The never-ending cycle of Violence in the Mideast

Hang out, sip some ice tea, and shoot the breeze with TR regulars.

Moderators: emkubed, Captain Ned

Postposted on Fri Mar 08, 2002 12:45 pm

The violence in the Israel/Palestine conflict seems to be escalating (again). What is wrong with these people, this tit-for-tat mentality is promoting more violence and hatred. This vicious cycle must end (and not by genocide of either side). Arafat and Sharon should be removed from power, as they are both terrorists, and both seem set on letting the violence continue. Now they are using Qassam 2 missiles. Just what is needed to take this conflict to a higher level.

My question to the thread is what should be done to curb the violence, if anything. Or maybe we should sit back with a “survival of the fittest” attitude.
Opinions?
Jaraxle
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Menzoberranzan

Postposted on Fri Mar 08, 2002 1:21 pm

I think that you need to learn about the matter before you make holier-than-thou pronouncements like you have.

First of all, there is no country of Palestine. You make it sound like 2 countries in a silly dispute. This is not true. Palestine is the land that the country of Israel is on. Palestinians are the native people of that land, ike the native American "Indians" here in the US. They do not have their own sovereign nation; they are subjects of Israel. And therein lies the problem.

The occupying Israelis are cruel and destructive. From the start they stole everything of value from the Palestinians, herded them into concentration camps and killed a great many of them. What would you do if an occupying army came in and took your home and business, killed your family and sent you to live in captivity like an animal?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Speed on 2002-03-08 13:23 ]</font>
Speed
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 6:00 pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Postposted on Fri Mar 08, 2002 2:28 pm

Jaraxle:

Read the links resulting from this Google search (just those on the first page will be enough):

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=UN ... +Partition

Once you've digested the information there, try asking the question again.
There are people that embrace the Oxford comma and people who don't. Never get between these people when drink has been taken. I use the Oxford comma and always will. The rest can sod off.
Captain Ned
Global Moderator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 19773
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Postposted on Fri Mar 08, 2002 2:34 pm

Its hard to fight people who don't care whether they live or die. When you have nothing to lose, fighting for the hope is a great and noble thing.

As I see it Israel has to deal with this situation, they created it and they have to live with it. The only way they can fight their way out of it is genocide and well as stated above that is not an option.
Spune
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 399
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Middle of nowhere AB Canada

Postposted on Fri Mar 08, 2002 4:10 pm

BTW, my answer is Palestinian statehood. The Israelis have segregated Palestinians into ghettos, so there are areas that can be given to them without any loss to Israel. Other areas were taken in ways that aren't permitted under international law. I think that it's critical that Israel give up these areas too, so they will understand that what they did is wrong.

When I look at the map, I'm reminded of Germany as it was divided after WWII. I think a similar situation coule be employed in Israel and it's colonies. The main difference is that this wouldn't be an even deal. Israel is contiguous, so Israeli soldiers have no need to cross into Palestinian land. OTOH the Palestinian territories that would become the Palestinian state are fragmented. To be able to govern, Palestinian forces would need to pass through Israel. Jordan might allow Palestinian forces to pass between the West Bank and the Golan Heights, but Gaza is accessible only through Israel.

Jerusalem is a problem. Clearly it can't be 100% jewish or 100% arab. Jerusalem would be something like Berlin was, divided but accessible. Arab neighborhoods would be sovereign Palestinian land, jewish neighborhoods would remain part of Israel. Common areas, especially those with religious significance would be under multinational control. Perhaps the UN would be an equal partner in this, serving as a tiebreaker of sorts.

While military traffic would be strictly limited and monitored, personal traffic and commerce would be free across the land. Palestinians would be free to cross through Israel in order to get to other Palestinian areas, and they would be free to travel into Israel to work, conduct business and buy things. Likewise, Israeli citizens would be free to travel through sovereign Palestine as a direct route to Jerusalem, for commerce, to shop or maybe even one day to vacation.


_________________
Stick a fork() in it!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Speed on 2002-03-08 16:11 ]</font>
Speed
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 6:00 pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Postposted on Fri Mar 08, 2002 6:56 pm

I think that you need to learn about the matter before you make holier-than-thou pronouncements like you have.


Whoa, simmer down there Speed. Nowhere have I come across as holier-than-thou. I am interested in discussing the matter that's all. To suggest otherwise displays your ignorance.

First of all, there is no country of Palestine.


Congratulations, did you figure this out all on your own?

You make it sound like 2 countries in a silly dispute.


Really, could you show me where I implied this?

Palestinians are the native people of that land, ike the native American "Indians" here in the US. They do not have their own sovereign nation


I see that you really like to state the obvious. (you should also use a spellchecker :wink:)

The occupying Israelis are cruel and destructive. From the start they stole everything of value from the Palestinians, herded them into concentration camps and killed a great many of them.


Finally, something you spewed out is reasonably intelligent, wrong, but your learning. I assume your talking about Israel in 1947-9. Lets see, if IIRC, the Palestinians (or Arabs if you prefer) would not have been subject to any of this if they had followed UN resolution 181. The "concentration camps" are entirely the Arabs fault.

What would you do if an occupying army came in and took your home and business, killed your family and sent you to live in captivity like an animal


In this case, not following the UN resolution, the hardships that I would endure would be no-ones fault but my own.

Other areas were taken in ways that aren't permitted under international law


I assume you mean the Golan Heights. It was land that the Syrian forces lost during the 6-day war.

I think that it's critical that Israel give up these areas too, so they will understand that what they did is wrong.


I agree, although it has been tried already. The Camp David summit was a failure due to the fact the Palestinians (Arafat) wouldn't get involved and offered no proposals or counterproposals.

I am still interested in discussing this matter. (assuming you and Cap'n Ned can do so in more of a respectful matter)
Jaraxle
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Menzoberranzan

Postposted on Sat Mar 09, 2002 5:05 am

Simmer down yourself, Jaraxle. You did say "What is wrong with these people, this tit-for-tat mentality is promoting more violence and hatred." You're not talking about Trobriand islanders who are so caught up in revenge that they totally forgot what slight prompted it in the first place.

Before the bloodthirsty right-wing regained power in Israel, things were as peaceful as they ever have been. It was Sharon who decided to reignite the violence by launching an unprovoked military assault on one of Islam's most holy places.

The Palestinians are hardly engaged in "tit-for-tat" slights. They have been fighting for survival, after witnessing the mass murder of friends, families and neighbors. The world has been allowing this to go on for over 50 years; they have lost hope and are doing whatever they can to resist their oppressors.

I see that your excuse for blaming the Palestinians is their failure to instantly and fully embrace western ideals. The truth is that arab Bedouin nomads of the time had no more concept of national borders than our "Indians" did! And no matter what they decided back then, it doesn't justify oppression and genocide. That was decided back in WWII, remember?

I was referring to the so-called "settlements" where Israel has been paying jewish people to occupy what used to be arab homes, in the first paragraph of 5587. This is a form of theft that's all too reminiscent of what the Nazis did to many during WWII. Considering that the very same people who run Israel witnessed these atrocities first-hand in Germany are the ones running Israel, their decision to emulate that behavior is doubly wrong.

As for Camp David, you're quick to blame Arafat. How come you're not the least bit critical of Barak, who led with a deal-breaker?
You are false data.
Speed
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 6:00 pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Postposted on Sat Mar 09, 2002 9:04 am

To throw my .02 in, one of the largest points of conflict is over the site where the first 2 temples were built, in ancient Israel. Two Muslim mosques now sit on that site, and they represent the 3rd most holy site to the Muslims. Many Jews believe that the coming of the Messiah will require that a 3rd temple is built on the same site that the other 2 existed on, but this is impossible with 2 mosques sitting on it. Neither side is willing to budge, and if they did, it'd be calling their entire religion into question.
absurdity
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 854
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: VT

Postposted on Mon Mar 11, 2002 7:28 am

You did say "What is wrong with these people, this tit-for-tat mentality is promoting more violence and hatred."


And is this a “holier-than-thou” pronouncement?

