Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forum
Settlements are not the great obstacle to Mid-East peace
From: The Australian
December 20, 2012 12:00AM
CLAIMS that Israeli settlement building has made a two-state outcome impossible are completely untrue. Settlements are only one of many contentious issues that must be addressed - along with water, Jerusalem, refugees and security arrangements - and far from the most difficult to resolve.
Israeli policies since 2004 - after the George W. Bush-Ariel Sharon agreement - have prevented any new settlements or the expansion of the boundaries of existing settlements. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's recent announcements are consistent with those policies.
It is also not true that any current or likely future settlement growth will substantially affect the size, contiguity or viability of a future Palestinian state. Settlements currently take up less than 2 per cent of the West Bank.
Further, the broad outline of how to resolve the settlement issue in a final peace deal has been largely agreed in past Israeli-Palestinian negotiations: Israel will retain major settlement blocs, containing a large majority of settlers, in exchange for land swaps of territory inside Israel's pre-1967 borders and evacuate the rest. Israel has demonstrated it has the will and ability to do this - evacuating some West Bank and all Gaza settlements in 2005. Palestinian negotiators have accepted this idea in principle.
While one may question the timing or wisdom of Netanyahu's recent decision to allow planning to move forward for more Jewish housing in east Jerusalem and the area known as E1 in the Jerusalem suburb of Ma'ale Adumim -as even many Israelis do - the proposition that they make a two-state outcome impossible is ludicrous.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/settlements-are-not-the-great-obstacle-to-mid-east-peace/story-e6frgd0x-1226540680879
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)Instead of bulldozing them like they did in Gaza.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)According to the PA, this is all about the land -- not the buildings. If Palestinians get land from Israel it should be in the same condition it was in in '67 -- the way Jordan left it.
maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)Appear magnanimous rather than vengeful.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)according to the needs of the Palestinian community rather than Israeli settlers.
King_David
(14,851 posts)But they were destroyed after....not by Israel.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The New York Times reported that out of 1,000 acres under greenhouses before the settler removal, only about 500 acres remained after.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/international/middleeast/15mideast.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&
A portion of these were purchased by American Jewish philanthropists and then donated to the Palestinians. There was just one hitch; this was not coordinated with the Palestinian authorities. As a result, the greenhouses ended up getting sacked by opportunistic looters:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9331863/#.UNViM3cpl9k
As you can read there, the authorities did make an effort to stop the stripping - not "destruction" mind you - of those greenhouses, citing their integral place in the future of Gaza's economy. They seem to have met with failure, as they simply were not prepared for the situation.
And then shortly after came the blockade, which has pretty much rendered the whole thing moot anyway; there's no real way to get replacement parts in, and no market for all those flowers, strawberries, and tomatoes - which by the way are being produced, because many of the greenhouses were refitted, and three more were built with USAID help in 2010
Dick Dastardly
(937 posts)wanted the homes bulldozed and had an agreement with Israel to do it.
Settler homes bulldozed in Gaza
Bulldozers and excavators ripped through the red-tiled roofs and white-washed walls of the homes, the BBC's Jim Fish reports.
The demolitions are in accordance with an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4170302.stm
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)my reading says it was Ariel Sharon's doing, Shaul Mofaz protested it but in the end it went Sharon's way albeit strangely for 'some' reason the synagogues were for the most part all but 2 left intact, the Palestinians later tore them down themselves with a propaganda campaign launched by ProIsrael media concerning the rabid hatred of the Palestinians
but here from your link
Israeli bulldozers have begun to demolish empty homes in the Gaza Strip as the operation to evict Jewish settlers nears its completion.
Earlier, soldiers and police prayed with residents of the large Gush Katif settlement bloc before they too were evicted from their homes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4170302.stm01
Dick Dastardly
(937 posts)Israel would carry out the demolition and they would pay the Palestinians to dispose of the rubble.
Both Sides Agree To Raze Gaza Settler Homes
June 20, 2005|By Joel Greenberg Chicago Tribune
JERUSALEM — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced Sunday that Israel and the Palestinian Authority have agreed that the homes of Jewish settlers should be demolished as part of Israel's planned withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.
Rice, who is on a weeklong visit to the Middle East, met Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon after talks Saturday with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to promote coordination of the Gaza withdrawal, scheduled to begin in mid-August.
clip
She said she found a "good spirit of cooperation" between the two leaders, who are to meet at a summit Tuesday.
At a news conference, Rice laid out what she called "principles for disengagement" agreed to by Sharon and Abbas, with the aim of ensuring a peaceful withdrawal and creating conditions for economic recovery in the Gaza Strip after the pullout.
clip
Rice said both sides agreed that the 1,200 homes of Israeli settlers in the Gaza Strip would be razed.
Raanan Gissin, a spokesman for Sharon, said the two sides agreed in principle that Israel would evacuate and demolish the settler homes, and that the Palestinian Authority or a third party acting as a contractor would clear the rubble for construction of high-rise apartment buildings.
Palestinian officials have said they want to build apartment projects in the evacuated settlement areas to help relieve a shortage of adequate housing for many of the 1.3 million Palestinians in the teeming Gaza Strip.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2005-06-20/news/0506190221_1_gaza-strip-gaza-withdrawal-settler-homes
Israel Agrees To Demolish Its Settlers' Gaza Homes
By Glenn Kessler and Scott Wilson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, June 20, 2005
JERUSALEM, June 20 -- Israel and the Palestinian Authority have agreed that Jewish settler homes in the Gaza Strip will be demolished as Israeli citizens and soldiers leave the area this summer, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced Sunday after two days of meetings with Israeli and Palestinian officials.
clip
Under the housing plan, once the disengagement begins Aug. 15, the Israeli military will begin to destroy the 1,200 homes over at least the following three weeks as settlers leave -- or are forced from their homes. The cleanup and removal of the debris will be handled by Palestinians, creating a jobs program and an incentive for Palestinians to plan how the areas are used in the future.
clip
Palestinian officials were not eager to keep the red-roofed, middle-class homes, and there are not enough of them to house the 1.3 million Palestinians who are struggling for housing in the narrow coastal strip. But some Palestinian officials have been hesitant to coordinate too closely with Israel on the issue, believing it would undermine claims that Israel was driven from Gaza.
Under international law, Israel is required to return the property as it had been when it seized it during the 1967 war, which would mean a costly and time-consuming cleanup and leave Israeli soldiers vulnerable to attack for months. Moreover, indiscriminate destruction of the homes could ruin water and sewer lines necessary for future development.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/19/AR2005061900696.html
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)On April 8, 2005, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said that Israel should consider not demolishing the evacuated buildings in the Gaza Strip, with the exception of synagogues (due to fears of their potential desecration, which eventually did occur),[25] since it would be more costly and time consuming. This contrasted with the original plan by the Prime Minister to demolish all vacated buildings.
This page was last modified on 11 December 2012 at 00:14.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_unilateral_disengagement_plan
also explain why all but 2 Synagogues were left?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's part of the whole, delusional "Palestinians have NO legitimate grievances with Israel-they just 'hate the Jews'" meme.
Useless and utterly out-of-touch rhetoric. This argument was bogus in the Seventies and its bogus now.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)And the article doesn't say that Palestinians have no legitimate grievances.
It seems like maybe you didn't actually read it?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The rest of the article was behind the paywall at the link.
And you obviously haven't read CAMERA/FLAME's propaganda...you know, the same three or four ads they've been continuously running in the same magazines since, oh, probably 1967.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Try it at this link:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/settlements-are-not-the-great-obstacle-to-mid-east-peace/story-e6frgd0x-1226540680879
I don't know what CAMERA/FLAME means. I googled it and could not find anything. Please explain?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Settlements are not the great obstacle to Mid-East peace
by: COLIN RUBENSTEIN
From: The Australian
December 20, 2012 12:00AM
8 comments
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Print
Login to read the rest of this article
Username
Password
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/settlements-are-not-the-great-obstacle-to-mid-east-peace/story-e6frgd0x-1226540680879
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Helps if you add in keywords like say "Israel" or "Middle East"
CAMERA is the Comittee for Accuracy in Middle East reporting in America, and FLAME is Facts and Logic About the Middle East.
As you may suspect, "Accuracy," "Facts," and "Logic" aren't exactly being delivered in spades by these organizations. They like taking out full-page ads in newspapers and periodicals to "catapult the propaganda." Their pieces, like medieval peasant huts, are comprised of equal parts horse shit and straw; They love the "ALL ARABS ARE OUT TO GET POOR LITTLE ISRAEL!" meme, as well as the "PALESTINIANS HAVE NO REAL GRIEVANCES AND JUST HATE JEWS!" meme that Ken has noted.
