Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumIsrael to UN: Recognize Hamas as a terror organization
The Israeli delegation to the UN will demand the organization to recognize Hamas as a terror organization and as part of the appeal a first-of-its-kind meeting will take place between head of the Israeli army's international law department Colonel Noam Neuman, the Foreign Ministry's legal adviser Ehud Keinan to UN senior officials.
To date, The UN has never officially recognized any organization as a terrorist organization.
"Operation Protective Edge serves as a serious 'indictment' that reveals Hamas' international crimes with emphasis on the terror tunnels as well as the usage of civilians as human shields," said the delegation's statement.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4584626,00.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Then we should examine all organized, self-identified groups (e.g., countries, corporations, nonprofits, etc.) to see if that definition applies them.
I think we should be fair.
shira
(30,109 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Piss off too many people?
hack89
(39,171 posts)
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)You'd have to come up with some sort of time limit, such that an organization drops off the list after X number of years without committing an act that fits the definition. And even then, various 'first world' nations (like the US) would be popping up all too often.
A. The threat we face
145. Terrorism attacks the values that lie at the heart of the Charter of the United Nations: respect for human rights; the rule of law; rules of war that protect civilians; tolerance among peoples and nations; and the peaceful resolution of conflict.
Terrorism flourishes in environments of despair, humiliation, poverty, political oppression, extremism and human rights abuse; it also flourishes in contexts of regional conflict and foreign occupation; and it profits from weak State capacity to maintain law and order.
146. Two new dynamics give the terrorist threat greater urgency. Al-Qaida is the first instance — not likely to be the last — of an armed non-State network with global reach and sophisticated capacity. Attacks against more than 10 Member
States on four continents in the past five years have demonstrated that Al-Qaida and associated entities pose a universal threat to the membership of the United Nations and the United Nations itself. In public statements, Al-Qaida has singled out the United Nations as a major obstacle to its goals and defined it as one of its enemies. Second, the threat that terrorists — of whatever type, with whatever motivation — will seek to cause mass casualties creates unprecedented dangers. Our
recommendations provided above on controlling the supply of nuc lear, radiological, chemical and biological materials and building robust global public health systems are central to a strategy to prevent this threat.
http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/terrorism/sg%20high-level%20panel%20report-terrorism.htm
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)1)It's impossible to get rid of Hamas-other than to replace it with another group that will be MORE extreme.
2)Even more scorched-earth tactics in Gaza will simply solidify Hamas' support.
3)Hamas' behavior isn't going to be changed through international censure. Most of the international community has been denouncing Hamas for years now and none of the denunciations have made any difference at all.
The only way is to negotiate, since military victory for either side is permanently impossible.
And, once again, the main reason Hamas has the prominence it now holds within Gaza and Palestine is that the Israeli government spent years before that trying(pointlessly)to delegitimize the PLO, a much more reasonable and secular organization, as the voice of the Palestinian people. The Israelis did all they could to encourage Hamas' growth as an alternative to the PLO(even though they always knew Hamas would be a more extreme group)and they gave Hamas its big break in showbiz when they humiliated Arafat by putting him under siege in Ramallah. The rise of Hamas when the PLO declined prove that the only thing that can come of Israeli attempts to create an "acceptable" Palestinian leadership is more and more extremism on the Palestinian side.
Negotiations don't work unless you negotiate with the ACTUAL leadership on the other side, not a leadership you created out of nowhere.
It's time to learn the lessons of history and reality.
shira
(30,109 posts)Maybe the 2 sides meet halfway and Israel can exist on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Remember, Netanyahu is still basically opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state, even though Israel has no right to ask the Palestinians to be peaceable as long as that hope is being taken away from them.
Yes, Netanyahu was elected...but the Pals have as much reason to consider his side terrorists as the Israelis have to consider Hamas.
Both leaderships are rotten.
And as I understand it, Hamas' position isn't that rigid.
You will at least concede my point that, when the Israelis decided to delegitimize and discredit the PLO(also under a Netanyahu government)that no good came of that decision at all, I hope. Unless you consider more anti-peace illegal settlements in the West Bank some sort of a good.
You have to negotiate with the people who actually have the weapons. Refusing to deal with them and negotiating with somebody else is a waste of time, because nothing an alternate leadership could sign would have any value if the armed factions don't buy in to it.
