Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Israel's uncompromising stance on settlements draws global condemnation
-
26-04-2012 6:47am#1US 'concerned' over new settlement approvalThe United States is "concerned" about the Israeli government decision to turn three West Bank outposts into settlements, and is seeking clarifications from Israel, the State Department said Tuesday.
"We are obviously concerned by the reports that we have seen. We have raised this with the Israeli government," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters. "We don't think this is helpful to the process, and we don't accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity."
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=267450
EU expresses "extreme concern" over Israeli settlementBRUSSELS, April 25 (KUNA) -- EU High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton expressed "extreme concern" on Wednesday regarding the decision by Israeli authorities on the status of the settlements of Sansana, Rechelim and Bruchin in the occupied Palestinian territory.
"I call upon them to reverse this decision," she said in a statement.
http://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=2236436&language=en
U.N. chief "deeply troubled" by new West Bank outposts(Reuters) - U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon said on Tuesday that he was "deeply troubled" by Israel's decision to grant legal status to three settlement outposts in the occupied West Bank, describing the activity as illegal under international law.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/24/us-palestinians-israel-settlements-un-idUSBRE83N16I20120424
China urges Israel to cease settlement construction
“China is always against Israeli establishment of Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory,” ... “We urge Israel to cease the settlement construction immediately, work actively in collaboration with the efforts of the international community to promote peace, and create conditions for the resumption of Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiation.”
http://www.capitalfm.co.ke/news/2012/04/china-backs-efforts-to-break-palestinian-israeli-deadlock/
Turkey strongly condemns Israeli settlement activitiesAnkara. Turkey on Wednesday strongly condemned Israel's new settlement activities, saying that all its Jewish settlements in the occupied territories violate international law, an official statement said.
http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n276557
Jordan condemns Israeli settlement decisionJordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh on Tuesday denounced Israel’s decision to legalize three settler outposts in the West Bank, during talks with US envoy David Hale.
Jordan, which has a 1994 peace deal with the Jewish state, "condemns Israeli settlement activities as well as its unilateral measures," Judeh said at the meeting with Hale, state-run Petra news agency reported.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4220697,00.html
Palestinians call on UN to stop Israeli settlement legalizationThe Palestinian UN observer Riyad Mansour denounced on Wednesday Israel's legalization of three unsanctioned West Bank settler outposts as an illegal attempt to entrench "its massive network of illegal settlements."
...
Mansour called on the UN Security Council "to act immediately to address these continuing illegal, grave actions by Israel."
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/palestinians-call-on-un-to-stop-israeli-settlement-legalization-1.426625
All these political leaders do is profess concern for the Palestinians situation. What I'd like to know is when do they plan to exact a price for Israel's intransigence?0
Comments
-
If America was remotely concerned about anything Israel does, they would simply do the one thing that would resolve all the problems in the Middle East with one fell swoop - pull the plug on all aid, financial and military, to the Zionist state.
While Israel knows it can rely on the support of the only global hyperpower no matter what they do, they will do what they like, and what they like is genocidal ethnic cleansing and colonisation of Palestinian land.
Nobody else has a meaningful say in this while the US supports Israel wholeheartedly. Although some countries show more bravery than others in standing up and protesting Israeli aggression, and thankfully our country is one of those.0 -
Cavehill Red wrote: »If America was remotely concerned about anything Israel does, they would simply do the one thing that would resolve all the problems in the Middle East with one fell swoop - pull the plug on all aid, financial and military, to the Zionist state.
Can you give examples as to how the Zionist state is causing the current problems in, say, Syria and Bahrain?0 -
Really? All the problems in the Middle East are down to Israel? Interesting. Do continue and try to explain how exactly they are . . .Cavehill Red wrote: »If America was remotely concerned about anything Israel does, they would simply do the one thing that would resolve all the problems in the Middle East with one fell swoop - pull the plug on all aid, financial and military, to the Zionist state0 -
Cavehill Red wrote: »If America was remotely concerned about anything Israel does, they would simply do the one thing that would resolve all the problems in the Middle East with one fell swoop - pull the plug on all aid, financial and military, to the Zionist state.
......
Thats the kind of odd statement that undermines the palestinian case.0 -
OP, as a citizen of the country and despite of my support for the country, I want to say that I don't support the recognition of new settlements that complicate any future peace resolution and shake the trust between Israel and the PA.
I just can say that those 3 are relatively old settlements that have been recognized by the state so far as "neighborhoods" of other settlements, and now are getting recognized as separate settlements. If this change has any operative influence I don't know, but I don't see a lot of good in it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Cavehill Red wrote: »If America was remotely concerned about anything Israel does, they would simply do the one thing that would resolve all the problems in the Middle East with one fell swoop - pull the plug on all aid, financial and military, to the Zionist state.
While Israel knows it can rely on the support of the only global hyperpower no matter what they do, they will do what they like, and what they like is genocidal ethnic cleansing and colonisation of Palestinian land.
Nobody else has a meaningful say in this while the US supports Israel wholeheartedly. Although some countries show more bravery than others in standing up and protesting Israeli aggression, and thankfully our country is one of those.
are you aware that obama is potrayed as not pro israel enough by certain quaters in the usa , despite the fact that he hasnt changed americas possition one iota , it seems he,s not down on his knees enough0 -
battle_hardend wrote: »are you aware that obama is potrayed as not pro israel enough by certain quaters in the usa , despite the fact that he hasnt changed americas possition one iota , it seems he,s not down on his knees enough
I'm entirely aware of that, which appears highly ironic from the perspective outside of the AIPAC bubble.
As for what destablilisation Israel is responsible for in the wider Arab world, it is likely we will never know. Were it not for a fluke, we would still be unaware of Mossad agents travelling to Dubai to murder Hamas officials on Irish passports. It's already evident that Mossad has a hand in Syria as we speak. They don't destablilise Bahrain because they operate there with impunity.
Nodin, I don't think anything I can say or do can possibly undermine the Palestinian case. They've had their country stolen from them at gunpoint by invaders, a process which is still ongoing, and which has had as a side-effect enormous breaches of their human rights. There are those who think, for whatever reasons, that that is acceptable. There are those who do not. I am one who does not.0 -
-
Cavehill Red wrote: »I'm entirely aware of that, which appears highly ironic from the perspective outside of the AIPAC bubble.
As for what destablilisation Israel is responsible for in the wider Arab world, it is likely we will never know. Were it not for a fluke, we would still be unaware of Mossad agents travelling to Dubai to murder Hamas officials on Irish passports. It's already evident that Mossad has a hand in Syria as we speak. They don't destablilise Bahrain because they operate there with impunity.
Nodin, I don't think anything I can say or do can possibly undermine the Palestinian case. They've had their country stolen from them at gunpoint by invaders, a process which is still ongoing, and which has had as a side-effect enormous breaches of their human rights. There are those who think, for whatever reasons, that that is acceptable. There are those who do not. I am one who does not.
Hahaha a russiatoday link, can you get something a bit more credible than that?0 -
Both sides have done wrong hopefully we will see a Palestinian state alongside a Israeli state living in peace.Settlements are no good to either side.Nethanyahu needs to stop settlements if you read http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-government-petitions-high-court-to-postpone-evacuation-of-west-bank-outpost-1.426879
the link you see that settlements are dividing people.Alot of Israelis are against Settlements.0 -
Advertisement
-
BlaasForRafa wrote: »Hahaha a russiatoday link, can you get something a bit more credible than that?
Google Eli Cohen and get back to me.
Or there's Ha'aretz and Der Spiegel more recently.
Or even Mossad's own internal communications.
Anyhow, I don't see anything wrong with citing Russia Today. They're significantly more credible than US sources on the Middle East.0 -
Israel has no interest in peace. They plan to usurp Palestine entirely and dislocate its people. In the process some of their citizens will die. This is a price they are happy to pay.