Strange... flipping through a few of their ads now, and I could swear I've seen them, word-for-word from certain DU posters... 
Koweenkydink, I'm sure.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I know about CAMERA, of course, but I was thrown by the poster saying something about making 'the same argument since the seventies" - CAMERA was not around in the seventies.
I thought CAMERA/FLAME (which the poster identified that way each time) was maybe some other group from the seventies (I had never heard of FLAME).
In any case, I got it now.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)http://www.camera.org/
strange you did not recognize at least CAMERA as it has been used here as a source on a number of occasions in the past
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Was thrown by "since the seventies" (CAMERA did not exist then) and the linking of the two names "CAMERA/FLAME" which doesn't show up on Google. (Didn't know about FLAME til just now - but also not around in the seventies apparently).
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Basically, CAMERA's stock-in-trade is in simply repeating the same(generally outdated and mostly discredited)arguments over and over again in large magazine and newspaper ads. CAMERA basically argues that the entire conflict is due solely to Arab antisemitism, that Palestinians have no real grievances against the israeli government and the IDF, and that the everybody should focus solely on telling the Arabs and the Palestinian to stop being angry for no reason(IIRC, it took quite a while for CAMERA to admit that Palestinians actually had a distinctive national identity at all...they spent years characterizing them as nothing more than the agents of the so-called "unrelenting Arab campaign" to destroy Israel. FLAME runs almos identical ads using the same talking points.
These two organizations in my view, have been about nothing but deflection and denial. They has never had anything constructive or useful to say about the I/P situation.
My apologies about the confusion I caused by writing the names of the groups as "CAMERA/FLAME". I did that because I've seen the ads that both organizations run, and was trying to illustrate the point that there seems to be little real difference or division of purpose between them. I could have found a clearer way to illustrate that point.
And here's FLAME arguing...and acting as if it could possibly be morally defensible to argue for...doing NOTHING at all to change the status quo...in perpetuating Palestinian misery indefinitely(and, at the same time, acting as if could be possible for Palestinians to have prosperity WITHOUT the Occupation ending or even being humanized in any way)
http://factsandlogic.org/ad_134.html
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Had something to point out there that wasn't quite fitting for the thread as such.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facts_and_Logic_About_the_Middle_East
Here's a particularly couple of quotes from the Wikipedia link . that SHOULD lead everyone here to formally regard FLAME as a "hate group":
The founder of FLAME is Gerardo Joffe and he says that "All Arab Muslims may not be a bunch of fanatics, but I've never met one who isn't".[4]
Pryderi
(6,772 posts)
aranthus
(3,385 posts)The first map in the series you posted is an outright lie. The map legend claims that everything in green is "Palestinian owned land". That is totally untrue. In fact, Arabs owned only about the same amount of land as the Jews, and local Palestinians owned only about 20% of that. Most of the land shown in green was actually owned by the government. That is by the British.
The second map of the UN plan doesn't actually show anything real since that plan was never implemented. All it shows is a proposed compromise which the Palestinians rejected.
The third map shows the situation after the war that the Palestinians started and lost. Interestingly, it shows the West Bank and Gaza as "Palestinian land." That would have been news to the Egyptians who conquered Gaza, and the Jordanians, who conquered and annexed the West Bank. Come to think of it, it would have been news to the Palestinians of that time as well, since they never complained about getting shafted by their supposed allies. Also, it calls everything in white, "Jewish land." Except that at least some of that land was owned by Israeli Arabs. The fourth map has similar problems with the truth.
In short, the map series you posted was fabricated to tell a particular set of lies. It's designed to provide talking points to anti-Israel types and foll the unwary. Don't be fooled.
As for the Arabs being Israel's Native Americans, the situation isn't that simple. The Native Americans (First Nation in Canada)have the exclusive claim to being the indigenous peoples of the America's. The original indigenous people of Palestine are the Jews. they are the closest living descendants of the Hebrews. For example, the closest modern relative of ancient Canaanite is the Modern Hebrew, not the Arabic spoken by Palestinians. Here's where it gets complicated. The Palestinians can also lay claim to being an indigenous people of Palestine, since they have lived there for about 1400 years. Neither side has an exclusive claim to the whole country. The difference is that the Jews were willing to compromise, while the Arabs went to war to try and take the whole country. that's still the position today. The Arabs (and the pro-Arabs on this board) have to justify the claim that they have the exclusive right to the whole country.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:26 AM - Edit history (1)
the maps are accurate in where could Palestinians could chose to live and where they can not now you can justify explain away make sound right all you please the fact is the areas where Palestinians can still choose to live is shrinking and few ProArab as you call them actually the word is Palestinian the way you choose to say is akin to calling Obama an African IMO, as to claiming that Palestinians have only lived in the area 1400 years strangely the time around when Mohammad lived is also false and rather bigoted in a clever sort of way,IMO as it insinuates that Palestinians are all Muslims and did not live in the area until that time fact that not only are some Palestinians Christian but also because of historical facts repeat conquests and wars over millennia there have been more than a few conversions by the sword so to speak from Jew to Christian to Muslim back and forth with periods of Pagan thrown in it is more well illustrated here in this video, note this does not imply Israel has no right to exist in fact the PLO recognized that in 1993 however to say that ProPalestinian people especially on this board want Israel wiped out is patently false
This land belongs to me. And you. And them. Oh, and those guys
http://vimeo.com/50531435
http://972mag.com/watch-this-land-belongs-to-me-and-you-and-them-oh-and-those-guys/57264/
aranthus
(3,385 posts)"the maps are accurate in where could Palestinians could chose to live and where they can not now"
[font color=blue]That is not true. First of all the maps don't purport to show that. They claim to show land ownership. That isn't the same thing as who can live where. They aren't even accurate as to land ownership. As for who can live where, the truth is closer to that Arabs and Jews could and can live in the white areas, but only Arabs can live in the green areas.[/font]
"as to claiming that Palestinians have only lived in the area 1400 years strangely the time around when Mohammad lived is also false and rather bigoted in a clever sort of way,IMO as it insinuates that Palestinians are all Muslims"
[font color=blue]Nope. That isn't what I;m saying at all. First off, there weren't any Palestinians 1400 years ago. They were Arabs, same as today. The point was that the Arabs did not generally live in this area until the Muslim conquest about 1400 years ago. The cultural ancestors of modern Palestinians come from Arabia, not Palestine. The video is satirical, not historical. As for not wanting Israel wiped out, anyone who supports the right of return (which includes you, I believe), either wants the Jewish state to not exist or simply ignores the reality that RoR will necessarily end the Jewish state.[/font]
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)to deny that a people actually existed but decided to be kinder than that thank you for correcting me and cultural ancestors from Saudi Arabia isn't that an Islamic country,? so we're back to the same thing
and wanting Israel destroyed depends on how you chose to define it, it reminds me of hearing that America would be destroyed in the early 1960's America is still here but it has changed
aranthus
(3,385 posts)That is how Israel defines itself. You don't get to define it away, and then claim that you aren't intending to destroy it by making it not Jewish. Comparing the changes in America to eliminating the Jewish nature of Israel is ridiculous, and intellectually dishonest foolishness.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)when Israel requires others to define it that way it becomes something else Israel did this in 2010/2011 as a prerequisite with the Palestinians
aranthus
(3,385 posts)Just as everyone is required to accept France as France and not as something else. You have to take other people as they are. If you don't like it then oppose Israel's existence. Which you do. What you don't get to do is oppose Israel's existence and then define your way out of it. That's dishonest and moral cowardice. Have the courage of your convictions and accept the consequences of what you believe.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and the citizens of France are French as the citizens of Israel are Israeli, and accepting Israel's existence however adding to that the caveat that simply accepting Israel as Israel is not enough is an opinion and what one does not get to do is tell others what they can or can not think or accept there is no "moral cowardice" involved and I have expressed exactly what I think no need to define my way out of anything here and explain exactly what you mean by this statement
" Have the courage of your convictions and accept the consequences of what you believe."
aranthus
(3,385 posts)You can't have it both ways. For Israel to be Israel it has to be a Jewish state. Otherwise there's no point to being an Israel. That's just a name. What matters is that it is a Jewish majority state. You're okay with Israel as long as it allows itself to become a majority Arab state (that's the result of RoR). So which is it? You can't be for the existence of Israel and be for RoR. It's like saying you support the existence of France as long as it allows a hundred million Chinese to come in and run the place.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)that seems to be more your own imagination or something as to RoR I believe in the past you've claimed that even with a Palestinian state the UN would force all Palestinian refugees to live in Israel not in a Palestinian State?
shira
(30,109 posts)...then you're for an Arab majority state there.
Is your interpretation of RoR different than that of Hamas, the PLO, etc..?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but sorry not playin' gottcha' and was not having a debate with you in any event
shira
(30,109 posts)aranthus
(3,385 posts)To have an Arab majority state. What makes you think it means anything else?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)no the purpose of RoR is to give Palestinians a home same as a Palestinian state
aranthus
(3,385 posts)Gamal Abdel Nasser, Former Egyptian President, in a Sep. 1, 1960 interview with the Swiss Newspaper Neue Zuercher Zeitung, stated the following:
"If the refugees return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist."
That was in 1960 when there were far fewer "refugees". The number today may be as high a eight million. So if they retrun to Israel, Israel would no longer be a Jewish state, therefore no longer Israel.
"no the purpose of RoR is to give Palestinians a home same as a Palestinian state"
What does this even mean? If the Palestinians have a state then they have their national home. That has nothing to do with Right of Return. RoR means return to what is now Israel. That is what it always meant.
shira
(30,109 posts)In fact, there are none here for a realistic 2 state solution as no anti-zio here has ever voiced support for the Clinton Initiatives, the Geneva plan, or Olmert's offer.
Their idea of 2 states is Arafat's phased plan. A Palestinian state and yet another Palestinian state via RoR into Israel. It's Hamas' plan as well. IOW, the Palestinian "cause".
They expect Israel to negotiate its own national suicide. Anything short is Israeli intransigence.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)There are no people for RoR who are not anti-Zionist.
shira
(30,109 posts)...to keep millions of refugees penned up in camps for decades, in the hopes they can one day be used to destroy Israel demographically.
Rightwing sanctimonious humanitarianism at its best. Something to definitely be proud of!
delrem
(9,688 posts)"anyone who supports the right of return (which includes you, I believe), either wants the Jewish state to not exist or simply ignores the reality that RoR will necessarily end the Jewish state." - aranthus
"“The white establishment is now the minority,” said O’Reilly. “The voters, many of them, feel that the economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff.”
He goes on to say that Hispanics and blacks will vote overwhelmingly for Obama, and that women are more likely to vote for the president, as well.
“People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them those things?” he asks." - quoting Bill O'Reilly
No point in calling Bill O a 'name', as in "This shows that Bill O is an X", because so what? Rather, I'll describe my take on it, which is that Bill O seems to be a weak and frightened man who sees his position in life going under along with a waning "white male establishment". He sees his world falling apart because, apparently, he thinks his (personal) power and position in society depends entirely on the legal/political preeminence of a certain culture that he identifies with. An identity that he thinks he can calculate demographically.
I don't see it that way. IMO Bill O's vision is occluded by an absolutist political stance that sees no room for adaptation, a stance that says that he and his faction are winners or losers, and nothing can be in between. Which to my mind explains why Bill O can only be a bully or a whiner.
But I don't think the nature of democracy is like that. In a democracy there will always be room for small minded culturally stunted people like Bill O, and for equal and opposite numbers who identify with different narrowly defined factions. His position in life isn't threatened by a vote. Furthermore, even tho' the demographic breakdown of the 2012 US vote was astoundingly skewed
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9666345/US-election-2012-how-US-voters-have-changed.html
the actual US political/economic establishment has hardly changed.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)O'Reilly is talking about completely different issues in a different country. No match.
delrem
(9,688 posts)aranthus
(3,385 posts)O'Reilly was talking about race. Whites vs. Blacks and Hispanics. Culturally we are all Americans, whatever our race. The issue between Palestinians and Jews is about two different nations: French vs German or Czech vs. Slovak. Different nations don't work in the same state because the majority nation will have the state do things their way. Race isn't national identity. So the issues O'Reilly was talking about are completely different from those in Israel.
delrem
(9,688 posts)"anyone who supports the right of return ...., either wants the Jewish state to not exist or simply ignores the reality that RoR will necessarily end the Jewish state." - aranthus
Because whether or not the incumbent Israeli politicians (and these are mere humans, you know, who *will* be replaced with others having different ideas) recognize the RoR that international law states that Palestinian refugees *ought* to have and so *do* have, this has nothing whatever to do with the fact that Israeli law defines Jewish Israelis to be a *nation* within Israel.
You may not recognize the O'Reilly-like fears expressed in your statement, but perhaps you can recognize that your statement is false and that your fears have nothing to do with the fact that Jewish Israelis compose an Israeli nationality. Like O'Reilly's fears, yours are simply fears of "the other".
PS: I don't like the term "race" to describe groups or communities of people. It isn't a scientific term, and it is easily twisted to just about any rhetorical purpose. For this reason I actually like your focus on the term 'nationality' to describe the status of the Jewish community within Israel, since as such this term is defined by laws and has an exactitude. However, as such it does not apply of the Jewish diaspora at large, except, again, as defined by Israeli laws, which for historical reasons give that community special allowances w.r.t. immigration and route to citizenship. But again, these matters have nothing whatever to do with the internationally recognized RoR for Palestinian refugees (or any refugees from the horrors of war).
aranthus
(3,385 posts)In fact just the opposite. Since in the case of israel we are talking about two different nations, then one or the other is going to rule. either there will continue to be a Jewish state called Israel, or there is going to be an Arab state, that the Arab majority will call whatever they want.
For this reason even if there was a right of return (and there isn't), then that "right" has to give precedence to the Jewish people's right to a state of their own. Palestine with a Palestinian majority; Israel with a Jewish majority.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Your argument no longer rests on the concept of "nationality" at all!!!
(By the way, you should look up instances where states/countries recognize multiple "nations", each having distinct properties and rights under the greater whole - it certainly *is* possible - in fact, it is the norm.)
You're now saying that Israel is a Jewish *country*, and Jews rule that *country*, and Israeli non-Jews *must be* SUBJUGATED to a Jewish demographic majority if Israel is to survive. I rightly say "subjugated" because in this context that's what "rule" means. When "existential survival" of a country demands that rule over that country be allocated NOT to a mere majority of citizens whoever those citizens may be, but to an identifiable demographic group, whether "whites" or "hispanic" or "Jewish" or ... and whether the group be called "sect" or "nation" or "race"..., then that country is a *tyranny* of one group over all others.
That awful "demographic threat" argument is exactly what you vociferousness *denied* in another thread!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=26342
And even then you hemmed and hawed.
Israel prides itself on being a democracy, so prides itself on being a country where *the majority of citizens* rule, not one in which some "nation" or "sect" rules. Again, you're just showing your O'Reilly like fear that, if the Palestinians were given the RoR that they're justified to according as international law, there'd be a demographic shift and a status quo that favors one group (yours!) of Israelis over another would shift. Just like the O'Reilly types are scared shitless of immigration, of minority birthrates, etc.
In any case, regardless of whether Israel's Jewish community maintains a substantial demographic majority, you cannot stop the minds of the individual Israeli Jewish citizens from changing, "evolving" (in Obama's words), perhaps becoming less fearful, perhaps recognizing the full human rights of Israel's minorities, including a RoR. What would you do then???
aranthus
(3,385 posts)In Israel there is a Jewish majority, which makes the national culture of the state Jewish. If you change that by allowing right of return, then you will have a state with an Arab majority, by defintion a different nation.
delrem
(9,688 posts)that you're trying to argue.
So there's no point in further discussion.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)The difference between a Jewish Israel and a Palestinian Israel is the difference between France and China. But you neither recognize nor respect that difference. As you say, you don't care what kind of state it is as long as it follows international law (itself an illusion and immoral to boot). We live on different planets.
shira
(30,109 posts)I want to know what you're advocating. All evidence points to a sharia style theocracy that would result in place of Israel's liberal democracy. It doesn't matter whether you want this or not, but that's what will result. No evidence exists showing otherwise. No significant liberal/progressive Palestinian leadership exists to show otherwise.
FTR, I couldn't care less whether Palestinians, Germans, Scotts, or Chinese flood into Israel - making Jews into a minority there. All scenarios are unacceptable. Even if a liberal democracy remained in place. History shows Jews do not fare well in the long run under non-Jewish rule. Germany was arguably more progressive than any other European nation back in the day...
delrem
(9,688 posts)except one that accepts and adheres to the basics of international humanitarian law.
shira
(30,109 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)In your "FYI" you explained the absolute racial basis of your concept of politics. It isn't a concept that allows ground for discussion with those who might differ. So I'm not interested in playing your 'Truth or Dare' type games.
shira
(30,109 posts)As to IHL, there's no such thing as a demand for a Palestinian RoR. If you're referring to a UNGA resolution, that's not law as much as it is a suggestion. Palestinians aren't even mentioned. Besides, there were Jewish refugees too. I believe you're referring to a UNGA resolution that mentions refugees, but doesn't specify whom.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Anyhow, I quit playing your game. There's no point to it.
shira
(30,109 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)OK. I'll bite.
I'm not saying "racist", I'm saying "racial".
But I'm only referring back to your own "FYI", where you assert your demand for the demographic hegemony of your group (however you denominate it) over others (in a land that includes others). If you think your demand for the *necessary* demographic hegemony of your group over others isn't somehow a "racial basis" for your concept of politics, perhaps you could tell me what you think it is?
PLEASE: don't red herring along paths of "nation" vs "sect" vs "religion" vs "race" vs whatever. We all know that the the Jewish population is rather unique w.r.t. those classifications, and those red herrings are so effing *tired*. "race" is a totally bastardized term and I know it.
shira
(30,109 posts)Yes, you're right. I believe Israel must remain the Jewish homeland. It's a unique situation. If there were another persecuted people on the planet who had legitimate historical rights to a homeland of their own, I'd be for their demographic hegemony too. I can't understand how anyone could be against that.
You realize that 90 years ago, the LoN (and later UN) legitimized such a Jewish homeland? That's International law, like it or not. If you believe allowing full RoR is IHL as well, then we have a conflict don't we?
delrem
(9,688 posts)You are against it when done to your group,
you are for it when done by your group,
and like any racially based politics, it leads to and nurtures war and ever deepening atrocity.
Bob Marley: War/No More Trouble
shira
(30,109 posts)...worldwide. 10's of millions, actually. And I never said I was for ethnic cleansing.
OTOH, the perpetuation of the refugee situation isn't of Israel's making. Millions are refugees now due to the Arab world's fantasy that those refugees will one day demographically destroy Israel. What's disturbing is how the so-called pro-Palestinian faction could care less about these refugees and their offspring rotting away in camps for the past 6 decades. The UN should've strongly condemned this decades ago. Instead, they're busy perpetuating it (UNRWA).
delrem
(9,688 posts)and your games with semantics and finger pointing can't change the facts of what happened.
shira
(30,109 posts)Professor Benny Morris, letter published in the Irish Times
21 February 2008
Israel haters are fond of citing – and more often, mis-citing – my work in support of their arguments. Let me offer some corrections.
The Palestinian Arabs were not responsible “in some bizarre way” (David Norris, 31 January 2008 ) for what befell them in 1948. Their responsibility was very direct and simple.
The UN's partition plan of 1947
In defiance of the will of the international community, as embodied in the UN General Assembly Resolution of November 29 1947 (No 181, the partition plan) they launched hostilities against the Jewish community in Palestine in the hope of aborting the emergence if the Jewish state and perhaps destroying that community. But they lost; and one of the results was the displacement of 700,000 of them from their homes.
How did the Arabs come to be displaced?
It is true, as Erskine Childers pointed out long ago, that there were no Arab radio broadcasts urging the Arabs to flee en masse; indeed there were broadcasts by several Arab radio stations urging them to stay put. But, on the local level, in dozens of localities around Palestine , Arab leaders advised or ordered the evacuation of women and children or whole communities, as occurred in Haifa in late April 1948. And Haifa 's Jewish mayor, Shabtai Levy, did, on April 22, plead with them to stay, to no avail.
Most of Palestine 's 700,000 “refugees” fled their homes because of the onset of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of the victorious Arab leaders). But it is also true that there were several dozen sites, including Lydda and Ramleh, from which Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops.
The displacement of the 700,000 Arabs who becames refugees – and I put the term in inverted commas, as two thirds of them were displaced from one part of Palestine to another and not from their country (which is the usual definition of a refugee) – was not a “racist crime” (David Landy, 24 January), but the result of a national conflict and a war, with religious overtones, from the Muslim perspective, launched by the Arabs themselves.
Plan D….
There was no Zionist plan or blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of “ethnic cleansing”. Plan Dalet (or Plan D) of March 10 1948 (it is open and available for all to read in the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) Archive and in various publications) was the master plan of the Haganah – the Jewish military force that became the IDF – to counter the expected pan-Arab assault on the emergent Jewish state. That's what it explicitly states and that's what it was. And the invasion of the armies of Egypt , Jordan , Syria and Iraq duly occurred, on May 15 1948 (the date of Israel 's declaration of independence).
It is true that Plan D gave the regional commanders carte blanche to occupy and garrison or expel and destroy Arab villages along and behind the front lines and the anticipated Arab armies' invasion routes. And it is also true that mid-way in the 1948 war the Israeli leaders decided to bar the return of the refugees (those “refugees” who had just assaulted the Jewish community), viewing them as a potential fifth column and threat to the Jewish state's existence. I for one cannot fault their fears or logic.
The demonisation of Israel , and Arab propaganda
The demonisation of Israel is largely based upon lies – much as the demonisation of the Jews during the last 2000 years has been based on lies. And there is a connection between the two.
I would recommend that the likes of Norris and Landy read some history books, and become acquainted with the facts, not recycle shopworn Arab propaganda. They might then learn, for example, that the ‘ Palestine war' of 1948 (the War of Independence, as Israelis call it) began in November 1947, not in May 1948. By May 14, close to 2000 Israelis had died – of the 5800 dead suffered by Israel in the whole war (ie almost 1 percent of the Jewish population of Palestine/Israel, which was about 650,000).
Yours sincerely
Prof Benny Morris
delrem
(9,688 posts)and by denying RoR that's exactly what it is!
So cut the crap.
shira
(30,109 posts)...were internally displaced within historical Palestine. That is not ethnic cleansing by any definition, is it? Leaving you with 1/3 left - correct?
Also, realize that what you are pining for is far more abominable than ethnic cleansing. The RoR you are in favor of would bring on certain war and probably 100's of thousands of casualties and/or another expulsion (one way or the other). So besides being an advocate of millions of refugees wasting away in camps the past 60 years in order to realize the fantasy of RoR, you are also in favor of imminent war upon their arrival into Israel.
There's nothing humane about that.
ETA
There were also the same amount of Jewish refugees expelled from Arab nations. What do you think IHL has to say about that? How do you correct that abomination?
delrem
(9,688 posts)and by denying RoR that's exactly what it is!
So cut the crap.
shira
(30,109 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)you *do* in fact support ethnic cleansing when perpetrated by your group.
Your justification, like all justifications for crimes against humanity, being a mere supposition that it is for the greater good.
shira
(30,109 posts)...what's repulsive and abominable is your solution to it. How do you justify igniting another war and additional ethnic cleansing via RoR? RoR is the wet dream of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. How do you justify supporting a fascist, warmongering, rightwing, nationalist theocracy (which will result) over a pluralistic, liberal democracy?
I understand the Arab League's justification. They're rightwing, regressive, totalitarian, theocratic fascists.
What's your excuse?
========
BTW, it really wasn't ethnic cleansing. It was a war. Read Benny Morris again.
delrem
(9,688 posts)We have nothing more to talk about.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)it's sick that it is being justified here on DU.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)In 2007, there is land that is under Jewish military and civil control?
zellie
(437 posts)unfortunately I can think of anything right now.
regnaD kciN
(26,044 posts)...of the land allotted to them by the UN settlement is a pretty big move. A lot more than Israel has done to advance peace, IMHO.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Really? How many things can you think of? and how many topics can you think things about?
Are there some days where you can only think of a small number of things?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)and then I want to see if you are still willing to sing Kumbaya with me.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Wed Jan 2, 2013, 05:15 PM - Edit history (2)
Gaza and the W.Bank were illegally occupied by Jordan and Egypt.
Did Israel steal from Egypt and Jordan?
=================
The original PLO charter of 1964 explicitly states:
"Article 24. This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or the Himmah Area."
They made no claim to the W.Bank & Gaza Strip.
They never charged Jordan or Egypt with land theft.
=================
In fact, if Israel came to an agreement sooner with Jordan and Egypt, those territories would remain illegally occupied by those nations and the Palestinians wouldn't have claimed that land for themselves. IOW, no Palestinian state in the territories.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)As you know, the Palestinians didn't lose a dunum of land until after they began the war to drive out the Jews from land that the Jews owned. Not only that, the Palestinians actually owned less of the land of Palestine than the Jews (Arabs owned about as much, but most were outsiders, not Palestinians). So what did the Jews take from the Palestinians that justified going to war? We're told that the Jews stole their country, but they didn't have one to steal. So what is it?