You're going to have to accept that it's not possible to "crush Hamas", any more than its possible to crush the IDF. If Hamas could have been crushed, it would have been by now.
shira
(30,109 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There's no other reason the government would put settlement expansion ahead of ending the conflict.
Netanyahu cares more about keeping Palestinians stateless than anything else. He doesn't ever want peace, he just wants "victory"
even though he knows "victory" is actually impossible-continuing to insist on "winning" is what he needs to keep people voting for his party, because Likud can only exist while perpetual war exists.
And Netanyahu's insistence on keeping Israel troops in the West Bank even after such a state was "created" is about making sure that Palestinian sovereignty is never real...that Palestinians have nothing but a statelet-on-sufferance-a situation he knows no Palestinian leadership can ever accept. Thus, it's a position designed to keep everything the same forever.
To Palestinians, all of the above(and the collective punishment of ALL Palestinians for the actions of a violent few)is just as much "terrorism" as anything Hamas or Al-Aksa does. It's all designed for no other reason than to create a sense of fear, humiliation and hopelessness...a climate in which nothing positive can happen.
shira
(30,109 posts)Even Netanyahu has offered the Palestinians at least 60% of the W.Bank with no conditions, so the problem isn't that Israel is denying the Palestinians a land for themselves.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3879974,00.html
They've pulled out of Gaza and offered 60% of the W.Bank. If the Palestinians and their phony western supporters really wanted the Palestinians to have a state for themselves, they'd have fallen over themselves to grab such an opportunity.
Can you imagine the Kurds, Basques, or Tibetans rejecting a 60% land offer for a state of their own? It's actually more considering Gaza.
I cannot. It's fucking inconceivable.
So whereas the Kurds, Basques, and Tibetans really want a state for themselves, the Palestinians and their supporters want something else. I challenge you to state what that something else is.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)have you got any vids qued up for that?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Meanwhile, Mashaal has stated he would accept 1967 borders.
Personally, I don't put much stock in empty statements by war criminals on either side. After all, both the Hamas and Likud charters explicitly reject the recognition of two states in I/P. But if we're playing that game, Hamas has actually made a more reasonable statement here than Bibi.
shira
(30,109 posts)And can you see any other people like the Kurds, Tibetans, or Basques rejecting such an offer?
Seriously, now.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It's truly amazing to see you praising Bibi for offering to steal only 40% of the Palestinians' land, and then insisting that the Palestinians are the bad guys for not accepting this. I wonder how Israelis would feel about a "compromise" in which Israel had to hand over 40% of its land to the Palestinians.
Why doesn't Israel accept 1967 borders? Why do they keep expanding settlements? Those are the real questions, and those are questions you are afraid to ask yourself, it might force you to confront uncomfortable truths beyond the mindless cheerleading.
shira
(30,109 posts)No other stateless people would reject such an offer and you know that very well.
Too bad you and your Palestinian friends support the occupation when that could have ended for more than half the W.Bank. Of course I support the Clinton Initiatives and Olmert's 2008 offer that was a 100% land deal for the Palestinians after swaps.
Turns out you and your fellow pro-Palestinians are the ones who are pro-occupation and pro-settlements.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)...and pro-settlements, just like your alleged pro-Palestinian friends here.
I support the Clinton Initiatives from 1999-00 as well as Olmert's 2008 offer. Both would've ended the occupation and settlements. Olmert's offer was a 100% land deal after swaps.
You guys want the conflict to continue forever.
You're the ones making excuses to keep the occupation and settlements ongoing, not me.
Why does Israel keep expanding settlements?
Why don't they accept pre-67 borders?
Go ahead, dodge again. It's entertaining to watch.
shira
(30,109 posts)There would be no more settlements if they'd been accepted, and both proposals were based on the '67 borders with land swaps.
You and your friends are the ones who want the conflict to continue, not the Zionists here.
I haven't met any anti-Zio, BDS, pro-Palestinians in favor of any 2 state settlement that would end the occupation or settlements. Leading me to believe they're all phonies who'd have to begrudgingly pick up another hobby should I/P be resolved.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Two simple questions. Does any other right-wing apologist for Israeli aggression want to play?
shira
(30,109 posts)...having their own state based on the '67 lines w/ no more occupation or settlements.
Israel has made this offer several times since Oslo and it turns out the anti-Israel, pro-BDS, anti-zionists here at DU are against it, proving they're the right wingers who support rightwing Palestinian extremists. Meanwhile, the Zionists here support these offers for 2 states.
You're not fooling anyone when you accuse others of holding beliefs that you yourself hold. You're projecting...
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Why does Israel keep building settlements? Why don't they accept pre-67 borders?
shira
(30,109 posts)Not on new land, but within settlement blocs already established.
Netanyahu agreed to hold talks based on the '67 lines. Here are the many articles reporting it...
http://www.israpundit.org/archives/63601127
Now why are you against Israeli peace offers that grant Palestinians a 100% deal based on '67 lines (with land swaps) that would end the occupation and settlements?
Note the irony. You're asking me about settlements and '67 lines, but neither you nor your friends here support Israeli offers that would've addressed both points.
No dodging.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And every settlement built makes peace more difficult. And Israel knows this.
Also, the Israeli refusal to accept pre-67 borders is also completely indefensible. This is why those two questions tend to render right-wingers tongue-tied. Some other issues, like say right of return, Israel has the plausible excuse that it would upset their racial composition (and what self-respecting right-winger doesn't understand that racial purity is worth a little ethnic cleansing).
But the settlements and the borders, there's simply no defense.
I am in favor of 2 states along 67 borders. Israel is not. Ironically, Hamas has stated they would accept 67 borders, while Bibi is offering stuff like the 60% and people like you are trying to pretend the Palestinians are the bad guys for not "accepting" 60% of their land. You know it's bad when Hamas is the reasonable party.
shira
(30,109 posts)1. You're assuming everything beyond the '48 armistice lines are exclusively Palestinian land. Those lines aren't borders.
2. The Palestinians agreed to settlement building at Oslo. It was Israel that decided to not build anymore new settlements after Oslo. And they haven't.
Netanyahu agreed to talks based on the '67 lines.
It's not about race. The 2 peoples are arguably the same race. It's about 2 warring peoples who cannot get along peacefully. Last time they were united, there was a civil war which precluded an all-out Arab assault on the Jews.
"Simply no defense" says someone who is clearly confused about the reality of the situation.
Then you should be in favor of the Clinton Initiatives and Olmert offer. Are you? Let's test this claim that you're in favor....
Did they say so in Arabic? Was this part of a final settlement or part of a 10 year ceasefire? Do you believe everything Hamas says to a western audience?
And Peres and Barak. They are not rightwingers.
No, it's that they didn't accept far better, the Clinton Initiatives and Olmert's offer. They didn't even come back with a counter-proposal. I want to see you defend that.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)If you don't consider the settlements to be criminal, you truly are a fringe right-winger. Which comes as a surprise to nobody here.
Bibi claiming to "agree to talks" is meaningless. If he was interested in peace along 67 borders, he wouldn't be building settlements. Period.
And, no, I don't believe everything Hamas says. I also don't believe everything Bibi says. Just pointing out that only one of the two parties has actually said that they would accept 67 borders (and I mean the actual 67 borders, not some land swap gerrymandering where Israel takes what it wants and gives up less land in areas it doesn't care about). Still, like I said, both are war criminals. The difference between you and me here is that you are committed to defending one of them no matter what, whereas I will criticize both.
Oh, and the Clinton initiative was not peace along 67 borders. Full retreat to 67 has never been offered by Israel. Both parties are arguably partly to blame for failing to reach an agreement. But only one party is to blame for the settlement building and land theft. That party is Israel.
shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Jews living in parts of Jerusalem is not criminal. Only racist extremists have a problem with Jews living in their historic homeland and capital. There is no law banning Jews from living on or purchasing homes anywhere in the world.
Now you're exposing your own extremism. Even the Saudi/Arab Initiative (backed by 56 nations in the region excluding Iran) calls for land swaps.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/middle-east/5878-arab-league-agrees-to-endorse-new-peace-plan-including-land-swap
I'm not surprised at all you'd reject both the Clinton Initiatives and Olmert Plan. Extreme rightwingers and Iran reject them as well.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Jews can live wherever they want, and so can Palestinians, for that matter. What they can't do is annex Palestinian land into the Israeli state. Regardless of what they consider to be their "historic homeland". And the fact that you are here defending settlements puts you squarely in the fringe right.
Last post, you asked me about 67 borders. I said I was in favor. Obviously, it turns out you are not, and I'm glad you've acknowledged that Israel has never actually offered 67 borders. Not the first time you've been caught saying false things, and it surely won't be the last.
Like I said, the Clinton Initiative failed due to both parties failing to reach an agreement. Both parties share responsibility for that. But there is only one party responsible for the illegal settlement building. That party is Israel.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Why are there still Kurdish nationalist movements operating in Turkey and Syria and Iran? By your logic the Kurds should just be content with the roughly 60% of Kurdistan that falls within the autonomous region of Iraq. But they're not.
For the Basques' part, they are not under occupation no do most of their organizations regard themselves as being under occupation. Rather, Basque nationalists want to form a Basque nation through voting. They have more in common with the Quebecois and Scots than with the Palestinians, Kurds, or Irish movements.
As for Tibet... by your call for a flotilla to Tibet, you're obviously not very familiar with the topography of the place. But, if you didn't know, about 55% of historical Tibet is the TIbet Autonomous Region (go ahead, giggle at the word "autonomous, it's deserved.) But from all accounts, the Tibetans aren't the least bit grateful that nearly 60% of Tibet is, well, Tibet. What a bunch of fucking ingrates, right? Might have something to do with the fact much of that 55% looks like the fucking moon. No doubt they're just a bunch of dirty anti-sinicists out to destroy China, though.
Inconceivable, you say?
shira
(30,109 posts)Israel has offered much more than 60% with both the Clinton Initiatives from 1999-2000 and Olmert 2008. The latter was a 100% land offer after swaps. Both would've ended the occupation and settlements and in addition would've given the Palestinians nearly everything (not all) they're demanding.
They didn't even come back with a counter-offer.
That's what you support, no solution at all. Continued conflict, ongoing occupation/settlements. What other hobby would you pick up if the conflict ended?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)This seems to be where you seem to be terribly confused. You have it in your head that Israel is being generous, doing Palestine a favor with these "offers," that Palestine should be grateful. And then when they are not expressing gratitude for the generosity of their conqueror offering them 60%, out of the remaining 48%, of the 100% of Palestine that was wrested from them by force and ethnic cleansing, you then use their refusal as justification for taking even more from them by force.
You want peace, Shira? Abandon the notion that Palestinians owe Palestine to Israel, first.
shira
(30,109 posts)You're confused.
The original 1964 PLO charter never claimed the W.Bank and Gaza was part of Palestine, only Israel within the green line.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)screams the truth while you run off. Yes, you're done and excused.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)why would it be expected to make an exception on Israel's behalf?
King_David
(14,851 posts)Nobody expects the UN to do anything on Israel's behalf , ever.
Not just Israel , the UN cancelled a Jewish exhibition on AntiSemitism once under pressure from Arab States -- and that was a Diaspora Jewish exhibit.
So nobody expects the UN to do anything for Israel and or Jews-- ever.
Response to shira (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
King_David
(14,851 posts)That's funny.
When was the election?
One man one vote one time.
Response to King_David (Reply #10)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)back in 06 or somesuch, they won a majority of seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council?
If my memory serves the election was something that Israel and the US had wanted to happen for a while, though if my memory is equally correct they didn't approve of that result and came down hard on Gaza in the aftermath, which resulted in an internal Palestinian conflict and Hamas basically ejecting Fatah and taking over Gaza fully. (a very shortened line of events but i think it should be about 80% or more accurate)
I seem to recall a number of countries complimenting the election(mainly middle eastern ones though i believe Sweden and Japan was also amongst their numbers) and others obviously being a lot more critical(the US, UK and Italy being the most prominent in my mind, not to surprising mind you when considering the year and thus the people in power at the time)
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Israel currently has three parties?
Hamas is the one significant party in Palestine?
Where are you getting this from (besides Wikipedia) ?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)How many demerits does one receive for lying your ass off and killing scores of innocent
people? hmmm
This is all about Israel protecting itself from their responsibilities during their assault
on Gaza...duh.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)Israel is the same country that refuses to accept the UN's authority on investigating human rights violations in its recent Gaza action.
Now they want to selectively use the UN as a hammer against Hamas.
Israel's politicians are truly hapless.
The Israeli people need to wake up and smell what their leaders are shoveling and get a new crew in there.
They are GOING TO lose the American middle eventually. When that happens it is definitely uh-oh time.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)They come calling when they need a good cry then ignore it when it asks for the basic dignity of others.