The above is obvious by their actions.
The only way they will stop is if they are forced to by International sanctions. This will not happen with the US veto at the UN. Internal US politics will prevent any justice for Israel's crimes.
But then why should it? The US already did this to the Indians. They continue to invade and supplant regimes as suits their agenda. This is the world we live in. Bear witness to the true nature of humanity in all it's glory. For that is all there is.
We watch an ongoing ethnic cleansing and the wiping out of a peoples and remain utterly powerless to stop it.0 -
@Memnoch, what do you know about the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 and from Gaza in 2005?
What do you know about the 1993 Oslo agreements and the almost full autonomy of the PA in the A zones?
Did you know that the former prime minister Ehud Olmert had put officially on the table the option for retreating from almost all the west bank including the arabs neighborhoods in Western Jerusalem with the suggestions of swapping some territories?
My logic is that if Israel wanted to keep these territories and keep paying that prize, it would have..
Of course you wouldn't blame Hizballah for their killing and kidnapping from within Israeli legal territories in 2006.
You don't blame Hamas for rockets on Israeli cities (no, Israel doesn't fire deliberately on citizens. It has been proved by the fix to the Goldstone committee report when Israel was accused in doing it).
You don't blame the PA, Arafat and the territories who were responsible for so many deaths of Israeli citizens, especially during the second intifada while Ehud Barak was in power when he had had a pretty liberal outlook. Try to backup suicide bombers. Let's hear you.
You don't try to see both sides and understand why many Israelis might be very very suspicious towards the peace process.
I'm against the recognition of the recent settlements but people like you who spread their one sided agenda aren't beneficial to peace and understanding neither.0 -
The Israeli wrote: »@Memnoch, what do you know about the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 and from Gaza in 2005?
Better still, what right had Israel to occupy other sovereign territories in the first place?The Israeli wrote: »What do you know about the 1993 Oslo agreements and the almost full autonomy of the PA in the A zones?
Did you know that the former prime minister Ehud Olmert had put officially on the table the option for retreating from almost all the west bank including the arabs neighborhoods in Western Jerusalem with the suggestions of swapping some territories?
My logic is that if Israel wanted to keep these territories and keep paying that prize, it would have..
Did he offer to honour the 1967 border? No.The Israeli wrote: »Of course you wouldn't blame Hizballah for their killing and kidnapping from within Israeli legal territories in 2006.
Straw man. Memnoch has offered no comment on Hizbollah terrorism. You are putting words into his mouth to misrepresent him.The Israeli wrote: »You don't blame Hamas for rockets on Israeli cities (no, Israel doesn't fire deliberately on citizens. It has been proved by the fix to the Goldstone committee report when Israel was accused in doing it).
Same straw man, now with added untruths.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/25/israel-white-phosphorus-gaza
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2002-10-08/news/0210080228_1_gaza-strip-israeli-army-commander-palestinianThe Israeli wrote: »You don't blame the PA, Arafat and the territories who were responsible for so many deaths of Israeli citizens, especially during the second intifada while Ehud Barak was in power when he had had a pretty liberal outlook. Try to backup suicide bombers. Let's hear you.
Same straw man again.The Israeli wrote: »You don't try to see both sides and understand why many Israelis might be very very suspicious towards the peace process.
What peace process? The only process ongoing in Palestine is the colonisation of their country by hostile invaders.The Israeli wrote: »I'm against the recognition of the recent settlements but
Why does there have to be a but? Do you support a return to the 1967 borders? If not, why not? Do you support the right of return for Palestinian refugees displaced from their homes at gunpoint during the Naqba? If not, why not?The Israeli wrote: »people like you who spread their one sided agenda aren't beneficial to peace and understanding neither.
And back to the straw man for your conclusion. When you're done arguing with yourself and misrepresenting other posters, I'd be keen to hear your answers to my questions above.0 -
Cavehill Red wrote: »What peace process? The only process ongoing in Palestine is the colonisation of their country by hostile invaders.
+1
Former Shin Bet chief made it very clear that Netanyahu is not interested in peace talks.“Forget the stories they tell you about how Abbas is not interested in negotiation,” said Diskin, adding: “We are not talking to the Palestinians because this government has no interest in negotiations."
The former Shin Bet chief added: "I was there up to a year ago and I know from up-close what is happening. This government is not interested in solving anything with the Palestinians, and I say this certainty,” he added.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/former-shin-bet-chief-netanyahu-not-interested-in-peace-talks-1.4269340 -
The Israeli wrote: ».
You don't try to see both sides and understand why many Israelis might be very very suspicious towards the peace process.
I'm against the recognition of the recent settlements but people like you who spread their one sided agenda aren't beneficial to peace and understanding neither.
......no-one is forcing Israel to build settlements, so a list of the 'wrongs' of whatever group really have nothing to do with it.0 -
The reasons that had brought Israel in the first place to Lebanon were to fight the Palestinian terror organizations that established vast arms bases there and committed many attacks on the Israeli northern border's villages and towns.Cavehill Red wrote: »Better still, what right had Israel to occupy other sovereign territories in the first place?
The perception was to push back or destroy these organizations and establish an alliance with the Christian Lebanese in southern Lebanon.
In the end, IDF had remained there keeping there outposts and bases for too many bloody years without real good results.
Israel didn't wish to rule southern Lebanon, of course, and never had. Just to keep a security zone between itself and the terror organizations.
In the end, as we know, this military decision turned to be a mistake.
Just don't bull**** me as if it was for "expending" borders, ok..
Do you really think that Israel would move hundreds of thousands people from their homes?Cavehill Red wrote: »Did he offer to honour the 1967 border? No.
He offered a pretty close and honest trade. Swapping territories is the logical solution to a problem like that. Moreover, getting back to the original 67' borders may cause Israel a major security inconvenience, like in the Jerusalem area. Have a look on the 67' map and read a bit about.
Israel wants peace, but peace with security.. We don't play dice..
What? whose words? Do you know anything about the event?Cavehill Red wrote: »Straw man. Memnoch has offered no comment on Hizbollah terrorism. You are putting words into his mouth to misrepresent him.
How many times the white phosphorus was used and how many got killed?Cavehill Red wrote: »
No one got killed and it was used in legal weapons. Illumination bombs were fired too low by one commander. Mistake yes, a war crime? I doubt.
Should this commander be punished? yes. An israeli policy? no way.
You can give give me articles of Palestinians accuse Israel till tomorrow.
The fact is that there are international reports about the Israeli actions there, and the most comprehensive of some have cleaned Israel of all the war crimes accusations. Furthermore, I know IDF a bit better than you do, and how the army fights...
The only? well, you really know a lot about it, ah..Cavehill Red wrote: »What peace process? The only process ongoing in Palestine is the colonisation of their country by hostile invaders.
Their country? Remind me when was the Palestinian country established.. I don't remember.. Ah 48.. Has it existed for real?? mm no.. Why? Ah they opened a war to prevent Israel from existing. ahmm
From whom then Israel has taken the territory? Ah, from Jordan.
Should Israel help the Palestinians to establish a state of their own? No doubt, if we want peace! On what territories? the ones that are similar to those ones that Jordan occupied in the Western benk in 48 - 67.
First of all, gunpoint or not, many of them had fled before the fighting in a war that they had began.Cavehill Red wrote: »Why does there have to be a but? Do you support a return to the 1967 borders? If not, why not? Do you support the right of return for Palestinian refugees displaced from their homes at gunpoint during the Naqba? If not, why not?
Should their families return? Well, lets say that if millions of Palestinian would "return" to Israel, there won't be any Israel.
Maybe, many people would like that to happen, but not me.
Even Abu Mazen understands that and tends to agree with it. Are you more radical than he is?
I have no idea who that straw man that you are constantly talking about is.Cavehill Red wrote: »
And back to the straw man for your conclusion. When you're done arguing with yourself and misrepresenting other posters, I'd be keen to hear your answers to my questions above.
I would like to talk to him about growing cabbage..
You seem to be so one sided that I have no doubt that you won't be moved even by an inch by what I have said.
You don't seek for a solution, you don't seek a middle ground, you don't know how and don't wish help bringing people to a common cause which should be Peace.
Oh well...0 -
-
The Israeli wrote: »He offered a pretty close and honest trade. Swapping territories is the logical solution to a problem like that. Moreover, getting back to the original 67' borders may cause Israel a major security inconvenience, like in the Jerusalem area. Have a look on the 67' map and read a bit about.
Israel wants peace, but peace with security.. We don't play dice.....
Israel (or a section of it) wants land, peacefully or otherwise. As a result its continuously expanding and consolidating its presence in the Occupied territories at the expense of the populace there. As the consequences of Israels actions felt upon itself are negligible, it will not stop until it feels its reached the maximum optimum amount it can control in a sustainable fashion.0 -
The Israeli wrote: »Th
Do you really think that Israel would move hundreds of thousands people from their homes?
..
"settlers" from their "colonies" would be a bit more accurate.0 -
Advertisement
-
Israel does not have a legitimate claim to sovereignty over a single square centimetre of land outside their original border.
Particularly not when they are "claiming" it by simply bulldozing any annoying human beings who happen to ALREADY LIVE THERE.
I don't buy the arguments about "Removing settlers from their homes" either. They had no problem removing Palestinians from their homes and they knew full well that they were moving into someone else's land when they chose to settle.
I feel sympathy for those who were no doubt lied to and tricked into doing it by their extremist government but unfortunately, theft is still theft. Stolen property must be returned, regardless of whether or not the thief was mislead into taking part in the heist.0 -
The Israeli wrote: »The reasons that had brought Israel in the first place to Lebanon were to fight the Palestinian terror organizations that established vast arms bases there and committed many attacks on the Israeli northern border's villages and towns.
The perception was to push back or destroy these organizations and establish an alliance with the Christian Lebanese in southern Lebanon.
In the end, IDF had remained there keeping there outposts and bases for too many bloody years without real good results.
Israel didn't wish to rule southern Lebanon, of course, and never had. Just to keep a security zone between itself and the terror organizations.
In the end, as we know, this military decision turned to be a mistake.
Just don't bull**** me as if it was for "expending" borders, ok..
"Israel" has done nothing but seek to expand their borders ever since the first Zionists immigrated to Palestine in the Nineteenth century. The core of the Zionist project, admitted by a succession of Israeli leaders, is the establishment of 'Eretz Israel', a quasi-religious belief that they are somehow entitled to a significantly larger tract of land than even that they currently hold, due to some deal struck with an imaginary sky daddy millennia ago.The Israeli wrote: »Do you really think that Israel would move hundreds of thousands people from their homes?
They don't have a problem moving Palestinians from their homes. They've been doing that for decades.The Israeli wrote: »He offered a pretty close and honest trade. Swapping territories is the logical solution to a problem like that. Moreover, getting back to the original 67' borders may cause Israel a major security inconvenience, like in the Jerusalem area. Have a look on the 67' map and read a bit about.
Israel wants peace, but peace with security.. We don't play dice..
I've seen the 67 map. The fact that Palestinians are prepared to accept the loss of much of their territory seems to me an incredibly generous position, given what they've suffered at the hands of the immigrant invaders. The fact that this still isn't enough for Israel confirms the 'Eretz Israel' project at the core of the nation's ideology, and proves that Israel has no interest in "peace". They want the land to themselves.The Israeli wrote: »What? whose words? Do you know anything about the event?
You claimed that Memnoch said things he has not commented on, in order to dismiss what he had said. That's straw man logic and it is frowned upon in debating because it is dishonest.The Israeli wrote: »How many times the white phosphorus was used and how many got killed?
No one got killed and it was used in legal weapons. Illumination bombs were fired too low by one commander. Mistake yes, a war crime? I doubt.
Should this commander be punished? yes. An israeli policy? no way.
You can give give me articles of Palestinians accuse Israel till tomorrow.
The fact is that there are international reports about the Israeli actions there, and the most comprehensive of some have cleaned Israel of all the war crimes accusations. Furthermore, I know IDF a bit better than you do, and how the army fights...
Actually, forgive me but I'm going to trust respected international media like The Guardian over an Israeli on this one.The Israeli wrote: »The only? well, you really know a lot about it, ah..
Their country? Remind me when was the Palestinian country established.. I don't remember.. Ah 48.. Has it existed for real?? mm no.. Why? Ah they opened a war to prevent Israel from existing. ahmm
Yes, their country. The land they had inhabited without interruption for millennia. Not the country of fake jews from Russia, or New York emigres. Not the convenient dumping ground for Europeans fleeing the Nazi holocaust. Their country.The Israeli wrote: »From whom then Israel has taken the territory? Ah, from Jordan.
My country has been occupied and administrated by Britain too in the past. That no more entitled Britain to give Ireland to another people than it entitled them to give Palestine to invading Jews. The land belongs to those with uninterrupted settlement of the region for centuries.The Israeli wrote: »Should Israel help the Palestinians to establish a state of their own? No doubt, if we want peace! On what territories? the ones that are similar to those ones that Jordan occupied in the Western benk in 48 - 67.
So you do or you don't accept the 67 border? You're contradicting yourself here.The Israeli wrote: »First of all, gunpoint or not, many of them had fled before the fighting in a war that they had began.
A favourite origin myth of Israel. No, they had not. They were fleeing for their lives. In any case, stealing from people when they are not present is still stealing.The Israeli wrote: »Should their families return? Well, lets say that if millions of Palestinian would "return" to Israel, there won't be any Israel.
No, there wouldn't be an apartheid state of Israel. But there could be a secular pluralist state encompassing all who currently live in the territory of Palestine. They might even still call it Israel.The Israeli wrote: »Maybe, many people would like that to happen, but not me.
Even Abu Mazen understands that and tends to agree with it. Are you more radical than he is?
It's radical to oppose theft and genocide, now? Your values are skewed if you believe that.The Israeli wrote: »I have no idea who that straw man that you are constantly talking about is.
I would like to talk to him about growing cabbage..
A straw man is where you set up an argument, attribute it dishonestly to others, and then rebut it instead of what they actually said.The Israeli wrote: »You seem to be so one sided that I have no doubt that you won't be moved even by an inch by what I have said.
I'm not moved by what you say because like far too many Israelis, you pose as desiring peace and a mutual solution when in fact your true desires are nothing of the sort. Furthermore, you have demonstrated yourself to be a dishonest debater on this thread already.The Israeli wrote: »You don't seek for a solution, you don't seek a middle ground, you don't know how and don't wish help bringing people to a common cause which should be Peace.
Oh well...
There can be no "middle ground" so long as Israel continues to annex land, murder the natives and hide behind US aid and military supremacy while doing so. All there can be is giving ground, or more accurately, stealing it.
A common cause requires a common nation. My solution is a one-state solution, shorn of the apartheid, militarist, and frankly immoral nature of the current sectarian theocracy in Israel.0 -
Sometimes pictures speak better than words. I'm not going to post murder porn of dead Palestinian civilians, because that can be found in tragic plenty elsewhere online. Instead, I offer this illuminating series of maps:
0 -
Oh pass the bucket.Cavehill Red wrote: »I've seen the 67 map. The fact that Palestinians are prepared to accept the loss of much of their territory seems to me an incredibly generous position, given what they've suffered at the hands of the immigrant invaders
Had acceptance of the original UN-endorsed and ratified plan happened in the first place, who knows what would have happened. Anything would have been better than the debris from a Cold War theatre and its aftermath in the region.
When a non-hardline party is elected in a non-coalition situation and does not rely on hardliners for swings in majority votes then things will change from Israel's side.
When Hamas lets go its grip on Gaza (no, it has not abandoned any element of its charter, despite disinformation constantly put out) and calls off its war with Israel then things will change on the other side.
Until then, nothing will give and people who haven't even flown over the region will still pontificate with one-eyed, cherry-picked tosh from the internet.0 -
That won't be too long.Cavehill Red wrote: »If America was remotely concerned about anything Israel does, they would simply do the one thing that would resolve all the problems in the Middle East with one fell swoop - pull the plug on all aid, financial and military, to the Zionist state.
While Israel knows it can rely on the support of the only global hyperpower no matter what they do, they will do what they like, and what they like is genocidal ethnic cleansing and colonisation of Palestinian land.
Nobody else has a meaningful say in this while the US supports Israel wholeheartedly. Although some countries show more bravery than others in standing up and protesting Israeli aggression, and thankfully our country is one of those.
O'Bama is a Muslim by blood, he will soon turn on Israel
[MOD]Keep it sane or take it elsewhere please.[/MOD]0 -
Oh pass the bucket.
Had acceptance of the original UN-endorsed and ratified plan happened in the first place, who knows what would have happened. Anything would have been better than the debris from a Cold War theatre and its aftermath in the region.
When a non-hardline party is elected in a non-coalition situation and does not rely on hardliners for swings in majority votes then things will change from Israel's side.
When Hamas lets go its grip on Gaza (no, it has not abandoned any element of its charter, despite disinformation constantly put out) and calls off its war with Israel then things will change on the other side.
Until then, nothing will give and people who haven't even flown over the region will still pontificate with one-eyed, cherry-picked tosh from the internet.
We've seen this goalpost moving from Israel for their entire existence: Just another concession before peace. No, not that peace partner, find us another that's more acceptable to us. We won't talk without certain (ever-changing) preconditions. And so on and so on.
It's basically just stalling for time, all the while stealing more and more Palestinian land. The tactic is decades old at this stage and utterly transparent, and quite shameless, as they can do it with impunity knowing that American might backs up their every wrongdoing.
Israel is a sectarian, racist, genocidal apartheid theocracy of invaders into the region, determined to displace the local populace in their entirety. They have never shown any interest in peaceful coexistence or co-operation with those they seek to supplant. You only need to look at the maps above to see that.0 -
Far too one-eyed, blinkered or tilted to be taken seriously, I'm afaid. As if one party to the bloodshed was to blame throughout the past. Not one mention whatsoever of anyone else culpable in the region or involved by proxy. When are the Gaza elections ever going to happen? What happened to the opposition in Gaza? How are Pasdaran still allowed to operate in Lebanon and Syria?Cavehill Red wrote: »We've seen this goalpost moving from Israel for their entire existence: Just another concession before peace. No, not that peace partner, find us another that's more acceptable to us. We won't talk without certain (ever-changing) preconditions. And so on and so on.
It's basically just stalling for time, all the while stealing more and more Palestinian land. The tactic is decades old at this stage and utterly transparent, and quite shameless, as they can do it with impunity knowing that American might backs up their every wrongdoing.
Israel is a sectarian, racist, genocidal apartheid theocracy of invaders into the region, determined to displace the local populace in their entirety. They have never shown any interest in peaceful coexistence or co-operation with those they seek to supplant. You only need to look at the maps above to see that.
Your final paragraph itself indicates very little knowledge of Israel or Israeli society except for what you choose to pluck.0 -
I'm so sorry, but I feel that we aren't getting each other at all...Cavehill Red wrote: ».....
You just don't know the history but still argue..
I present facts, and you present me sorts of conspiracy theories.
I want a peace solution that both sides will be content with.
I have no idea what you want. Maybe to see Israel being wiped out, as you don't present a solution.
So listen, Israel will never agree to your terms, because they are the terms of Hamas. If you were in charge of the situation, the conflict would have lasted forever.
btw, that map picture is false. about a year and a half ago I debated over it and presented other maps.. but ok..
Let's just say that a major part of the pretty good green area has never belonged to the Palestinians in the first place.0 -
The Israeli wrote: »Let's just say that a major part of the pretty good green area has never belonged to the Palestinians in the first place.
Yes, it did. They were ethnically cleansed by Zionists soon after. You position btw, is just as extreme as Hamas, as you clearly deny historical fact, when it suits you. The Palestinians lived there, and that land was taken from them. The land being a part of the Ottoman empire and various other empires before that, is no excuse for another group of people to kick them out of there homes and take the land.
That is a well established historical fact. The only people who deny it now, are exteme Zionists (who want to justify ethnic cleansing), who like to deny what was done to the Palestinians, and believe they have a God given right to the land, and anyone who just so happens to live there be damned. That mentality still exists today, with the non-stop settlement expansion, that Israel shows no interest of stopping.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Israeli wrote: »I'm so sorry, but I feel that we aren't getting each other at all...
You just don't know the history but still argue..
I present facts, and you present me sorts of conspiracy theories.
Actually, far from offering facts, you're demonstrably the most dishonest debater on this thread, as your straw man posturing earlier indicates. I challenge you to demonstrate a single 'conspiracy theory' I have offered.The Israeli wrote: »I want a peace solution that both sides will be content with.
Might as well wish for the moon on a piece of string. Israel does not want a peace solution. For there to be peace, Israel has to fundamentally change its aims.The Israeli wrote: »I have no idea what you want. Maybe to see Israel being wiped out, as you don't present a solution.
You weren't paying attention. I support a single secular state solution for the whole region of former mandate Palestine.The Israeli wrote: »So listen, Israel will never agree to your terms, because they are the terms of Hamas. If you were in charge of the situation, the conflict would have lasted forever.
I'm not offering any terms. In that regard, I'm just like Israel. Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, the conflict HAS lasted forever.The Israeli wrote: »btw, that map picture is false. about a year and a half ago I debated over it and presented other maps.. but ok..
Prove that. I know you're wrong, but I'm keen to see what doctored maps you've got for my entertainment.The Israeli wrote: »Let's just say that a major part of the pretty good green area has never belonged to the Palestinians in the first place.
Or we could tell the truth and admit that the green area WAS indigenous Palestinian land, as surveyed by the British.0 -
Far too one-eyed, blinkered or tilted to be taken seriously, I'm afaid. As if one party to the bloodshed was to blame throughout the past. Not one mention whatsoever of anyone else culpable in the region or involved by proxy. When are the Gaza elections ever going to happen? What happened to the opposition in Gaza? How are Pasdaran still allowed to operate in Lebanon and Syria?
I was talking about the pursuance of peace, not atrocity whatabouteries. This is a standard diversion tactic. It is a given that both sides have committed atrocities. The casualty lists, however, indicate who has suffered more.
Deal with the issue under discussion, which was that peace is in Israel's hands alone to grant, because they are the power supported by American might and money, and they have consistently deferred doing a definitive deal of any sort, so that they can continue stealing Palestinian land.Your final paragraph itself indicates very little knowledge of Israel or Israeli society except for what you choose to pluck.
What part do you challenge? That it is sectarian? An apartheid state? A theocracy? Or that the nation's aim is to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from their land? I can demonstrate each of those points in turn if you wish. Just because their tourist office has some pictures of pretty ladies in bikinis on Jaffa beach doesn't make Israel the secular pluralist democracy they so often lie about being. Try emigrating there as a non-Jew and see what happens. Try getting married as a non-Jew. Try doing almost anything there as a non-Jew. Setting up a company. Buying a house or land. See how far you get. Then you could do as I've done and visit the Palestinian Israeli areas for comparison. Effectively, they're ghettos. The West Bank is worse again, a big apartheid wall snaking across it. Checkpoints everywhere to hem the locals in. And the ongoing encroachment and theft of Palestinian land and property, the clearances of Palestinians from areas like East Jerusalem - this is clearly ethnic cleansing.
Tell me, what part do you query?0 -
Nothing pointing out Hamas' iron fist grip over Gaza is "diversionary". When you bleat about persecution etc, somehow you keep ignoring what goes on inside Gaza itself. Why would that be? If you want to talk about persecution, take a look all over. Not just your pet hate.Cavehill Red wrote: »I was talking about the pursuance of peace, not atrocity whatabouteries. This is a standard diversion tactic. It is a given that both sides have committed atrocities. The casualty lists, however, indicate who has suffered more.
Deal with the issue under discussion, which was that peace is in Israel's hands alone to grant, because they are the power supported by American might and money, and they have consistently deferred doing a definitive deal of any sort, so that they can continue stealing Palestinian land
Fella, please point out a point in time when anywhere in so-called Judea, Samaria oe elsewhere was not "sectarian" (in an Muslim v Jew v Christian sense). How open to Jews, for example, was Jerusalem, particularly at the Temple Mount or wall before 1967?Cavehill Red wrote: »What part do you challenge? That it is sectarian? An apartheid state? A theocracy? Or that the nation's aim is to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from their land? I can demonstrate each of those points in turn if you wish. Just because their tourist office has some pictures of pretty ladies in bikinis on Jaffa beach doesn't make Israel the secular pluralist democracy they so often lie about being
If Israel was a theocracy, it would be ruled by the Jewish clergy. Lebanon is a theocracy. Iran is a theocracy. Israel isn't. Israel is a very divided country between religious right and secular-'left'.
So describe these difficulties you allegedly had then.Cavehill Red wrote: »Try emigrating there as a non-Jew and see what happens. Try getting married as a non-Jew. Try doing almost anything there as a non-Jew. Setting up a company. Buying a house or land. See how far you get
I described where change would happen already. You are pontificating as if the only tinderbox in the region is Israel. News for you. It isn't.Cavehill Red wrote: »Then you could do as I've done and visit the Palestinian Israeli areas for comparison. Effectively, they're ghettos. The West Bank is worse again, a big apartheid wall snaking across it. Checkpoints everywhere to hem the locals in. And the ongoing encroachment and theft of Palestinian land and property, the clearances of Palestinians from areas like East Jerusalem - this is clearly ethnic cleansing.0 -
Nothing pointing out Hamas' iron fist grip over Gaza is "diversionary". When you bleat about persecution etc, somehow you keep ignoring what goes on inside Gaza itself. Why would that be? If you want to talk about persecution, take a look all over. Not just your pet hate.
Israel is not without responsibility for Gaza either. The Irish bishops visited it and described it accurately as the world's largest open prison. That it is run by Hamas merely compounds an already appalling situation. But if Gaza was run by Mother Teresa it would still be in an appalling situation, because of the military presence, the embargos, the raids, the attacks on civilians, all launched by Israel.Fella, please point out a point in time when anywhere in so-called Judea, Samaria oe elsewhere was not "sectarian" (in an Muslim v Jew v Christian sense).
Since those territories predate the Roman incursion into the region, I'd like to point out there were no Muslims there at that time and precious few Christians either.How open to Jews, for example, was Jerusalem, particularly at the Temple Mount or wall before 1967?
How open is East Jerusalem to Palestinian indigents NOW? They're being driven from their homes, for goodness sake!
As for Muslim holy sites, their religion tends to restrict access to believers. I'd like to visit Mecca too, but I'm not allowed. It's a pity but that's how they roll. The mount's management has been in the hands of the Waqf for over nine centuries. Israel immediately accepted this upon annexing Jerusalem in 67. They didn't even seek to pursue non-Islamic prayer at the site because the mount (as opposed to the wall below) is, in the eyes of many Jews, a site not to be stepped upon. Haredi rabbis in particular consider it forbidden to Jews to go there.
[QUOTE=JustinDee;78419831If Israel was a theocracy, it would be ruled by the Jewish clergy. Lebanon is a theocracy. Iran is a theocracy. Israel isn't. Israel is a very divided country between religious right and secular-'left'. [/quote]
Which means that either the religious right rule, or else they hold the balance of power in coalition with the left. Again, I point you to the string of laws that make non-Jews second-class citizens in Israel, laws which do not apply to non-Muslims even in Iran. If you term Iran a theocracy (as I would) then Israel is the same and more.So describe these difficulties you allegedly had then.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_Jews_in_Israel_marry_a_non_Jew
http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/Article.aspx?id=155387
http://guardian.150m.com/palestine/israeli-apartheid.htm
And as for 'making aliyah' - any Jew in the world can freely immigrate to Israel, yet Palestinians whose families lived on that land for millennia are denied the right to return to homes they were driven from at gunpoint.I described where change would happen already. You are pontificating as if the only tinderbox in the region is Israel. News for you. It isn't.
More distraction. We've just had an Arab Spring and ongoing destabilisation in Syria. Of course there are more problems in the region than Israel. That hardly contradicts the fact that Israel is a massive problem, both in what it does to the people it seeks to supplant, and indeed to its own people too.
I grew up during the troubles in Northern Ireland, and lived through the height of it on a road known colloquially as 'murder mile'. They were dark times with significant danger, an enormous military presence and general widespread fear.
I've been to a lot of places since, some extremely lawless, and not experienced anything similar until I visited Israel and had all the same experiences - soldiers with guns everywhere, frisked and metal-detected going into shops, the fear and paranoia in people's eyes - only it was significantly worse than Belfast when I was growing up.
I'd hate to have to live there as Jew or non-Jew. No surprise that in places like India or Thailand you run into hundreds of Israelis, hiding from their own country and from having to do military service. This is a situation that Israel has created for itself, and only Israel can resolve it.0 -
Tosh. If Hamas were out of power and their splinter groups too, Gaza would not be blockaded like this.Cavehill Red wrote: »Israel is not without responsibility for Gaza either. The Irish bishops visited it and described it accurately as the world's largest open prison. That it is run by Hamas merely compounds an already appalling situation. But if Gaza was run by Mother Teresa it would still be in an appalling situation, because of the military presence, the embargos, the raids, the attacks on civilians, all launched by Israel
I'm not talking about the middle ages.Cavehill Red wrote: »Since those territories predate the Roman incursion into the region, I'd like to point out there were no Muslims there at that time and precious few Christians eitherCavehill Red wrote: »How open is East Jerusalem to Palestinian indigents NOW? They're being driven from their homes, for goodness sake!
Jews were banned from the area bar an alleyway to east of wall before 1967. That was it. No Jews were allowed. Why? They were Jews. Christians? Yep. Anyone else? Yep. No yahudim.Cavehill Red wrote: »As for Muslim holy sites, their religion tends to restrict access to believers. I'd like to visit Mecca too, but I'm not allowed. It's a pity but that's how they roll. The mount's management has been in the hands of the Waqf for over nine centuries. Israel immediately accepted this upon annexing Jerusalem in 67. They didn't even seek to pursue non-Islamic prayer at the site because the mount (as opposed to the wall below) is, in the eyes of many Jews, a site not to be stepped upon. Haredi rabbis in particular consider it forbidden to Jews to go there
Oh ffs. Do I have to define theocracy now? Israel is not ruled by a clergy (which country you have mentioned is?)Cavehill Red wrote: »Which means that either the religious right rule, or else they hold the balance of power in coalition with the left. Again, I point you to the string of laws that make non-Jews second-class citizens in Israel, laws which do not apply to non-Muslims even in Iran. If you term Iran a theocracy (as I would) then Israel is the same and more
Not a distraction. Just something you don't agree with or even possibly comprehend.Cavehill Red wrote: »More distraction. We've just had an Arab Spring and ongoing destabilisation in Syria. Of course there are more problems in the region than Israel. That hardly contradicts the fact that Israel is a massive problem, both in what it does to the people it seeks to supplant, and indeed to its own people too
Its a country at war with Hamas. What did you expect? Posies and sunflower seeds? Even with the "fear in people's eyes"?Cavehill Red wrote: »I grew up during the troubles in Northern Ireland, and lived through the height of it on a road known colloquially as 'murder mile'. They were dark times with significant danger, an enormous military presence and general widespread fear.
I've been to a lot of places since, some extremely lawless, and not experienced anything similar until I visited Israel and had all the same experiences - soldiers with guns everywhere, frisked and metal-detected going into shops, the fear and paranoia in people's eyes - only it was significantly worse than Belfast when I was growing up
What complete and utter presumptuous tosh, and yet again apologetics for others involved in the conflict of the region.Cavehill Red wrote: »I'd hate to have to live there as Jew or non-Jew.
No surprise that in places like India or Thailand you run into hundreds of Israelis, hiding from their own country and from having to do military service. This is a situation that Israel has created for itself, and only Israel can resolve it.0 -
Tosh. If Hamas were out of power and their splinter groups too, Gaza would not be blockaded like this.
Don't be silly. Of course it would.I'm not talking about the middle ages.
No, you were talking about Roman times.Jews were banned from the area bar an alleyway to east of wall before 1967. That was it. No Jews were allowed. Why? They were Jews. Christians? Yep. Anyone else? Yep. No yahudim.
As I said, they're barred from Mecca too. It is a forbidden place for Orthodox jews anyway, and even reform Jews are generally discouraged. There is no need for them to attend the mount, anymore than there is for Muslims to visit the Western Wall. And you know, to be honest, I think being prevented from going to someone else's holy place is not really comparable with being ethnically cleansed out of your ancestral home, which is what's happening to the indigenous residents of East Jerusalem today.Oh ffs. Do I have to define theocracy now? Israel is not ruled by a clergy (which country you have mentioned is?)
Your definition is self-servingly limiting. I have demonstrated how Israel is run to sectarian religious laws to benefit a single religion only. That is a theocracy - rule by religious edict. Nations can have clerical leaders and not be theocracies, such as Aristide's Haiti. Equally, they can have nominally secular leaders and be theocracies, such as Israel.Not a distraction. Just something you don't agree with or even possibly comprehend.
It was a deliberate attempt to divert the discussion from a topic you are uncomfortable in debating. It was whataboutery aimed at distracting the discussion. I have addressed the point and in part agreed with you. Israel is not the only problem in the region. But that does not mean that Israel is not a problem in the region, nor that it may well be the main one.Its a country at war with Hamas. What did you expect? Posies and sunflower seeds? Even with the "fear in people's eyes"?
I've been in less disturbing warzones, actually. What did I expect? Silly me, having read the holiday brochures and heard the PR about this shining beacon of democracy and pluraility in the Middle East, I was expecting something other than a petrified and paranoid sectarian apartheid state with Uzis on display every ten yards.What complete and utter presumptuous tosh, and yet again apologetics for others involved in the conflict of the region.
Israel are the ones backed by nukes and a hyperpower's bank balance. No one but Israel can put an end to this. Seven decades (and in fact some time before that too) of history indicates that such is not and never has been the state's intention.0 -
Advertisement
-
Oh ffs. Do I have to define theocracy now? Israel is not ruled by a clergy (which country you have mentioned is?)
Thats interesting, considering you called Lebanon a theocracy:Lebanon is a theocracy.
Now Lebanon's system of government is certainly sectarian, but last time I checked it was not ruled by either Christian, Shia or Sunni clergy. Seems to me that you are playing fast and loose with what a theocracy is to suit yourself. That you don't have a clue about Lebanon.0 -
Now Lebanon's system of government is certainly sectarian, but last time I checked it was not ruled by either Christian, Shia or Sunni clergy. Seems to me that you are playing fast and loose with what a theocracy is to suit yourself. That you don't have a clue about Lebanon.
I have to concur. Lebanon is a deeply flawed state, due in no small part to the incessant interventions of two hostile neighbours, Israel and Syria. It lacks the internal coherence of a theocracy, a coherence based on preference for a single religious identity, such as exists in both Iran and in Israel.0 -
Jews were banned from the area bar an alleyway to east of wall before 1967. That was it. No Jews were allowed. Why? They were Jews. Christians? Yep. Anyone else? Yep. No yahudim.
A bit like how Palestinians are now prevented from moving freely in THEIR OWN land by Israeli checkpoints, due to Israel's entirely illegitimate claim to sovereignty over land which lies outside Israel's border and in which a majority of the people oppose Israeli expansion...0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »A bit like how Palestinians are now prevented from moving freely in THEIR OWN land by Israeli checkpoints, due to Israel's entirely illegitimate claim to sovereignty over land which lies outside Israel's border and in which a majority of the people oppose Israeli expansion...
I will use this comment if I may to write something.
Until 1993 there were almost no check point and no peace process. Here is a chart of the Israelis casualties in terror acts:
1993 - Oslo process has started. 2 dead.
1994 - 38
1995 - 40
1996 - 59
1997 - 24. Bibi Nataniyahu is Prime minister. Peace process was slowed down. You can say that there are check posts every where by now.
1998 - 3
1999 -0
2000 -0. In July 2000 Ehud Barak, a left winger is the prime minister. Peace talks are in the air all the time.
2001 - the break of the second intifade. . Ariel Sharon is the prime minister starting from March. 85
2002 - The intifada is at full extent. 225
2003 - The intifada is on going. The construction of the separation wall has began. 140.
2004 - 62. The intifada is on going. Tight security is set on the west bank.
2005 - 32. The intifada is almost over.
2006 - The wall is complete, the intifada is over. IDF is out of Gaza, Ehud olmert is the prime minister - center wing. 15
2007 - 3
2008 - 1
You can find these numbers everywhere. They aren't secret.
From here onwards I don't have data. I can find, but the point is clear:
Minimum peace talks + strong security + the separation wall = Almost NONE Israeli civilian casualties.
Peace talks + no wall + minimum check points = terror acts and unprecedented violence.
Right now, Israel is maintaining a relatively low quantity of check points as the cooperation with the PA has increased, and the destruction of the terror infrastructure in the west bank by IDF during the intifada years.
I am sorry for the hard life of the Palestinians, but if it means that this images:
http://f.nanafiles.co.il/upload/Xternal/IsraBlog/97/28/50/502897/posts/14705438.jpg[/IMG]
http://ictlib.cet.ac.il/storage/items/16400_16499/0000016485/16485_1M.jpg[/IMG]
http://www.nrg.co.il/images/archive/408x322/733/349.jpg[/IMG]
http://www.nrg.co.il/images/archive/300x225/1/350/220.jpg[/IMG]
Do not return, and normal people can take a bus, go to a restaurant and have normal life as much as possible, YES it is worth it.
btw, the less Israelis die, the less military operations for catching the terrorists are carried out, the less innocent Palestinians die, the less checkpoints exist.
So, until we have a stable regime both in the west Bank and in Gaza, and until we have peace. That is the price of staying alive.
Something else... I have seen a funny remark about the Palestinians being the "indigenous population". Well they aren't. Many of them came here after the Jews have started coming and developing the country.