You're not talking about Trobriand islanders who are so caught up in revenge that they totally forgot what slight prompted it in the first place


Although I am not sure what you mean when you say “Trobriand islanders”, who cares what really started the problems. They have been fighting for what seems like forever, and the level of hate that results from these ongoing conflicts needs to be addressed. More than likely another nation or party will have to initiated it as these two parties cannot seem to stop the violence themselves.

The Palestinians are hardly engaged in "tit-for-tat" slights. They have been fighting for survival, after witnessing the mass murder of friends, families and neighbors.


Alas, the Palestinians themselves are responsible for the action Israel has been forced to take to defend their own people. Again, if they had obeyed UN Res. 181, this may not have happened

The world has been allowing this to go on for over 50 years


Then you admit that there should be a “world governing” body?

I see that your excuse for blaming the Palestinians is their failure to instantly and fully embrace western ideals.


Where did I state that the Palestinians are at fault for not embracing western ideals?

And no matter what they decided back then, it doesn't justify oppression and genocide. That was decided back in WWII, remember?


Israel has never carried out genocide (or even attempted to). Though it seems that the current escalation in the area, mainly due to the Palestinians attacking and killing women and children, may bring Israel to this extreme.

I was referring to the so-called "settlements" where Israel has been paying jewish people to occupy what used to be arab homes, in the first paragraph of 5587. This is a form of theft that's all too reminiscent of what the Nazis did to many during WWII. Considering that the very same people who run Israel witnessed these atrocities first-hand in Germany are the ones running Israel, their decision to emulate that behavior is doubly wrong.


This is not contrary to international law. Stephen Schwebel, an international law scholar, has stated that settlements on land taken, for the reason of self-defense, is acceptable. Considering what happened to the Jewish population during the holocaust, action(s) by Israel to protect its people should be expected. Israel, as I have stated has not attempted genocide, so the parallels you are trying to draw do not exist.

As for Camp David, you're quick to blame Arafat. How come you're not the least bit critical of Barak, who led with a deal-breaker?


How do you see this as a deal breaker? I will agree that it was not perfect, but it was a start, Palestine would end up with most of the Wet Bank and the Gaza Strip back. The process of talks could continue while tempers calm down, guns are laid down, and the hate could have a chance to subside.
Jaraxle
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Menzoberranzan

Postposted on Mon Mar 11, 2002 11:14 am

Obeyed?

Jaraxle, I don't know what you think the United Nations is, or what a resolution is, but it looks kinda like you're under the impression that there's some kind of binding law in force here. I might not know everything, but I'm fairly certain that there was no Palestinian nation UN member back in 1947 that could have voted on the formation of a Palestinian nation! And since the UN only governs member nations, the implication of that fact is clear.

I've heard the carefully crafted Israeli excuses about "self defense." But I also have heard the rest of the story. Sorry to burst your bubble, but sending armed troops to capture land is an invasion, not self defense. Taking things that are not yours is wrong.

Germany also used the "self defense" excuse for WWII. But actions speak louder than words. Germany was a powerful military force that needn't fear any of the nations it annexed. The speed at which it advanced was testament to this fact. Obviously the "self defense" excuse was a lie. And it's the very same lie for Israel. Israel is a heavily militarized country; a hugh portion of its GNP goes into military spending, on top of tens of billions that the US gives them every year. Israel has the best weaponry that money can buy, and if money stands in the way, they steal it. Israel is armed to the teeth! Israel totally dominates the region. It's a ludicrous lie to for a nuclear power to claim "self defense" against what amounts to little more than children with stones. What's more, the whole "self defense" argument goes out the door when you realize that they aren't fighting another nation. They're attacking their own subjects, based on race and religion!

Maybe it's acceptable to you for people to unconditionally capitulate to invaders from Europe, and leave the captured land. But explain to me, exactly where were the Palestinians supposed to go? How were they supposed to leave? If you were in their shoes, would you really practice what you preach?

To answer your questions:

Q. And is this a “holier-than-thou” pronouncement?
A. Yes, it is. You're acting like a lazy parent who doesn't care who started a fight, and so blames both children. But alas, every fight has an aggressor and a victim. Justice comes when we pay attention to who is what. In this case, the invading Zionist army, now and before, is the clear-cut aggressor.

Q. Then you admit that there should be a “world governing” body?
A. If I did, I would say so. Please refrain from putting words into my mouth.

Q. Where did I state that the Palestinians are at fault for not embracing western ideals?
A. Everywhere you use UN resolution 181 as an excuse for denying people fundamental rights. As I already explained, nations with boundaries was not part of the native culture in 1947. On the other side of the coin, Zionism didn't spring up in Palestine, it was imported from Europe ie. the West.

Q. How do you see [Barak's offer] as a deal breaker?
A. All the Palestinians want is freedom from Israeli tyranny. Barak's offer didn't address that all-important point. If you invited me to travel a long way to discuss something, and then started playing games and evading the issue, I too would refuse to participate until you behaved yourself. (Nothing personal, and nothing implied--just an analogy.)
Speed
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 6:00 pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Postposted on Mon Mar 11, 2002 12:45 pm

Jaraxle, I don't know what you think the United Nations is, or what a resolution is, but it looks kinda like you're under the impression that there's some kind of binding law in force here. I might not everything, but I'm fairly certain that there was no Palestinian nation UN member back in 1947 that could have voted on the formation of a Palestinian nation! And since the UN only governs member nations, the implication of that fact is clear.


The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.


From here.

Because there was no state of Palestine, the land was not under their control. Palestine was under the authority of Britain. It has been since WW1. Therefor the inhabitants would be under the governing powers of the UN.

I've heard the carefully crafted Israeli excuses about "self defense." But I also have heard the rest of the story. Sorry to burst your bubble, but sending armed troops to capture land is an invasion, not self defense. Taking things that are not yours is wrong.


The rest of the story being…..what? It was Arab initiative that started the war of '67, so how can you call it an invasion? Again I will mention that Stephen Schwebel, an international law scholar, has stated that settlements on land taken, for the reason of self-defense, is acceptable.

Germany also used the "self defense" excuse for WWII


And the parallels with this situation is what? What was Germany's self defense" excuse for WWII again?

Israel is a heavily militarized country; a hugh portion of its GNP goes into military spending, on top of tens of billions that the US gives them every year.


Since it's creation, Israel has consistently been targeted by Arab nations, and you wonder why they keep such a large/technological military. Is it too much to ask that the Arab community leave Israel alone instead of constantly provoking it.

and if money stands in the way, they steal it.


Do you have any links to this, or are you grasping at strawmen here?

It's a ludicrous lie to for a nuclear power to claim "self defense" against what amounts to little more than children with stones.


*sarcasm* That's right, those Israelis do nothing but target little innocent children on their way to school. */sarcasm* You don't honestly believe this do you? Sure, the media shows this on TV as it is good for ratings, but the truth is its not just children and its not just stones. Pistols, molotov cocktails, machine guns, hand grenades, assault rifles, explosives. These are just some of the weaponry that Israel is subject to. Usually, it involves hundreds of Palestinians and just a few Israelis. What do you suppose the police/riot squad would do if this crap happened here? People (hundreds) throwing rocks, molotov cocktails, grenades guns etc.

What's more, the whole "self defense" argument goes out the door when you realize that they aren't fighting another nation. They're attacking their own subjects, based on race and religion!


Yeah OK, you keep telling yourself this. :roll:

exactly where were the Palestinians supposed to go?


Jordan, Egypt, SA, Lebanon. Stay there and abide by Israel law. Plenty of peaceful options.

Yes, it is. You're acting like a lazy parent who doesn't care who started a fight, and so blames children. But alas, every fight has an aggressor and a victim. Justice comes when we pay attention to who is what. In this case, the invading Zionist army, now and before, is the clear-cut aggressor.


They have been fighting since Israel's creation. Your little analogy of children fighting is absurd. People are being killed here. There is no comparison. I have not demonstrated a liking of a lazy parent. Very seldom has Israel been the clear-cut aggressor. They have been shot (at), bombed, beaten 'till death, terrorized stc. By their Arab cousins. I hardly see this as an aggressive stance.

Q. Then you admit that there should be a "world governing" body?
A. If I did, I would say so. Please refrain from putting words into my mouth.


You said;
The world has been allowing this to go on for over 50 years


The implication is clear. Either the world should intervene or not. You chose intervene.

All the Palestinians want is freedom from Israeli tyranny. Barak's offer didn't address that all-important point. If you invited me to travel a long way to discuss something, and then started playing games and evading the issue, I too would refuse to participate until you behaved yourself.


Israel has demonstrated in the past that it would trade land for peace, but his is not good enough for the Palestinians. They want Israel disbanded which is not going to happen anytime soon.
Jaraxle
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Menzoberranzan

Postposted on Mon Mar 11, 2002 2:59 pm

Jaraxle, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that because Britain occupied Palestine, and since Britain was a UN member, that the UN has sovereignty over Palestine regardless of their wishes. Well I find that dubious, and it still doesn't explain how "resolution" really means law, but let's work with it. If what you said is true, then why did you attack the Palestinians before? After all, you're saying now that it was Britain's responsibility to create the arab state! Certainly you're not holding a double standard... :roll:

There must be some fallacy in your theory, since as we all know, national governments haven't fallen away in deference to the sovereignty of the UN. In fact, the rise of the EU suggests that the UN is in fact not sovereign. How do you explain that?

If Britain owned Palestine back in 1947, enough so for Palestine to be considered one and the same as Britain, then today that owner is Israel, correct? So then you must agree that Israel's actions against Palestinians is an internal civil matter, not one of national defense. Furthermore, since the UN is sovereign over Israel, as it is over all of earth, as you claim, then how come the UN hasn't sanctioned Israel, or expelled them? That is their job, per the link you provided.

No matter, since I was referring to the looting done by Israelis, crimes against individuals, and not the annexation of territories. So if you want to discuss the efficacy of the spoils of war, or Israels pugnacious foreign policies, I think it belongs in another thread. Meanwhile, how do you justify Israelis walking into homes to which arab people hold title, expelling the arabs and moving jews in?

More Q&A (sort of):
Q. And the parallels with this situation is what? What was Germany's self defense" excuse for WWII again?
A. The excuse is as follows-
<a href=http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/gp1.htm>The Polish State has refused the peaceful settlement of relations which I desired, and has appealed to arms. Germans in Poland are persecuted with bloody terror and driven from their houses. A series of violations of the frontier, intolerable to a great Power, prove that Poland is no longer willing to respect the frontier of the Reich.

In order to put an end to this lunacy, I have no other choice than to meet force with force from now on. The German Army will fight the battle for the honour and the vital rights of reborn Germany with hard determination. I expect that every soldier, mindful of the great traditions of eternal German soldiery, will ever remain conscious that he is a representative of the National-Socialist Greater Germany. Long live our people and our Reich!</a> --Proclamation by Adolf Hitler - September 1,1939.

I trust you have no problem with the source :smile:

The problem with Hitler's proclamation was that prior to making it, he signed a secret treaty with Russia for their cooperation when Germany took Poland. So with proof of prior intent, Hitler's proclamation was shown to be a lie. Similar excuses were given for Germany's hostility to other nations. But other documents show not a defensive posture, but one of conquest. Clearly the "1000 year reich" was not a defense plan.

Similarly, the notion that moving civillian jews into homes and farms that belong by law to arabs is a self-defense measure doesn't jibe with the previously stated Zionist ideals of ethnic purity, a "jewish state." And as a matter of fact, the UN prohibits such actions, so you have your authority as to the wrongness of the actions.

Q. Since it's creation, Israel has consistently been targeted by Arab nations, and you wonder why they keep such a large/technological military.
A. The excuses for Israel's militarization is not the point. Using that military to attack their own people on the basis of race is. Using bullets and rockets against stone-throwers is.

Q. Is it too much to ask that the Arab community leave Israel alone instead of constantly provoking it.
A. Israel started it. Israel has the power to stop it. I cannot fault people for defending themselves. But again, Israel's foreign policy is another matter.

Q. Do you have any links to [Israeli espionage], or are you grasping at strawmen here?
A. It's not one or the other. I recall a specific case where Israeli spies where found to have stolen trade secrets from a local RADAR company. A friend of mine worked there. But it was before the WWW, and it's hard to find information, as the company went bankrupt after Israel started selling the stolen technology. If I recall the name, I'll let you know.

Q. *sarcasm* That's right, those Israelis do nothing but target little innocent children on their way to school. */sarcasm* You don't honestly believe this do you?
A. Of course not! Israel does many things including killing school children.

Q. Sure, the media shows this on TV as it is good for ratings, but the truth is its not just children and its not just stones. Pistols, molotov cocktails, machine guns, hand grenades, assault rifles, explosives. These are just some of the weaponry that Israel is subject to. Usually, it involves hundreds of Palestinians and just a few Israelis.
A. Gee, you mean that there's a Palestinian Air Force, armed with the latest warplanes, helicopters and missiles? And a complete army with tanks, howitzers and other heavy armor? And none of that ever makes it to the news? C'mon! I was there, remember? The balance of power is way far in Israel's favor!

Q. What do you suppose the police/riot squad would do if this crap happened here?
A. They would be safely at home, because the military would rule the streets. And if you weren't a WASP, you would live in fear of them, and come to resent them.

Q. Yeah OK, you keep telling yourself this (self-defense story).
A. I don't. You're telling me that, but I don't believe it.

Q. (Palestinians should go to) Jordan, Egypt, SA, Lebanon. Stay there and abide by Israel law. Plenty of peaceful options.
A. But Jordan, Egypt, SA, Lebanon are sovereign nations! They aren't letting any more Palestinians in! They're full-up with refugees. Besides, Israel refuses to issue most Palestinians passports, making it impossible for them to leave. How about a realistic plan? BTW, you never answered my question. If you were driven from your home, would you capitulate without complaint? Or are you a hypocrite?

Q. They have been fighting since Israel's creation. Your little analogy of children fighting is absurd. People are being killed here. There is no comparison. I have not demonstrated a liking of a lazy parent. Very seldom has Israel been the clear-cut aggressor. They have been shot (at), bombed, beaten 'till death, terrorized stc. By their Arab cousins. I hardly see this as an aggressive stance.
A. All you're doing is turning a blind eye toward one side's wrongs. As I have shown, the Zionists (Israel) started it when they invaded Palestine by force, in violation of your precious resolution 181, BTW. For one who speaks so loudly about self-defense for one side, you're being quite the hypocrite.

Q. Either the world should intervene or not. You chose intervene.
A. On the contrary, I believe the US should let Israel alone if it wants to continue the genocide. Without that huge military infusion, Israel would have to become right-sized, right quick! Right now Israel is more or less at peace with its neighbors, so they simply don't need that money for defense. And the US needs to stop bankrolling terrorism of any kind.

Finally:
Israel has demonstrated in the past that it would trade land for peace, but his is not good enough for the Palestinians.
Oh really? Prove it.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Speed on 2002-03-11 15:00 ]</font>
Speed
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 6:00 pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Postposted on Mon Mar 11, 2002 9:38 pm

Jaraxle, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that because Britain occupied Palestine, and since Britain was a UN member, that the UN has sovereignty over Palestine regardless of their wishes. Well I find that dubious, and it still doesn't explain how "resolution" really means law, but let's work with it. If what you said is true, then why did you attack the Palestinians before? After all, you're saying now that it was Britain's responsibility to create the arab state! Certainly you're not holding a double standard...


Britain didn't occupy Palestine, the area was under British Sovereignty. There is a difference. The British, the French and the UN defined the entire region within the last 100 years. I attacked the Palestinians? I assume you are regarding my viewpoint that they are (more) at fault in this conflict? Yes, but it is the Palestinians as a people, not as a nation. There is no double standard here.

There must be some fallacy in your theory, since as we all know, national governments haven't fallen away in deference to the sovereignty of the UN. In fact, the rise of the EU suggests that the UN is in fact not sovereign. How do you explain that


This is an example of gross generalization. The members of the UN usually follow the recommendations of the UN council. It doesn't always happen, but there is precedent. I was not aware that the rise of the EU was against any UN recommendation.

So then you must agree that Israel's actions against Palestinians is an internal civil matter, not one of national defense.


It is more than just a civil matter, and you cannot honestly call it that. But as a nation, Israel has to protect it's inhabitants. By this reasoning it would be a matter of national defense. There are issues that bother me about Israel as well. I am not a Zion extremist by any means. I am tired of the killing of both parties here, and want to see a peaceful resolution to this. On both sides, though I believe it to be worse at the Palestinian end, teach their children to hate, and the circle continues. The Israelis are not blowing up disco's full of teenagers or pizza parlors. If the Palestinians truly wanted peace, they would follow a more ethical line protest besides attacking women and children.

Furthermore, since the UN is sovereign over Israel, as it is over all of earth, as you claim, then how come the UN hasn't sanctioned Israel, or expelled them? That is their job, per the link you provided


Sovereign is the wrong word. The UN doesn't have that kind of power, as well you know (whether it should is a topic for a different thread). Palestine is also, as you keep repeating, not a Nation, and as such would not normally be a member of the UN. But, the UN in an unusual decision, gave the PLO permanent representative status in 1975.
Israel has not been sanctioned or expelled because the world knows it all the Palestinians fault. :grin: (JK)
There are resolutions/requests made to Israel, (Oslo) but they all seem to hinge on the actions of the Palestinians.

how do you justify Israelis walking into homes to which arab people hold title, expelling the arabs and moving jews in


Links please (preferably reputable)

I trust you have no problem with the source


Ahhh, cwap, I just spit my coffee on my monitor. :grin:

Similarly, the notion that moving civillian jews into homes and farms that belong by law to arabs is a self-defense measure doesn't jibe with the previously stated Zionist ideals of ethnic purity, a "jewish state." And as a matter of fact, the UN prohibits such actions, so you have your authority as to the wrongness of the actions.


The UN and many other international councils also prohibit blatant attacks against women and children, what's your point?

Using that military to attack their own people on the basis of race is.


The same could be said about Palastine. The issue was never about race. I'm not convinced that it is religious either. I do believe that religion is a part of it, but there is more to it than that. There is also a definite west vs. east thing happening here too. As seen in the "causes for hatred of the US" thread, there are multiple factors at work here.

Using bullets and rockets against stone-throwers is.


Why are you so disingenuous? The Palestinians do more than throw stones, like walking into a 12yr old girls birthday party with an assault rifle and start firing. Please, there is something to be said for intellectual honesty.

Israel started it. Israel has the power to stop it. I cannot fault people for defending themselves.


Bull, why because Sharon visited the Haram al-Sharif? Anyway I don't care who started it, and I seriosly doubt Israel can stop it without the full support of Palestine, which appears to not be interested in peace.

Of course not! Israel does many things including killing school children.


Links please.

Gee, you mean that there's a Palestinian Air Force, armed with the latest warplanes, helicopters and missiles? And a complete army with tanks, howitzers and other heavy armor? And none of that ever makes it to the news? C'mon! I was there, remember? The balance of power is way far in Israel's favor!


Never said there was. The balance of power is with Israel. I don't dispute this claim. What I do dispute is your claim that Palestinians just throw rocks. What is the population difference over there? 5:1, 20:1, 100:1, I really don't know, but I know there is a much larger Arab population than Israel. Even if they just threw rocks, (which they don't, I'm being speculatory here) that is a hell of a problem with that many rocks thrown. Israel usually uses rubber-coated bullets in these situations anyhow. The heavier artillary comes out for retaliation of a bomb/suicide bomb.

I don't. You're telling me that, but I don't believe it


I have never said that; "They're attacking their own subjects, based on race and religion!" You did. I was being sarcastic here. As I stated earlier, I believe this to be rubbish.

All you're doing is turning a blind eye toward one side's wrongs. As I have shown, the Zionists (Israel) started it when they invaded Palestine by force, in violation of your precious resolution 181,


Caused by the aggression of the Arab nations rebelling the UN decision of the Israel DOI!!

BTW. For one who speaks so loudly about self-defense for one side, you're being quite the hypocrite.


I am sorry, but I fail to see your POV here. The Arabs had a peaceful solution to start with but didn't follow it. I rally don't see how this makes me a hypocrite. Realistically, I don't give a rat's ass about what happened more than 50 years ago. But, if you want to argue it, I will. I am tired of the situation in Israel now. I want to see a resolution soon. I am tired of hearing about the death(s) that is(are) being elevated to new heights each weekend. Surely you can agree with this mentality. For the most part, I could care less about the past and who did this and who did that. Mourn the past, but live for the future.

On the contrary, I believe the US should let Israel alone if it wants to continue the genocide. Without that huge military infusion, Israel would have to become right-sized, right quick! Right now Israel is more or less at peace with its neighbors, so they simply don't need that money for defense.


Unlikely, but I don't think it would matter anyway. Israel is too strong now. If this happened, genocide might actually be a reality. (I pray that it never comes to this)

Oh really? Prove it.


After the '67 war, Israel had annexed land almost 3 times what it had been before the war. Israel negotiated with it's neighbors and returned ~ 90% of this land.
Jaraxle
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Menzoberranzan

Postposted on Tue Mar 12, 2002 4:09 am

Jaraxle, yes I meant attacking in the literary sense, not the physical. Sorry I wasn't more clear about that. Getting back to the UN, since Britain was sovereign over Palestine, then it's Britain's responsibility to form the Palestinian state. So if you can claim UN authority in the matter, you cannot blame the Palestinians for inaction on R.181.

So which is it? Are the Palestinians blameless for Britain's failure to form an arab state, or is the state of Israel illegal? You can't cherry-pick what you want and leave the rest without being a hypocrite.

Just so you know, I'm still willing to stipulate that the UN in fact is not a government, and that the UN has no authority for nation building. In fact, that's what I believe to be true. Government without representation is not government at all! Government without representation is bondage. I think you're misinformed about the role of the UN.

Sorry Jaraxle, but you shot yourself in the foot regarding national defense. You made the case for Israel's sovereignty over the Palestinians. Therefore you can't claim it's national defense without being a liar. There is no Palestinian state, and Israel is sovereign over all people within its borders. So there's no way it can't be a civil matter!

Israel's oppression of the native Palestinian people is no different from America's actions against the native people in America. It's no different from Nazi Germany's persecution of jews, gays, the handicapped and other "undesirables" within its borders. It's no different from Apartheid in South Africa. It's no different from slavery and post-slavery discrimination of ex-slaves in many countries.

How dare you sit in your comfortable home, with a full belly and say "If the Palestinians truly wanted peace, they would follow a more ethical line protest besides attacking women and children"! Are you really so ignorant that you think people blow themselves up for fun? These people have been denied the basics of life--food, clothing and shelter, by the nation that is sovereign over them! They are desperate! And once more I have to remind you that the Palestinian people don't have the advanced fighters, the strike helicopters, the laser-guided missiles or anything else that would allow them to fight back cleanly. But by your own admission, they have the right to fight back in self-defense.

I want to clarify one matter. While the internal struggle in Israel is about land, specifically who dominates the land, it is also about race. Israel doesn't treat its arabs the same as it treats its jews. That is the crux of the problem. Without the Palestinians, the Zionist army would have still faced arab nations as competitors in conquest of the land. That's a separate issue altogether. What I'm talking about is the atrocities committed in pursuit of a racially "pure" state. I'm against it in Israel, just as I was against it in the former Yugoslavia, South Africa, Germany or anyhwere else. I'm sentient. I know the difference between right and wrong. I choose right over wrong.

You also have to understand that almost every jew in Israel is armed. Jews carry assault rifles and other military weapons openly in public, in a way that makes "old west" stories seem tame! You don't see that on TV. But the net effect is that every jew in Israel is a soldier, and is therefore a valid target. Yes, they're quite slick at playing the innocent victim, but there's a far more sinister side to that story! It's hard to describe; you have to be there to understand. Even an American like me was scared for his life quite often. Their hatred knows no bounds; they aren't afraid to bite the hand that feeds them.

Q. Anyway I don't care who started it, and I seriosly doubt Israel can stop it without the full support of Palestine, which appears to not be interested in peace.
A. Well, considering that Israel is Palestine, you know full well who's to blame.


_________________
Stick a fork() in it!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Speed on 2002-03-12 04:12 ]</font>
Speed
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 6:00 pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Postposted on Tue Mar 12, 2002 7:19 am

So which is it? Are the Palestinians blameless for Britain's failure to form an arab state, or is the state of Israel illegal? You can't cherry-pick what you want and leave the rest without being a hypocrite.


Britain did form and arab state, the Transjordan. Seems like you need a history lesson here Speed. This right was acknowledged by the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, and re-affirmed by the Mandate of the League of Nations, which gave explicit international recognition to the historic connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and their right to reconstitute their National Home.
From here, again, there is no hypocrisy.

Just so you know, I'm still willing to stipulate that the UN in fact is not a government, and that the UN has no authority for nation building. In fact, that's what I believe to be true. Government without representation is not government at all! Government without representation is bondage. I think you're misinformed about the role of the UN.


Sure, I’ll agree with the statement that the UN is not a government, but the UN in creating Israel was continuing the mandates set up by the League of Nations. The mandate was somewhat halted before WW2, as they (British) hadn’t had agreement with the arabs about mostly immigration and such. After the war, with many nations (possibly feeling guilty) backing the UN (albeit, most western) pushed for a continuation of the original mandate, and in 1948, Israel was created (again).
I am fully aware of the functionality of the UN;
Eighty per cent of the work of the UN system is devoted to helping developing countries build the capacity to help themselves. This includes promoting and protecting democracy and human rights; saving children from starvation and disease; providing relief assistance to refugees and disaster victims; countering global crime, drugs and disease; and assisting countries devastated by war and the long-term threat of land-mines.

From here

If you are unfamiliar with the UN, maybe you should read about them from the above link.

Sorry Jaraxle, but you shot yourself in the foot regarding national defense. You made the case for Israel's sovereignty over the Palestinians. Therefore you can't claim it's national defense without being a liar. There is no Palestinian state, and Israel is sovereign over all people within its borders. So there's no way it can't be a civil matter!


Strawman and you know it. No Palestinian state != Israel sovereignty over all people

Palestine is a very unique situation. Normally it probably be more of a civil matter, but the Palestinians are an internationally recognized people (even by the UN), even though they are stateless.

Israel's oppression of the native Palestinian people is no different from America's actions against the native people


Matter of opinion, and I believe you are wrong :wink: (but it’s a matter for a different thread and won’t get into it here)

It's no different from Nazi Germany's persecution of jews, gays, the handicapped and other "undesirables" within its borders. It's no different from Apartheid in South Africa. It's no different from slavery and post-slavery discrimination of ex-slaves in many countries.


I beg to differ here, Nazi would exterminate all these people given the chance (and they nearly did). This is clearly different from Israel’s actions, movements, and desire for peace. Though I feel that since Sharon has come into power, the peace initiative is probably less than it was under Barak.

Are you really so ignorant that you think people blow themselves up for fun? These people have been denied the basics of life--food, clothing and shelter, by the nation that is sovereign over them!


No, people blow themselves up due to blind hate. You are exaggerating the plight of the Palestinians, here. If it were truly that bad it would have been much worse before the Al-Aksa Intifada. Israel is sovereign in Israel, not the surrounding Palestinian area, (and possibly not in Gaza or the WB).

They are desperate! And once more I have to remind you that the Palestinian people don't have the advanced fighters, the strike helicopters, the laser-guided missiles or anything else that would allow them to fight back cleanly. But by your own admission, they have the right to fight back in self-defense.


You are deluding yourself if you believe the Palestinians are fighting in self-defense. You can you sit there in your comfortable chair (with a full belly) and agree with the mentality that blowing up women and children is self-defense? :wink:

is also about race. Israel doesn't treat its arabs the same as it treats its jews


My main belief as to why this statement is incorrect is it has been proven that the people are of the same racial background. It cant be a race issue when it is the same race!!

racially "pure" state


I have not heard of this, can you clarify what the heck a racially "pure" state is. I am actually being serious here. :smile:

But the net effect is that every jew in Israel is a soldier, and is therefore a valid target. Yes, they're quite slick at playing the innocent victim, but there's a far more sinister side to that story!


My understanding of this is that every male (unsure about females, it may be optional for them), must serve at least 2 years in the army. I am unaware if the general populace is armed as you suggest, and I doubt the women ad children are armed.

It's hard to describe; you have to be there to understand. Even an American like me was scared for his life quite often. Their hatred knows no bounds; they aren't afraid to bite the hand that feeds them.


I don’t doubt this claim. It’s probably an understatement as well. I know I am coming off as a devil’s advocate here, but I do fee distress for the Palestinians. Tell me (if you would be so kind :grin:), you were in Israel? How long ago, and what (if recently) would possess you to there in this time of turmoil? I’ve always kinda wanted to go there ( mainly for religious reasons) to see the land. Most people say it’s actually quite picturesque.

Well, considering that Israel is Palestine, you know full well who's to blame.


Oh, you know I can’t leave it like this, :wink:
Israel is in Palestine, and this shows who is to blame. :grin:
Jaraxle
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Menzoberranzan

Postposted on Tue Mar 12, 2002 7:40 am

Jaraxle, you're changing your story so often that it's pointless trying to discuss this with you. Clearly you have priorities other than finding out the truth. If you want to fool yourself, that's your business. But I have better things to do with my time. Transjordan my ass...
You are false data.
Speed
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 6:00 pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Postposted on Tue Mar 12, 2002 7:47 am

Come on Speed, your smarter than this. :wink:

First link on a "transjordan" search with google

LinK
Jaraxle
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Menzoberranzan

Postposted on Tue Mar 12, 2002 6:37 pm

Yes Jaraxle, I am smarter than that. I know that Transjordan is the land to the east of Palestine. That's where the nation of Jordan is. :roll:

I'm sorry Jaraxle, but if there's going to be a productive discussion you're going to have to accept the facts. No good will come from sidetracking things with bogus history. Please, you can do better than that.
You are false data.
Speed
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 6:00 pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Postposted on Wed Mar 13, 2002 6:36 am

Yes Jaraxle, I am smarter than that. I know that Transjordan is the land to the east of Palestine. That's where the nation of Jordan is.

I'm sorry Jaraxle, but if there's going to be a productive discussion you're going to have to accept the facts. No good will come from sidetracking things with bogus history. Please, you can do better than that.


What facts? Bogus history? Did you even read the link I put up? The formation of the Transjordan (by the British) was only pointed out because you stated ;
Britain's failure to form an arab state


If you can point out some actual facts that I am not accepting, we can continue this discussion.
Jaraxle
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Menzoberranzan

Postposted on Wed Mar 13, 2002 7:54 am

Jaraxle:

Have you even read the Balfour Declaration? What about the part that says "...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country..." Seems that the Zionists in Israel have done a pretty good job ignoring that part of the Declaration.

As for Transjordan: It results from the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, where Britain and France decided between themselves how they were going to divide the territory of the sovereign Ottoman Empire. According to the map of the Agreement, Transjordan is only an area of "British Influence", unlike the area of "Direct British Control" in modern-day Iraq. Of course, this doesn't even take into account the fact that one sovereign nation can't decide for itself how another sovereign nation is to be dismembered. The Ottomans agreed to a truce; they weren't conquered.

Another note on the British Mandate in Palestine. According to Article 7 of the Mandate:

"The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."

This says to me that Britain never intended a Zionist state, but that the Arab and Jewish popluations of Palestine would co-exist.

So, I remain at a loss to determine how you come up with the idea that Britain created Palestine and that Britain is ultimately responsible for the whole mess.
There are people that embrace the Oxford comma and people who don't. Never get between these people when drink has been taken. I use the Oxford comma and always will. The rest can sod off.
Captain Ned
Global Moderator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 19773
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Postposted on Wed Mar 13, 2002 9:02 am

Have you even read the Balfour Declaration? What about the part that says "...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country..." Seems that the Zionists in Israel have done a pretty good job ignoring that part of the Declaration.


Mybe you should read the first line that you so conveniently omitted! Let me bring it up:
His Majesty's Government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object,


Context and comprehension is you friend here. It has nothing to do with the Zionists and everything to do with His Majesty's Government.

Of course, this doesn't even take into account the fact that one sovereign nation can't decide for itself how another sovereign nation is to be dismembered.


Maybe, but somewhat irrelevant, as the historical record proves otherwise. The area was dismembered and was under control by the French or British.

This says to me that Britain never intended a Zionist state, but that the Arab and Jewish popluations of Palestine would co-exist.


Rer read the first line in the Balfour Declaration, sure sounds like the intention of a Zionist sate to me.

So, I remain at a loss to determine how you come up with the idea that Britain created Palestine and that Britain is ultimately responsible for the whole mess.


Britain did not create Palestine, and I never implied as much, nor have I said that Britain is responsible for the whole mess. I will reiterate what I have expressed before, I believe that both parties have done wrong. There have been atrocities on both sides, but I do feel that the Palestinians have been more so.
Jaraxle
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Menzoberranzan

Postposted on Wed Mar 13, 2002 9:41 am

Jaraxle:

Since when does "national home" mean a sovereign nation. When the two sentences of the first meaningful clause are taken together, it's clear (to me at least) that the intent was co-existence. Furthermore, on 2 November 1917, Britain was in no position to grant such a condition, being neither in possession (legally) of Palestine, nor the Mandated power (until 24 July 1922). I merely used the second sentence to illustrate that the Declaration does not give the Zionists carte blanche to ethnically cleanse Palestine of Arab Muslims.

Read the preamble to the Mandate:

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country


Where does it say that the Zionists can boot out the Arabs?

Article 2 of the Mandate:

The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.


Seems like this intends co-existence and respect for the rights of the pre-existing Arab population.

One final point, regarding the Sykes-Picot agreement. The map thereto specifically holds out Palestine as international territory.

Given the above, I fail to see that Britain ever had SOVEREIGN jurisdiction over Palestine. At best, the League of Nations acted as sovereign, and "sub-contracted" the administration of such sovereignty to the Brits.

In the long run, this much is clear: The Zionists arrogated to themselves powers which neither the Mandate nor UN Resolution 181 granted, or intended to grant. The Zionists embarked on by their own admission a campaign of ethnic cleansing to remove the Arab populace from the illegally-expanded borders of Israel. How anyone with half a brain on their shoulders (most Zionists excluded) can fail to see that the Zionist Israelis created their own problem by disregarding the clear intent of the Balfour Declaration, British Mandate, and UN Resolution 181 is beyond me (and Speed as well). Until such time as you're willing to admit that the Zionists are an illegal occupation force in those sections of Palestine not "granted" to Israel by UN 181, I see no further point to this discussion.

In case anyone asks, here's my solution to the problem (not that it'll happen in this reality). President Bush calls PM Sharon in for a meeting and makes this clear: Not one dollar more from the US Treasury, nor any military assistance until: Israel shrinks to the borders granted by UN 181, recognizes the right of return for all refugees, compensates those refugees who wish not to return for the expropriation of their property, makes Arab Israelis full citizens (by eliminating nationality/heritage markings on internal passports), grants full, unrestricted, rights of passage between Gaza and the West Bank, et. al. In short, a full capitulation to the long-standing Palestinian demands (since they're the wronged party). While we're at it, how about eliminating the Israeli nukes as well. Should Israel fail to comply and continue with its Milosevic-style treatment of its Arab population, the UN may just get asked to do to Israel what it did to Serbia.

And you thought I was a right-winger, didn't you now, Speed.
_________________
As soon as you idiot-proof something, the world just makes a better idiot.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Captain Ned on 2002-03-13 09:42 ]</font>
Captain Ned
Global Moderator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 19773
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Postposted on Wed Mar 13, 2002 12:13 pm

Since when does "national home" mean a sovereign nation.


The word used here is “NATIONAL” The root word here being “NATION”. What part of NATIONAL do you not understand, is this concept alien to you?

Furthermore, on 2 November 1917, Britain was in no position to grant such a condition, being neither in possession (legally) of Palestine, nor the Mandated power (until 24 July 1922).


The area of transordan was under British mandate. That sounds to me like Britain had the “position”.

I merely used the second sentence to illustrate that the Declaration does not give the Zionists carte blanche to ethnically cleanse Palestine of Arab Muslims.


I will agree with this because cleansing the area of Arabs was not the intent of “ANY” of the mandates, declarations resolutions, etc. I never implied (at any time) that any of these orders if you will, gave Israel the right to boot anyone out.

Where does it say that the Zionists can boot out the Arabs?


It doesn’t, and I agree with this. (as I have stated)

Article 2 of the Mandate:

Quote:
The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.


Seems like this intends co-existence and respect for the rights of the pre-existing Arab population.


There’s that national word again. What’s more it also states “development of self-governing institutions”

One final point, regarding the Sykes-Picot agreement. The map thereto specifically holds out Palestine as international territory


Who are the international parties it refers to? Lets see who is under authority <!-- BBCode u2 Start --><A HREF="http:// http://www.dartmouth.edu/~gov46/pal-sykes-picot.gif" TARGET="_blank">here.</A><!-- BBCode u2 End -->

How anyone with half a brain on their shoulders (most Zionists excluded) can fail to see that the Zionist Israelis created their own problem by disregarding the clear intent of the Balfour Declaration, British Mandate, and UN Resolution 181 is beyond me (and Speed as well). Until such time as you're willing to admit that the Zionists are an illegal occupation force in those sections of Palestine not "granted" to Israel by UN 181, I see no further point to this discussion.


You cannot address my previously stated reasons, so you resort to ad hominem attacks, well done. Your assertion that “Zionists are an illegal occupation”, I have already stated that Stephen Schwebel, an international law scholar, has stated that settlements on land taken, for the reason of self-defense, is acceptable.

President Bush calls PM Sharon in for a meeting and makes this clear: Not one dollar more from the US Treasury, nor any military assistance until:


I agree. (Finally :grin:)

Israel shrinks to the borders granted by UN 181


Has already been offered, albeit, not unconditional, in the Camp David summit. As I have stated before, it was not perfect, but it is a start. The Palestinians never even counter-offered.

recognizes the right of return for all refugees, compensates those refugees who wish not to return for the expropriation of their property


The same thing should be said about the Jews who left the Arab world & had their possessions appropriated

makes Arab Israelis full citizens (by eliminating nationality/heritage markings on internal passports), grants full, unrestricted, rights of passage between Gaza and the West Bank, et. al


As Speed points out, this is more of a civil matter and should be left up to the State.

In short, a full capitulation to the long-standing Palestinian demands


Possibly, with the same level of consideration to the Israel demands from those in Palestine.

(since they're the wronged party).

:roll:

While we're at it, how about eliminating the Israeli nukes as well


Why, has Israel responded with nukes or even threatened to for that matter?
Jaraxle
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Menzoberranzan

Postposted on Wed Mar 13, 2002 1:18 pm

Jaraxle:

Please reconcile your Stephen Schewbel reference with the following quotes (all retrieved from http://www.cactus48.com)

Was Arab opposition to the arrival of Zionists based on inherent anti-Semitism or a real sense of danger to their community?

"The aim of the [Jewish National] Fund was `to redeem the land of Palestine as the inalienable possession of the Jewish people.'...As early as 1891, Zionist leader Ahad Ha'am wrote that the Arabs "understood very well what we were doing and what we were aiming at'...[Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, stated] `We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in transit countries, while denying it employment in our own country... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly'...At various locations in northern Palestine Arab farmers refused to move from land the Fund purchased from absentee owners, and the Turkish authorities, at the Fund's request, evicted them...The indigenous Jews of Palestine also reacted negatively to Zionism. They did not see the need for a Jewish state in Palestine and did not want to exacerbate relations with the Arabs." John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."


Jews attitude towards Arabs when reaching Palestine.

"Serfs they (the Jews) were in the lands of the Diaspora, and suddenly they find themselves in freedom [in Palestine]; and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination." Zionist writer Ahad Ha'am, quoted in Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."



The Balfour Declaration promises a Jewish Homeland in Palestine.

"The Balfour Declaration, made in November 1917 by the British Government...was made a) by a European power, b) about a non-European territory, c) in flat disregard of both the presence and wishes of the native majority resident in that territory...[As Balfour himself wrote in 1919], 'The contradiction between the letter of the Covenant (the Anglo French Declaration of 1918 promising the Arabs of the former Ottoman colonies that as a reward for supporting the Allies they could have their independence) is even more flagrant in the case of the independent nation of Palestine than in that of the independent nation of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country...The four powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land,'" Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."


Were the early Zionists planning on living side by side with Arabs?

In 1919, the American King-Crane Commission spent six weeks in Syria and Palestine, interviewing delegations and reading petitions. Their report stated, "The commissioners began their study of Zionism with minds predisposed in its favor...The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conferences with Jewish representatives that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase...

"If [the] principle [of self-determination] is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine's population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine - nearly nine-tenths of the whole - are emphatically against the entire Zionist program.. To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle just quoted...No British officers, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms.The officers generally thought that a force of not less than fifty thousand soldiers would be required even to initiate the program. That of itself is evidence of a strong sense of the injustice of the Zionist program...The initial claim, often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a 'right' to Palestine based on occupation of two thousand years ago, can barely be seriously considered." Quoted in "The Israel-Arab Reader" ed. Laquer and Rubin.


Arab resistance to Pre-Israeli Zionism

"In 1936-9, the Palestinian Arabs attempted a nationalist revolt... David Ben-Gurion, eminently a realist, recognized its nature. In internal discussion, he noted that 'in our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us,' but he urged, 'let us not ignore the truth among ourselves.' The truth was that 'politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside'... The revolt was crushed by the British, with considerable brutality." Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."


Gandhi on the Palestine conflict - 1938

"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French...What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct...If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs... As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds." Mahatma Gandhi, quoted in "A Land of Two Peoples" ed. Mendes-Flohr.


Were the Zionists prepared to settle for the territory granted in the 1947 partition?

"While the Yishuv's leadership formally accepted the 1947 Partition Resolution, large sections of Israel's society - including...Ben-Gurion - were opposed to or extremely unhappy with partition and from early on viewed the war as an ideal opportunity to expand the new state's borders beyond the UN earmarked partition boundaries and at the expense of the Palestinians." Israeli historian, Benny Morris, in "Tikkun", March/April 1998.


Public vs private pronouncements on this question.

"In internal discussion in 1938 [David Ben-Gurion] stated that 'after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand into the whole of Palestine'...In 1948, Menachem Begin declared that: 'The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever." Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."


Zionists' disrespect of partition boundaries

"Before the end of the mandate and, therefore before any possible intervention by Arab states, the Jews, taking advantage of their superior military preparation and organization, had occupied...most of the Arab cities in Palestine before May 15, 1948. Tiberias was occupied on April 19, 1948, Haifa on April 22, Jaffa on April 28, the Arab quarters in the New City of Jerusalem on April 30, Beisan on May 8, Safad on May 10 and Acre on May 14, 1948...In contrast, the Palestine Arabs did not seize any of the territories reserved for the Jewish state under the partition resolution." British author, Henry Cattan, "Palestine, The Arabs and Israel."


Culpability for escalation of the fighting

"Menahem Begin, the Leader of the Irgun, tells how 'in Jerusalem, as elsewhere, we were the first to pass from the defensive to the offensive...Arabs began to flee in terror...Hagana was carrying out successful attacks on other fronts, while all the Jewish forces proceeded to advance through Haifa like a knife through butter'...The Israelis now allege that the Palestine war began with the entry of the Arab armies into Palestine after 15 May 1948. But that was the second phase of the war; they overlook the massacres, expulsions and dispossessions which took place prior to that date and which necessitated Arab states' intervention." Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."


The Deir Yassin Massacre of Palestinians by Jewish soldiers

"For the entire day of April 9, 1948, Irgun and LEHI soldiers carried out the slaughter in a cold and premeditated fashion...The attackers 'lined men, women and children up against the walls and shot them,'...The ruthlessness of the attack on Deir Yassin shocked Jewish and world opinion alike, drove fear and panic into the Arab population, and led to the flight of unarmed civilians from their homes all over the country." Israeli author, Simha Flapan, "The Birth of Israel."


Was Deir Yassin the only act of its kind?

"By 1948, the Jew was not only able to 'defend himself' but to commit massive atrocities as well. Indeed, according to the former director of the Israeli army archives, 'in almost every village occupied by us during the War of Independence, acts were committed which are defined as war crimes, such as murders, massacres, and rapes'...Uri Milstein, the authoritative Israeli military historian of the 1948 war, goes one step further, maintaining that 'every skirmish ended in a massacre of Arabs.'" Norman Finkelstein, "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict."


Ethnic cleansing of the Arab population of Palestine

"Joseph Weitz was the director of the Jewish National Land Fund...On December 19, 1940, he wrote: 'It must be clear that there is no room for both peoples in this country...The Zionist enterprise so far...has been fine and good in its own time, and could do with 'land buying' - but this will not bring about the State of Israel; that must come all at once, in the manner of a Salvation (this is the secret of the Messianic idea); and there is no way besides transferring the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, to transfer them all; except maybe for Bethlehem, Nazareth and Old Jerusalem, we must not leave a single village, not a single tribe'...There were literally hundreds of such statements made by Zionists." Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."


Ethnic cleansing - continued

"Following the outbreak of 1936, no mainstream (Zionist) leader was able to conceive of future coexistence without a clear physical separation between the two peoples - achievable only by transfer and expulsion. Publicly they all continued to speak of coexistence and to attribute the violence to a small minority of zealots and agitators. But this was merely a public pose..Ben Gurion summed up: 'With compulsory transfer we (would) have a vast area (for settlement)...I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it,'" Israel historian, Benny Morris, "Righteous Victims."


Ethnic cleansing - continued

"Ben-Gurion clearly wanted as few Arabs as possible to remain in the Jewish state. He hoped to see them flee. He said as much to his colleagues and aides in meetings in August, September and October [1948]. But no [general] expulsion policy was ever enunciated and Ben-Gurion always refrained from issuing clear or written expulsion orders; he preferred that his generals 'understand' what he wanted done. He wished to avoid going down in history as the 'great expeller' and he did not want the Israeli government to be implicated in a morally questionable policy...But while there was no 'expulsion policy', the July and October [1948] offensives were characterized by far more expulsions and, indeed, brutality towards Arab civilians than the first half of the war." Benny Morris, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949"


Arab orders to evacuate non-existent

"The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) monitored all Middle Eastern broadcasts throughout 1948. The records, and companion ones by a United States monitoring unit, can be seen at the British Museum. There was not a single order or appeal, or suggestion about evacuation from Palestine, from any Arab radio station, inside or outside Palestine, in 1948. There is a repeated monitored record of Arab appeals, even flat orders, to the civilians of Palestine to stay put." Erskine Childers, British researcher, quoted in Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."


The deliberate destruction of Arab villages to prevent return of Palestinians

"During May [1948] ideas about how to consolidate and give permanence to the Palestinian exile began to crystallize, and the destruction of villages was immediately perceived as a primary means of achieving this aim...[Even earlier,] On 10 April, Haganah units took Abu Shusha... The village was destroyed that night... Khulda was leveled by Jewish bulldozers on 20 April... Abu Zureiq was completely demolished... Al Mansi and An Naghnaghiya, to the southeast, were also leveled. . .By mid-1949, the majority of [the 350 depopulated Arab villages] were either completely or partly in ruins and uninhabitable." Benny Morris, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949.


It seems damned difficult to support a claim of self-defence in light of the clear Zionist plan to expel all Arabs from Eretz Israel. Lacking any justification of self-defence, Israel's actions since the end of the Mandate are clearly ethnic cleansing and morally abhorrent.

To other readers of this thread: I apologize for the length of these quotes, but some people take more persuading than others.
There are people that embrace the Oxford comma and people who don't. Never get between these people when drink has been taken. I use the Oxford comma and always will. The rest can sod off.
Captain Ned
Global Moderator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 19773
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Postposted on Wed Mar 13, 2002 3:15 pm

This thread has presented us with a microcosim of the difficulties involved in solving this conflict. Both sides have valid points and impassioned views. The emotial component of the debate cannot be overstated.

Here are a few facts as I see them.....

1. Britain royally screwed up parsing out land to the jews and arabs. We can all thank the queen for leaving the world with such a mess.

2. Israel is rediculously well armed compared to the palesitians. At best, the palesitians have machine guns and RPGs. Irseal can bring in tanks, F15s, Apaches, and heavy artilery. It's no contest.

3. Both sides willfully target civilians.

4. Israel has taken a lot of land in wars through the years and they continue to expand their settlements. I don't paticularly care what some damn international scholar said; I fail to see how that land is now rightfully theirs.


Now my opinions....
Isreal could very easily exterminate the palestinians, but it's not politically feasible move given global politics. The Palestitians will NEVER quit bombing the Israelis until they have a state. This is an ugly situation!

The real problem is that the status quo is quite sustainable. The security of Isreal is not threatened so they will continue to expand into the occupied territories. The plight of the palestinians, while deplorable, is not likely to improve without external political intervention. They certainly aren't helping themselves supporting terrorism. It gives the Israelis, who profit from the status quo, an excuse to not negotiate a peace and alienates the international community.

The US is the wild card here. Given Isrel's dependance on US military might, we can force them to do just about anything. Unfortunately, our leaders have not shown the resolve to bring about peace. The US needs to step in and DICTATE a peace plan to both sides. The Israelis will bitch and moan, but realistically they'll have to go along. The palestinians may complain too, but ultimately anything is better than having Iraeli tanks blowing up you houses so I suspect they would go along too without much hassle.

The only other option is to turn a blind eye and let the Israelis commit genocide. This is obviously not a very palatable option, but it would certainly end the conflict.

Ultimately, it takes more courage to lay the gun down than to pick it up. Both sides have shamefully displayed a great deal of foolish cowardice.
cRock
Gerbil First Class
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 6:00 pm
Location: pimpin the ATL

Postposted on Wed Mar 13, 2002 9:48 pm

On 2002-03-13 09:41, Captain Ned wrote:

And you thought I was a right-winger, didn't you now, Speed.

LOL, I don't know what I thought, Ned. I try not to remember who wrote what, to keep as much objectivity as I can. But I agree with those posts! I'd love to see Sharon taken down quite a few pegs like that, which is not objective at all. :smile:

Also a good post, cRock. I will temper your #3 with the reminder that so-called civilians in Israel have this habit of carrying machine guns. I agree that the US is key. We absolutely must make an effort to do what is right ASAP.
You are false data.
Speed
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 6:00 pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Postposted on Thu Mar 14, 2002 9:32 am

What the…


Nice, I guess it’s all well and good to start a quote war. This is what I did not want to see happen. I could play your game and flood the thread with pro Zionist quotes in contrast to your anti-Zion ones, (your book is too controversial anyway) but quote wars will get us nowhere. Its difficult to have a discussion when the arguments I present are not addressed. Until you can address my points with reasonable arguments I am not sure that if it is productive to continue this discussion with you.
Jaraxle
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Menzoberranzan

Postposted on Thu Mar 14, 2002 9:46 am

On 2002-03-14 09:32, Jaraxle wrote:
What the…


Nice, I guess it’s all well and good to start a quote war. This is what I did not want to see happen. I could play your game and flood the thread with pro Zionist quotes in contrast to your anti-Zion ones, (your book is too controversial anyway) but quote wars will get us nowhere. Its difficult to have a discussion when the arguments I present are not addressed. Until you can address my points with reasonable arguments I am not sure that if it is productive to continue this discussion with you.



And who's making the ad hominem attacks now? I'm still waiting for an answer to the question posed at the beginning of my "quote post."

As for stopping the violence, that's not going to happen until Israel admits that it's in the wrong and is an illegal occupying power in those areas not "granted" to Israel under UN 181, and then complying with 181. Since it was never Israel's intention to comply with UN 181 (as proved in my "quote post," the cycle of violence is endless. So, we're left with 2 choices. Build a big wall around the whole area and come back when the fires go out, or give the Arabs the wherewithal to fight Israel on equal terms. I don't pretend that either is the right thing to do, or even "doable," but I don't see things changing absent a huge change in Israeli politics.
There are people that embrace the Oxford comma and people who don't. Never get between these people when drink has been taken. I use the Oxford comma and always will. The rest can sod off.
Captain Ned
Global Moderator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 19773
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Postposted on Thu Mar 14, 2002 9:50 am

1. Britain royally screwed up parsing out land to the jews and arabs. We can all thank the queen for leaving the world with such a mess.

2. Israel is rediculously well armed compared to the palesitians. At best, the palesitians have machine guns and RPGs. Irseal can bring in tanks, F15s, Apaches, and heavy artilery. It's no contest.

3. Both sides willfully target civilians.

4. Israel has taken a lot of land in wars through the years and they continue to expand their settlements. I don't paticularly care what some damn international scholar said; I fail to see how that land is now rightfully theirs.


1. Agreed, athough as I understand it, a palestinian state was to be created as well. I don’t really know why it has not. To me, if were a Palestinian, it would infuriate me, to have the international community disregard the people so completely.

2. In one respect, it is probably a good thing as I don’t want to think about how fast things could escalate if the ground was a little more balanced. Meh, it could have just as easily subdued some extreme Zionist military actions.

3. Completely abhorrent, both sides, I have no real comment.

4. I don’t agree with the land being “rightfully” theirs as opposed to controlling the area for defense issues. The settlements shouldn’t be there, I agree, but this in no way validates them as a target.


Isreal could very easily exterminate the palestinians, but it's not politically feasible move given global politics. The Palestitians will NEVER quit bombing the Israelis until they have a state. This is an ugly situation!

The real problem is that the status quo is quite sustainable. The security of Isreal is not threatened so they will continue to expand into the occupied territories. The plight of the palestinians, while deplorable, is not likely to improve without external political intervention. They certainly aren't helping themselves supporting terrorism. It gives the Israelis, who profit from the status quo, an excuse to not negotiate a peace and alienates the international community


For the most part I agree with this. If Israel was out to exterminate the Arabs, it would have been done a long time ago. Though they have caused many afflictions to the Palestinians, I somewhat side with the Israel position a little more, meh, maybe I’m too much of an Israeli apologist.

The US is the wild card here. Given Isrel's dependance on US military might, we can force them to do just about anything. Unfortunately, our leaders have not shown the resolve to bring about peace. The US needs to step in and DICTATE a peace plan to both sides. The Israelis will bitch and moan, but realistically they'll have to go along. The palestinians may complain too, but ultimately anything is better than having Iraeli tanks blowing up you houses so I suspect they would go along too without much hassle.


This is the thing, I do agree that the US should be a bigger player in this arena, but then again it presupposes that the US is a global police force. This is what I was trying to discern with some of my threads that I have started. I believe that they should, but my opinion does not an argument make.

The only other option is to turn a blind eye and let the Israelis commit genocide. This is obviously not a very palatable option, but it would certainly end the conflict.


If the international arena allows this to happen, I will want to segregate from most of the human race.
Jaraxle
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Menzoberranzan

Postposted on Thu Mar 14, 2002 9:58 am

And who's making the ad hominem attacks now? I'm still waiting for an answer to the question posed at the beginning of my "quote post."


I did not ad hom you. Your question is somewhat inappropriate as I could back it up with Zionist quotes.

As for stopping the violence, that's not going to happen until Israel admits that it's in the wrong and is an illegal occupying power in those areas not "granted" to Israel under UN 181, and then complying with 181. Since it was never Israel's intention to comply with UN 181 (as proved in my "quote post," the cycle of violence is endless. So, we're left with 2 choices. Build a big wall around the whole area and come back when the fires go out, or give the Arabs the wherewithal to fight Israel on equal terms. I don't pretend that either is the right thing to do, or even "doable," but I don't see things changing absent a huge change in Israeli politics.


The Palestinians are at least equally wrong in this hate affair that has grown. But, yes Israel does need to admit it’s wrongdoings, at the same time the Palestinians need to do the same. How many years of relative peace did the region have before the fallout? Surely in this time more of an effort could/should have been made.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jaraxle on 2002-03-14 09:58 ]</font>
Jaraxle
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Menzoberranzan

Next

Return to The Back Porch

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests