegal settlements demonstrate. Just ask any settler.

1) The legal right of the Jewish People to the whole of The Land of Israel has been in force since the declaration by the League of Nations and the granting of the Mandate which followed. According to international law, this right can only expire when the area concerned becomes an independent country or part of an existing country. This right has not been revoked to-date.
http://www.moetzetyesha.co.il/arti.asp?id=44

The "whole of the land of Israel" is better known as Eretz Israel while the land west of the green line is better known as Israel or the "divided" Israel. But, I don't expect for you admit this because you enjoy confusing Bush while expanding settlements.

[Independent]

then the Irish and the British have been conducting racial cleansing for a few centuries.

We are talking about Israel, not some other place. If Israel did not prevent the natives of Israel from returning to Israel, then Israel would not be guilty of racial cleansing. You are welcome to discuss the Irish in the Irish forum any time you choose to do so.

First of all Yesha today has a majority that is Jewish.

Excellent! That means that All Palestinians are Israeli citizens or will be tomorrow. I'm glad that Israel doesn't want to be an apartheid state and will end such tomorrow.

Why do you think that the State of Israel wants to remove ALL non-Jews from the West Bank and Gaza? Easy. The conditions of the occupation have not improved, the illegal settlements are growing, the practice of apartheid has not changed and more and more natives are prevented from living in Israel. Given that illegal settlement construction means that Israel wants to force itself to end apartheid and give everyone equality and citizenship, why doesn't it do such? Maybe the answer is in racial cleansing through land expansion.

[scattergood]

Independent:
We are talking about Israel, not some other place. If Israel did not prevent the natives of Israel from returning to Israel, then Israel would not be guilty of racial cleansing. You are welcome to discuss the Irish in the Irish forum any time you choose to do so.

Wow, you are like a three year old. Can't you talk about an IDEA? Guess you can't but for all the other readers of this forum, the point I was making was that for an idea to be true it should be universally applicable. So I'll repeat it again:

To accuse Israel of 'racial clensing' because it wants a Jewish majority, is to accuse France of racial cleansing because it wants a French majority. Or China of racial cleansing for trying to have a majority of Chinese in Nepal.

Your inability to generalize your thesis renders it false.

Independent:

Excellent! That means that All Palestinians are Israeli citizens or will be tomorrow. I'm glad that Israel doesn't want to be an apartheid state and will end such tomorrow.

Ok, maybe you are two! I was making a FACTUAL point. Nowhere did I say that because there is a majority of Jews in Yeshua as defined as Israel the West Bank, and Gaza that the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza should become citizens of a state that encompasses all three territories.

Don't you understand that the West Bank and Gaza are non-sovereign disputed territories? Jordan who held sovereignty over the West Bank, issued passports to the Arabs there and controlled the territory for nearly 20 years has renounced all claim to it. It is a limbo possession.

Independen:

Easy. The conditions of the occupation have not improved, the illegal settlements are growing, the practice of apartheid has not changed and more and more natives are prevented from living in Israel. Given that illegal settlement construction means that Israel wants to force itself to end apartheid and give everyone equality and citizenship, why doesn't it do such? Maybe the answer is in racial cleansing through land expansion.

The 'natives' include the Jews dont' they, who have been living in the region since 1500 BCE? What about the communities of Jerico who were wiped out, or Nablus? Israel has agreed to on 5 separate occasions to live sied by side with a 23rd Arab state, and the Arabs have refused. The attacks on Israel in the West Bank started in 1948, after the cease fire of the War of Independence. The 'Green Line' is nothing more than a cease fire line on a map and have never been intended to be FINAL BORDERS. The resolution 242 of the UN recognizes that, but you seem to be ignoring that august body in this case since it doesn't fulfill your narrow racist views of something.

Look, just because you yell something from the top of your lungs doesn't make it true. Yelling Apartheid, Apartheid, doesn't make it true. I can prove it to you. Go to the top of some bank in Switzerland, yell "I can fly, I can fly" and really believe it and walk off the side of the building.

[MGB8]

Independent is assuming exo-sovereign laws - ie. the LEGAL "right" of a person to live in a certain place because some of their ancestors did.

Now, Independent knows that Israel did not come into existence based on that right. Israel came into existence based on convincing the sovereigns of the territory that they had a MORAL **claim** to, based on the above logic, to grant them LEGAL sovereignty.

But he's trying to get around this little complication, both by making a claim absolute, and getting around the rights of a sovereign.

There are no "natives" of Palestine, really, other than the Jews. There are formerly nomadic Druze and Bedoin, and some Arab tribes that moved to the land at one point, but mostly these are not "Palestinians", in terms of that they are ethnically or historically tied to the land the Romans called Palestine, but just Syrians and Lebanese and other non-distinct arab groups.

Meanwhile JUDEA, the original Roman name, was named so AFTER ITS INHABITANTS, THE JEWS! The name Palestine is not named after the lands inhabitants, it is named as punishment to the Jews. Meanwhile, the Pal Arabs have adopted the name of the region, because they have no name of their own.

Independent's logic would allow a bunch of American Indians to move to a section of the US and then have an absolute right to a state there, where they want, because they had some historical tie, regardless of the legal status of the land.

Its newer international legal principles based on vague and barely/inconsistently applied treaties as a weapon against Israel, looking to overturn longer standing, and more valid, sovereign based approaches to international laws.

[KettleWhistle]

If this were the case, then the illegal settlements wouldn't exit. But, they do, so you are wrong. Eretz Israel means Israel including Yesha as the illegal settlements demonstrate. Just ask any settler.

1) The legal right of the Jewish People to the whole of The Land of Israel has been in force since the declaration by the League of Nations and the granting of the Mandate which followed. According to international law, this right can only expire when the area concerned becomes an independent country or part of an existing country. This right has not been revoked to-date.
http://www.moetzetyesha.co.il/arti.asp?id=44

The "whole of the land of Israel" is better known as Eretz Israel while the land west of the green line is better known as Israel or the "divided" Israel. But, I don't expect for you admit this because you enjoy confusing Bush while expanding settlements.
Israel and the Eretz Israel are one and the same.

[MGB8]

Population relocations are not desirable, but are sometimes necessary. Again, you have the example of ethnic germans in other states after WWII, India-Pakistan, Greece-Turkey, etc.etc.

Israel and Eretz Israel are the same and are not. Depends on your language. Independent is trying to use Eretz Yisrael to mean "Greater Israel", meaning the historic Israel which claims the WB and parts of Gaza.

Israel is not greater Israel. Israel is the Jewish state. That is what Independent wants to change. He wants it to be a muslim state, with the Jews eventually outnumbered, dominated, and possibly killed off.

[Independent]

Yelling Apartheid, Apartheid, doesn't make it true.

A quick and easy way to end apartheid is to end the occupation or to recognize citizenship and equality for everyone. If you don't want for me to criticize the existing situation, then you can help Sharon to end the occupation and accept something like the Geneva Accords.

[Independent]

Israel is not greater Israel. Israel is the Jewish state. That is what Independent wants to change. He wants it to be a muslim state, with the Jews eventually outnumbered, dominated, and possibly killed off.

Incorrect. Many Israelis believe that Yesha is a part of Israel, which it obviously is not. Removing the illegal settlements is an excellent method of demonstrating taht Yesha is not a part of Israel. Not removing the illegal settlements demonstrates that Yesha is a part of Israel and that apartheid exists. How Israelis decide their future is their choice. I am only a critic of the given situation. Israelis will choose if they want to have apartheid or not and will do what is necessary to end such.

In my opinion, Jews in Yesha can be wonderful law-abiding Palestinian citizens and there is no need to remove them from their new homeland.

[KettleWhistle]

Incorrect. Many Israelis believe that Yesha is a part of Israel, which it obviously is not. Removing the illegal settlements is an excellent method of demonstrating taht Yesha is not a part of Israel. Not removing the illegal settlements demonstrates that Yesha is a part of Israel and that apartheid exists. How Israelis decide their future is their choice. I am only a critic of the given situation. Israelis will choose if they want to have apartheid or not and will do what is necessary to end such.Yesha is a part of Israel. Every Israeli citizen who lives there has equal rights. Jordanians who live there are not citizens, and they have the same rights as other foreigners. It has no relation to your cocamamie theories of aparteid.


In my opinion, Jews in Yesha can be wonderful law-abiding Palestinian citizens and there is no need to remove them from their new homeland.
No. They will get killed, and that would happen sooner rather than later.

[Independent]

Yesha is a part of Israel. Every Israeli citizen who lives there has equal rights. Jordanians who live there are not citizens, and they have the same rights as other foreigners. It has no relation to your cocamamie theories of aparteid.

No. They will get killed, and that would happen sooner rather than later.

Oh, are we delete-happy today?

What did I write before? Oh, I remember....

That is another way of describing apartheid. I'm just more direct with the term because being direct is easier to understand.

Now, what methods do you think will work the best in terms of forcefully cleansing these "jordanians" from the land of their ancestors?

[KettleWhistle]

Oh, are we delete-happy today?
No, rather annoyed, and getting close to asking for your banishment.

That is another way of describing apartheid. I'm just more direct with the term because being direct is easier to understand.
No it is not.


Now, what methods do you think will work the best in terms of forcefully cleansing these "jordanians" from the land of their ancestors?

Who is forcefully cleansing them? Not Israel.

[MGB8]

No, that's the same as one state with a large mass of foreign citizens in its borders. Appartheid applies to systemic discrimination against a race or ethnicty for being part of that ethnicity.

Israel does not discriminate to that level, or in any way unreasonable, against ISRAELI ARABS, even though they are ethnically the same as "Palestinian Arabs."

So it is not appartheid - you are using the word incorrectly.

Meanwhile, Judea and Samarea are not techinically part of the modern nation of Israel, because Israel has not annexed them. They are controlled by Israel, just as the US or UK or other nations control certain territories. The territories, which are controled by a "psuedo-sovereign" or acting sovereign, have people of various citizenships, and people are treated accordingly, and according to reality.

There is a question as to wether or not Israel should annex all, part or none of the WB & Gaza, and the consequence of doing one over the other. It is possible that it is in Israel's best interest to annex the WB, because otherwise it would not have defensible borders and by relinquishing them it would allow a mortal danger to its existence to come to be.

If that is the case, and Israel needs to annex the WB, then comes the issue, do you give citizenship to its non Israeli residents, do you expell the non-Israeli residents (here you would need to give compensation for the expulsion), or do you work out something in between - sort of a "permanent resident" status for foreign nationals like you have in the US and I'm sure in Europe? Another question.

No obvious answers. Nor is it a question of straight right or wrong, but of weighing consequences and equities. ie. THe Arabs already have most of Palestine in terms of Jordan, Western Palestine, and they comprise the majority there, so why do they need, in equity, another state...?

[Independent]

No, rather annoyed, and getting close to asking for your banishment. Who is forcefully cleansing them? Not Israel.

Well, since you don't want to discuss things, what are you waiting for? Do it! :)

As for racial cleansing.... You said that Palestinians, which you call "jordanians" do not belong in Eretz Israel. That means that "jordanians" will be slowly removed from the land of their ancestors, just like I mentioned it a long time ago. So, see, I was right all along and you knew it. You're just not strong enough to admit it.

Now, you can go ahead and ban me since I can see the truth that you don't like talking about. :)

And, oh, don't forget to delete this post too because Bush might read it and we wouldn't want that, right?

[Independent]

No, that's the same as one state with a large mass of foreign citizens in its borders. Appartheid applies to systemic discrimination against a race or ethnicty for being part of that ethnicity.

Exactly! That's racial cleansing! You folks are good! Refusing to give the natives citizenship means that one can slowly prevent them from returning to their homeland. That's a tricky method of practicing racial cleansing, I must agree. :) Just wait until they go on a business trip to the US and then their return is rejected because they are of the wrong cultural group and believe in a different religion.

[MGB8]

Israel has not decided yet what to do with the Pal Arabs on the WB. At first, the plan was for that "permanent resident" option, but that clearly has reached a dead-end.

Thus we are left with two viable options for Israel:

(1) Annex minimal parts of the WB while avoiding parts with large populations of hostile persons (Pal Arabs), and maybe even give the new ethnically defined state (it would be an Arab-Muslim state, after all, not open to massive Chineese immigration, or what not) sovereignty over some of the ethnically identical populations that are within Israel proper - both a land swap and a popultion swap (somewhat like India/Pakistan).

(2) Annex all of the WB and expell the hostile population to an ethnically identical state (Jordan), while compensating them for lost land, etc.

The later is much less likely, barring some catastrophic event.

[KettleWhistle]

First, natives do have citizenship.

Second, Israel does not discriminate against any ethnic or religious group.

[MGB8]

Exactly! That's racial cleansing! You folks are good! Refusing to give the natives citizenship means that one can slowly prevent them from returning to their homeland. That's a tricky method of practicing racial cleansing, I must agree. :) Just wait until they go on a business trip to the US and then their return is rejected because they are of the wrong cultural group and believe in a different religion.

This allegation is baseless and false.

I have to support banning "independent". He is a troll. He is not actually reading what is written in response or explanation to his posts, much less responding to the substance. He is just repeating baseless allegations. Libel.

[Independent]

Israel has not decided yet what to do with the Pal Arabs on the WB. At first, the plan was for that "permanent resident" option, but that clearly has reached a dead-end.

Thus we are left with two viable options for Israel:

(1) Annex minimal parts of the WB while avoiding parts with large populations of hostile persons (Pal Arabs), and maybe even give the new ethnically defined state (it would be an Arab-Muslim state, after all, not open to massive Chineese immigration, or what not) sovereignty over some of the ethnically identical populations that are within Israel proper - both a land swap and a popultion swap (somewhat like India/Pakistan).

(2) Annex all of the WB and expell the hostile population to an ethnically identical state (Jordan), while compensating them for lost land, etc.

The later is much less likely, barring some catastrophic event.

The later option won't work because there would be too much international opposition to it. That leasts option 1 as the most probably thing that will happen in the future.

[Independent]

First, natives do have citizenship.

Second, Israel does not discriminate against any ethnic or religious group.

Yes, some natives have citizenship but not those living in Yesha. You know this and I know this. This means that the natives in Yesha, known by you as "jordanians" will most likely be subject to option 1 that MGB8 mentioned. This means taht, for a very long time, Eretz Isarel will continue to be divided.

Is it possible to not practice apartheid without giving all of the natives citizenship and equality?

[MGB8]

The later option won't work because there would be too much international opposition to it. That leasts option 1 as the most probably thing that will happen in the future.

Wow. An actual response to the substance of a post.

I agree, International opinion makes option 2 much less likely, even if the equities arguably favor the proposition (but arguable don't, it depends how much weight you give to the Pal Arab claims on the WB versus Israels claims and the dangers of a Pal Arab state, and the other options for both Israel and the Pal Arabs.)

[KettleWhistle]

Yes, some natives have citizenship but not those living in Yesha. You know this and I know this. This means that the natives in Yesha, known by you as "jordanians" will most likely be subject to option 1 that MGB8 mentioned. This means taht, for a very long time, Eretz Isarel will continue to be divided.
These people are Jordanian natives. They have Jordanian citizenship, and they do not belong in Israel.

[Independent]

This allegation is baseless and false.

I have to support banning "independent". He is a troll. He is not actually reading what is written in response or explanation to his posts, much less responding to the substance. He is just repeating baseless allegations. Libel.

2 votes to ban me. Anyone else? It's always easier to ban people than to discuss how to not give people citizenship and not be an apartheid state at the same time. Maybe I don't belong here and should leave since I don't hate Arabs?

[KettleWhistle]

2 votes to ban me. Anyone else? It's always easier to ban people than to discuss how to not give people citizenship and not be an apartheid state at the same time.Israel is not an aparteid state, and you are not discussing anything. And we don't hate Arabs here. People who come here to incite ethnic hatred get banned sooner than they realize what has happened, and without any warnings.

[minusthejihad]

Indy has no clue what Apartheid even means and interchanges terms like racial cleaning and genocide as if they are neat little catch phrases it can throw around. Makes me imagine a freshman in some Community College who just got cable.

[Independent]

Wow. An actual response to the substance of a post.

I agree, International opinion makes option 2 much less likely, even if the equities arguably favor the proposition (but arguable don't, it depends how much weight you give to the Pal Arab claims on the WB versus Israels claims and the dangers of a Pal Arab state, and the other options for both Israel and the Pal Arabs.)

Well, you are the first to have the courage to use polite language, so I respect you for that. :)

[Independent]

Indy has no clue what Apartheid even means and interchanges terms like racial cleaning and genocide as if they are neat little catch phrases it can throw around. Makes me imagine a freshman in some Community College who just got cable.

Oh, that's a very good method of proving your point. Bush used that method too in his campaign.

Nevertheless, you are always welcome to join the discussion. How can the "jordanians", also known as Palestinians in Yesha, be removed from Eretz Israel given that they are denied citizenship in Eretz Israel?

[minusthejihad]

Scattergood, Kettlewhistle, MGB8 and a host of others have answered your every question already. But you don't read the answers, you throw out the same simplistic catch phrases. But don't worry, viewers of the site see right through that.

[Independent]

Scattergood, Kettlewhistle, MGB8 and a host of others have answered your every question already. But you don't read the answers, you throw out the same simplistic catch phrases. But don't worry, viewers of the site see right through that.

People see what ever they want to see. Sometimes, however, it does take a bit longer to see the truth. All of the people above simply pointed out that that the problems that I mentioned are indeed problems.