Also, they have never owned the pretty green lands as shown on the green map. Prove me that they had, if you can.. but you can't...
Second.. The talking about "indigenous" made me laugh cause who were the indigenous people of that land 2 thousands years ago? That's right - the Jewish ancestors LOL. I don't call it "owning the land", but it's your stupid game.0 -
Would anyone mind telling me why the Israeli-Palestinian issue means so much to them?
This isn't a smart-ass question, I'm honestly curious. I know so many people who are obsessed by it but I just can't feel the same passion for it.0 -
Advertisement
-
boynesider wrote: »Would anyone mind telling me why the Israeli-Palestinian issue means so much to them?
This isn't a smart-ass question, I'm honestly curious. I know so many people who are obsessed by it but I just can't feel the same passion for it.
It matters to me simply because I don't like bullies and I don't like power.
If you don't own a piece of land, if the international community has not recognized your claim to it then you simply don't have a right to evict and bulldoze the homes of the people living there - no matter how big your guns are or how many nukes you have.
Taking someone's property by force is wrong, end of story. The Israelis have a legitimate right to their state. They do not have a legitimate right to lands they have illegal colonized since 1967, and I think what makes it such an inflammatory issue is the fact that Western governments support these actions for purely selfish and political reasons.
If I have a 20 metre garden and my neighbour has a 20 metre garden, he does not have the right to knock down my fence and build it 10 metres closer to my house than it originally was, so that he now has 30 metres.
If he waves a gun at me and says "I have a gun so tough sh!t", that doesn't make his claim any more legitimate - it just makes him an asshole.0 -
boynesider wrote: »Would anyone mind telling me why the Israeli-Palestinian issue means so much to them?
This isn't a smart-ass question, I'm honestly curious. I know so many people who are obsessed by it but I just can't feel the same passion for it.
Republicans have a certain empathy with Palestinians, Unionists with Israelis. Bit generalistic but not far from the truth.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
The Israeli wrote: »
Something else... I have seen a funny remark about the Palestinians being the "indigenous population". Well they aren't.
..
They are, as has been shown genetically. Not only that, but its been pointed out on threads you yourself participated in, in which you did not rebutt or refute the argument. Yet here we have it again.The Israeli wrote: »Many of them came here after the Jews have started coming and developing the country.
..
Ahh yes, that old Kahanist cant. Not that you're bigoted against them, of course. Any resemblance of those remarks to other colonial regimes speaking of the natives is of course purely coincidental.
You know that the figure of land held by Palestinians, and who was producing what agriculturally, was recorded in the survey of 1946/47? And that the vast majority of both was produced by Arabs on Arab owned land? Of course you do, because you were a participant in the same threads where I posted it, and you didn't bother to refute or rebut that either.The Israeli wrote: »
Second.. The talking about "indigenous" made me laugh cause who were the indigenous people of that land 2 thousands years ago? That's right - the Jewish ancestors LOL. I don't call it "owning the land", but it's your stupid game.
...yes, the Jewish ancestors of both Jews and Palestinians were in the area 2000 years ago. In more relevant news, both cro-magnon and neanderthal were extinct at the time, so their claims, should they crop up, can be fairly safely discounted.0 -
It is ironic but not surprising to find that the poster most guilty of whataboutery on this thread has chosen to reproduce a series of terror porn pictures depicting only one type of victim, despite having had the audacity to berate others for their alleged bias.
Tell me, The Israeli, where in your collection are the pictures of civilian Palestinian dead?
@Boynesider: We all are motivated by and interested in different things in life. Some people to my mind get extraordinarily animated by what I consider to be pure nonsense, like who's going to win X-Factor. I travel a good bit, or at least I used to (recession's hit us all), and I like to stay engaged with the reality of the places I have been that impacted on me and whose people I have found interesting.
The territory of Palestine was definitely a memorable destination, largely for all the wrong reasons, but I had intriguing and engaging interactions with both Palestinians and Israelis, and saw such beautiful things in the midst of the sorrow, that I would find it inhuman to divorce myself from that like a tourist and simply forget about it merely because it doesn't affect my personal day-to-day life.
I recall that the horror of living during the troubles was compounded significantly by the sense that the world simply didn't care what was happening where I lived. It remains hurtful to me to this day when my fellow Irishmen utter offensive crap about building giant walls, or cutting the six counties off and floating it away, or simply expressing their apathy and disconnection to a part of their own country. This is also a sentiment I've heard expressed in conflict zones and in places of dire poverty in Africa. It is a sentiment being expressed by those involved in the uprising in Syria against Assad as we speak.
I choose to be engaged, and I choose not to conveniently forget. An evil ideology rules in Palestine, the ideology of Zionism - a dangerous ideology because, like Islamofascism, it claims a divine mandate and brooks no compromise nor contradiction. This ideology has plunged the entire area into horror, conflict and sorrow. It has become the origin myth of a colony nation, and has entrapped them, and they are the victims of it just as the Palestinians, who have been brutalised, murdered and dispossessed, are too.0 -
Fair comments, and I get where you are all coming from.
Personally, its not that I'm completely apathetic towards it, its just that I can't see any reason to elevate the conflict above all of the other ones that are happening at the same time all over he world. This is something that the Western media I have been exposed to seems to do, and sometimes I think this is done at the expense of other injustices which are just as bad or worse.
However, I understand that its something which people care very deeply about, and regardless of whether it is right or wrong to be so focused on one thing, I still respect that.0 -
boynesider wrote: »Fair comments, and I get where you are all coming from.
Personally, its not that I'm completely apathetic towards it, its just that I can't see any reason to elevate the conflict above all of the other ones that are happening at the same time all over he world. This is something that the Western media I have been exposed to seems to do, and sometimes I think this is done at the expense of other injustices which are just as bad or worse.
However, I understand that its something which people care very deeply about, and regardless of whether it is right or wrong to be so focused on one thing, I still respect that.
I wouldn't say I was exceptionally focussed on it. I have an interest in many other places too, and it's been a while since I was last in the region. I suppose it particularly resonates because it is such a protracted conflict, and also one that, like Northern Ireland, lacks the other complicating issues like dire poverty and lack of infrastructure (though Gaza's no picnic) that make, for example, some African conflicts almost impossible to resolve.
This one could be resolved, and in fact, where it not for US unconditional support for Israel, it likely would be sooner rather than later. There is a simple moral wrong at the heart of it - an invader colony insistent on stealing what is not theirs and objecting by demonising and brutalising those they steal from when they object.
There are plenty of Israelis, many having come from secular pluralist societies as immigrants, who object to the Zionist ideology. You can meet them, especially the youngsters, hiding from military service in places like India or Thailand or Nepal. They don't want a future like that. They see the benefits of a mutual society. They have no desire to expand Israel's borders by force, at the cost of Palestinian lives and maybe their own too.
But the religious nutters are hard to shout down in Israel, and their lobby has the ear of the highest power on Earth, the American military aid budget.
I look at something like East Congo and think "Realistically, the only thing that will ever stop conflict in that region is a massive multinational neocolonial administration, in place for decades to rebuild infrastructure and the trappings of civil society, supported by an enormous peacekeeping force." In other words, I don't see it being resolved realistically.
But the Israel-Palestine conflict could be resolved perhaps much more easily than many people suspect. It merely requires the abandonment of the Zionist ideology that demands Palestinian land and ethnic cleansing, and the replacement of the theocracy with a single pluralist state of Arab and Jew alike.0 -
Cavehill Red wrote: »But the Israel-Palestine conflict could be resolved perhaps much more easily than many people suspect. It merely requires the abandonment of the Zionist ideology that demands Palestinian land and ethnic cleansing, and the replacement of the theocracy with a single pluralist state of Arab and Jew alike.
Sounds easy alright. But there are few things in the world as immovable and resistant to rationale as an entrenched ideology. Therefore from the little I know about the issue, I would say that the two-state solution is the most realistic and achievable.0 -
Republicans have a certain empathy with Palestinians, Unionists with Israelis. Bit generalistic but not far from the truth.
Actually, that's rather simplistic. Sinn Fein used to position itself as a national liberation movement, and hence would try to align itself with such movements around the world, including the ANC and the PLO.
Once Loyalists started seeing Palestinian flags and murals appearing in Republican areas, they responded by flying Israeli flags. It was simple 'monkey see, monkey do.'
I attended school with the bulk of Belfast's small and ever-declining Jewish community, most of whom lived in Protestant middle class areas of the city. Despite that, however, they all reported significant anti-Semitism from within even that genteel community, which has been a factor in many of them departing for, primarily, London. Northern Ireland Friends for Israel is actually run from London nowadays.
Of course, historically, Jews in NI allied themselves with Unionism anyway. Otto Jaffa, an early Belfast UUP Lord Mayor, was the first Jewish Lord Mayor in the city. My own birth district, now largely Republican, was at one time the epicentre of Judaism in NI. There is still a star of David to mark the rabbi's house at the end of the street (built in the early 1900s), and Chaim Herzog was born down the main road a few hundred yards.
As late as the 80s, I believe, there was a UUP MP who was Jewish. I don't recall correctly but I think it may have been Harold McCusker? Anyhow, I remember a spat where Paisley in his demagoguery claimed the UUP could not be trusted because they harboured people who had not been saved by the blood of Christ. He could be some charmer.
Anyhow, as in many places, the NI Jewish community were (and the few remaining are) quite affluent. They did, as Jewish communities have done in many places at many times, cosy up to those in power and inculcate themselves into the power structure. But again, as in many places and many times, they faced anti-Judaist bigotry and prejudice, and the advent of the troubles, which caused population migration around the Antrim Road synagogue area, led to many of them leaving for good. There would only be a few families left there now, and any genuine connection between NI Unionism and Jews was sundered around the time of that Paisley speech, I suspect.0 -
boynesider wrote: »Sounds easy alright. But there are few things in the world as immovable and resistant to rationale as an entrenched ideology. Therefore from the little I know about the issue, I would say that the two-state solution is the most realistic and achievable.
Well, the immoveable object in this case is the Zionist ideology. Sadly it's become the nation's birth myth, and as a result it gets conflated with more reasonable nationalist sentiments and with religious pride and other sentiments so that it is entwined into Israeli identity at this stage like tendrils of cancerous tumour working through the lymphatic system of the people.
I concur with you a two-state solution is the more likely result of any peace process, were one to begin. The lack of trust on both sides is deeply profound (though as NI shows, it can be overcome.) However, I feel that a two-state solution will simply change the nature of the conflict. As I said earlier, the only way there can be a common cause is in a common nation.0 -
A short history of the Palestinian nation as brought from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people
Baruch Kimmerling and Joel S. Migdal consider the 1834 revolt of the Arabs in Palestine as constituting the first formative event of the Palestinian people. Under the Ottoman rule (1516–1917), Palestine's Arab population mostly saw themselves as Ottoman subjects.
According to Walid Khalidi, Palestinians in Ottoman times were "cutely aware of the distinctiveness of Palestinian history ..." and "though proud of their Arab heritage and ancestry, the Palestinians considered themselves to be descended not only from Arab conquerors of the seventh century but also from indigenous peoples who had lived in the country since time immemorial, including the ancient Hebrews and the Canaanites before them.
Rashid Khalidi argues that the modern national identity of Palestinians has its roots in nationalist discourses that emerged among the peoples of the Ottoman empire in the late 19th century, and which sharpened following the demarcation of modern nation-state boundaries in the Middle East after World War I. Khalidi also states that although the challenge posed by Zionism played a role in shaping this identity, that "it is a serious mistake to suggest that Palestinian identity emerged mainly as a response to Zionism. Conversely, historian James L. Gelvin argues that Palestinian nationalism was a direct reaction to Zionism. In his book The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War he states that "Palestinian nationalism emerged during the interwar period in response to Zionist immigration and settlement."Gelvin argues that this fact does not make the Palestinian identity any less legitimate.
David Seddon writes that "the creation of Palestinian identity in its contemporary sense was formed essentially during the 1960s, with the creation of the Palestine Liberation Organization"
Bernard Lewis argues it was not as a Palestinian nation that the Arabs of Ottoman Palestine objected to Zionists, since the very concept of such a nation was unknown to the Arabs of the area at the time and did not come into being until very much later.
Tamir Sorek, a sociologist, submits that, "Although a distinct Palestinian identity can be traced back at least to the middle of the nineteenth century (Kimmerling and Migdal 1993; Khalidi 1997b), or even to the seventeenth century (Gerber 1998), it was not until after World War I that a broad range of optional political affiliations became relevant for the Arabs of Palestine”.
Filasteen initially focused its critique of Zionism around the failure of the Ottoman administration to control Jewish immigration and the large influx of foreigners, later exploring the impact of Zionist land-purchases on Palestinian peasants (Arabic: فلاحين, fellahin), expressing growing concern over land dispossession and its implications for the society at large.
The idea of a unique Palestinian state separated out from its Arab neighbors was at first rejected by Palestinian representatives. The First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations (in Jerusalem, February 1919), which met for the purpose of selecting a Palestinian Arab representative for the Paris Peace Conference, adopted the following resolution: "We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds."
After the Nabi Musa riots, the San Remo conference and the failure of Faisal to establish the Kingdom of Greater Syria, a distinctive form of Palestinian Arab nationalism took root between April and July 1920. With the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the French conquest of Syria, the formerly pan-Syrianist mayor of Jerusalem, Musa Qasim Pasha al-Husayni, said "Now, after the recent events in Damascus, we have to effect a complete change in our plans here. Southern Syria no longer exists. We must defend Palestine".
From the Phil committee 1937:
The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine .Many Arab landowners have benefited from the sale of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews.
What I have to say about it:
This article doesn’t talk about the Arabic tribes that came into Israel at various points in the 19th and 20th centuries. It also doesn’t say how many arabs have been brought here by the Ottoman empire to serve as workers. Also, there are counts that say the during the British mandate the numbers of the Palestinians living in there doubled. In the years 1870 – 1947 (from the beginning of the Zionism till the foundation of Israel) the Palestinian population had risen in 270%. It’s not a “natural” growing.
I’ll sum it up: Yes, the Palestinians have roots in the land that go deep back in the past, but also very “young” roots that go no deeper than the Zionist ones.
However, does it mean anything about how much of the land they owned? Not really.
Have Jews concurred their land by force in pre 48 era? No.
Only the lands which were written on behalf of the Palestinian inhabitants belonged to the Palestinians. The rest belonged to the Turkish Empire and later to the British Mandate.
The lands that belonged to the Jews belonged to them and their ownership was documented.
The British mandate divided the country between the Arabs and the Jews giving the Arabs the better parts. The Jews got a lot of desert and a territorial consistency in areas on which it’s settlements and cities were located densely.
And yet, the Palestinians who were for all the time till the coming of the Zionist just inhabitants of the land and not a real nation, and who didn’t own much of the land as it belonged to the Empire which ruled the country, felt “robbed”. What was the injustice really?
The land they owned pre 47 was theirs. Ah, I know.. They wanted everything to themselves. Even what didn’t belong to them by law. They launched a deadly war and lost, and since then they are paying the price of greediness and of a failing attempt to use force to achieve their new ideological ambitions.
All of the above doesn’t degrade anyhow the Jewish claim to the 48th borders.0 -
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement