Norwegian Socialists "work for peace" by singling out Israel for boycott

[TokenJew]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1136361045688&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFullNorway's Socialist Left Party said Monday it stood by a planned boycott of Israeli goods, even though the party's leader was forced to back down on the issue as a member of government.

Party leader and Finance Minister Kristin Halvorsen brought Norway to the brink of a diplomatic crisis with Israel last week by publicly endorsing a consumer boycott of the Jewish state to protest Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

However, both Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere were quick to announce that Halvorsen's view was not shared by the government or any of her partners in the governing coalition.

The leftist leader also faced harsh criticism from opposition parties in Parliament.

On Friday, Halvorsen apologized.

"As a Cabinet member and finance minister I should not express a policy that is not in line with the official Norwegian foreign policy," she said. She also said her party's view on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was well known and should not come as a surprise.

On Monday, the Socialist Left said, as a party, it sticks by plans adopted in August to encourage people to boycott Israeli goods and support the Palestinians.

Aasa Elvik, a Socialist Left member of Parliament, said the campaign, originally planned for later this month, could be delayed due to the uncertainty in Israeli politics as a result of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's illness.

Last month, Norway's Soer-Trondelag county board also caused a stir by becoming the first Norwegian province to formally boycott Israel. That drew protests, including demonstrations outside Norwegian embassies in Tel Aviv, Washington and Ottawa.

Norway has been a mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, most notably by secretly negotiating the now-tattered Oslo peace agreement in 1993. It also awarded the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize to Israeli leaders Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

[Boojatta]

1. If men and women in Israel who are about to be drafted are singled out for

fast-track status as immigrants to Norway, then there will be fewer soldiers serving the military in Israel and more people in the world enjoying the dividends of the age of peace that was supposed to have started at the end of the Cold War.

[eyl]

3. How do you figure that? n/t

[Boojatta]

4. If one regularly gives charity to just two people, rather than to some

charitable organization, and keeps them from suffering effects of poverty, then is that not good enough for one to say that one is doing a bit to relieve the effects of poverty?

Do you claim that, as a result of the decision to not buy whatever one would have bought with the charity money, there will be some other suffering just as serious as the poverty that one relieved?

[eyl]

6. ?????

I was asking about your proposal to fast-track immigration to Norway for Israeli draft candidates.....

[Boojatta]

12. I meant not just high speed, but make it easier for them to be approved as

legal immigrants. For example, they may need to be able to legally work in Norway even if they are just visiting and have not been approved as potential immigrants, provided that they have initiated the legal process to apply to become immigrants to Norway.

[eyl]

57. understand what "fast-track" means

I just don't understand what you think that will accomplish. Are their lines of Israelis seeking immigration to Norway (or anywhere else) to escape the draft?

[adriennui]

2. where are boycotts

of saudi arabia, egypt, china, north korea, liberia, etc....or are these boycotts selective to the ntttttth degree. european countries beware the pandering....it will come bac and devour you. buh bye western civilization.

hypocrites!!!!!!

[julianer]

5. The point is that the Palestinian people are in

favour of a boycott of Israel and are calling for it from their supporters throughout the world.

http://www.bigcampaign.org/

It is a question of solidarity with oppressed people. The situation in the other countries you mention is different - it is up to the citizens of those countries to effect change there and to call for help from their friends. There are no groups calling for boycotts as far as I know - do you have any links?

The boycott of South Africa was called for by the ANC and this is a very similar situation, with the wall providing the equivalent of separate development, and the settlements creating a bantustanisation of the Palestinian land.

Boycotting racist states is a pretty normal left-wing activity. I've been boycotting Israel for years and years, just as I boycotted South Africa (apart from a South African lodger!).

[TokenJew]

7. Israel is not the same as South Africa

This is a false dichotomy. Israel isn't a racist state at all. If there is a racist group here, it's the Palestinians who want the land 100% Jew free.

[julianer]

8. That's not true at all

Israel has laws that give preferential rights to Jews over Palestinians born in the present state of Israel.

' Israel has a law of return that allows Jews from all over the world to immigrate to Israel and be granted citizenship automatically. Israel actively seeks Jewish immigration. Palestinian refugees who fled Israeli in 1948 and 1967 want the right to return to their homes in Israel (Right of Return), and Palestinians historically have tried to limit Jewish immigration to Israel and abolish the Law of Return. Many Palestinian refugee families have kept keys to their homes in what is now Israel, even though the homes themselves no longer exist. Return of Palestinian refugees and their descendants, including all those who claim the status of Palestinian refugees, would establish an Arab majority in Israel and would therefore mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.'

http://www.mideastweb.org/peaceplans.htm


Israel allows public decisions to be made on the basis of race.

'A conference on finding ways to achieve a permanent Jewish majority in Acre is to be held on Sunday in the northern Jewish-Arab city. The convention, the first of its kind, was initiated by the New Forum for Strengthening the Jewish community in Acre, lead by council member Muli Cohen, a member of Mayor Shimon Lankri's faction in the city council.

Over the weekend, Cohen told a local newspaper that Acre has the right to exist as a mixed city only if it has a permanent Jewish majority. "The real solution is to establish appropriate institutions so that the city would be able to receive nationalist ultra-Orthodox families," he told the Zafon1 newspaper.

The Acre municipality said in response that "the mayor supports any activity that may advance the city and bring in strong populations to advance it."'

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/667581.html

It seems to me that you need to come to terms with these rather ugly truths about Israel.

[TokenJew]

9. How is that any more racist than immigration policies

in France and other European countries that allow people of French descent or other "natives" preferential immigration rights over those without?

Is France a racist state?

and since when is jewish a race?

You failed note the fact that palestinians seek to remove all Jews from the west bank and Gaza I see.

[Wordie]

27. (HRW) Israel: Bill Would Deny Compensation for Rights Abuses

Israel: Bill Would Deny Compensation for Rights Abuses
Palestinians Would Be Excluded from Seeking Remedies in Israeli Courts

(Jerusalem, June 26, 2005)—Members of the Israeli Knesset are debating a bill that would prohibit residents in the Occupied Palestinian Territories from seeking compensation for death or injury at the hands of Israeli soldiers, even if the soldiers are found to have acted unlawfully.

If implemented, this bill would prohibit Palestinians under occupation from seeking compensation even if an Israeli soldier is found guilty of killing a civilian without any justification at all

Human Rights Watch said that Israel has not upheld its obligation under international law to provide an effective remedy to victims of human rights abuses in the Territories, and this bill is yet further evidence of that.

On Thursday, Human Rights Watch attended the hearing of the Knesset’s Constitution, Law and Justice Committee in which members of parliament debated an amendment to the Civil Wrongs (Liability of State) Law, 5712-1952. The proposed amendment would prohibit “a national of an enemy state or a resident of a conflict zone” from bringing claims for compensation against the state in an Israeli court for harm inflicted by Israeli forces. This would apply even if Israeli forces have clearly acted wrongfully and regardless of whether the harm occurs in the Occupied Palestinian Territories or beyond.

The bill would give the minister of defense the authority to define all of the Occupied Palestinian Territories as a “conflict zone,” thus precluding compensation for all Palestinians in the territories. The government has stated that it will exclude settlements from “the conflict zone,” thus preserving compensation rights for Israeli citizens.

The bill seeks to expand an already problematic Israeli law that prohibits compensation for “war operations,” which are defined to include “any action combating terror, hostile acts or insurrection, and also an action intended to prevent terror, hostile acts, or insurrection that is taken in a situation endangering life or limb.” This would prohibit all residents of a “conflict zone” from seeking compensation whether or not the harm they have suffered is related to any specific operation.

“If implemented, this bill would prohibit Palestinians under occupation from seeking compensation even if an Israeli soldier is found guilty of killing a civilian without any justification at all,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “It sends the message that Israel will offer no remedy to certain victims, no matter how wrong or unlawful the conduct of its soldiers.”

Under international human rights law, every state is obliged to provide effective remedies to victims of human rights violations. That requirement includes the obligation to provide victims and their relatives with fair and adequate compensation. In addition, Israel is obligated to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the abuses.

Although Israel disputes that its international human rights obligations apply to the Occupied Territories, this view has been rejected definitively by the international bodies responsible for monitoring state compliance under these treaties. Israel is a party to five international human rights treaties that require the state to ensure a remedy to persons whose human rights are violated. (See here.)

“The Knesset should respect Israel’s international legal obligation to provide victims of human rights abuses with compensation,” said Whitson.

The Israeli government maintains that it has no duty under international law to pay compensation to civilians during a time of armed conflict. The government also claims that there is a permanent state of armed conflict in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. However, as the occupying power, much of the time Israel is policing and performing law enforcement duties instead, Human Rights Watch said.

More than 1,600 civilians have been killed in the territories in situations outside of armed conflict since September 2000. But if implemented as the government has suggested, this bill would preclude compensation for any of the victims of unlawful conduct even in cases outside armed conflict.

“Even a situation of actual armed conflict does not preempt all human rights obligations,” Whitson said. “Israel still has an obligation to ensure remedies for serious violations.”

In addition, the Israeli government has claimed that lawsuits filed by Palestinians for compensation would place an undue burden on the state and on reservists who would have to testify. The government also argued that such cases may require it to disclose classified military intelligence regarding the conduct of military operations. Inconvenience to state agencies and actors, however, is no justification for denying certain victims their rights under international law, Human Rights Watch said.

Furthermore, claims for compensation raise no greater need for disclosure of sensitive information than already exists when courts investigate misconduct by the Israeli military. Israeli courts can determine on a case-by-case basis whether and how to disclose sensitive information in a manner that does not compromise national security.

Several Israeli legal scholars have testified that the proposed amendment would contravene not only international law, but Israeli law as well. Mordechai Kremnitzer, professor of constitutional and criminal law at Hebrew University, testified at the hearing that the bill “contradicts Israel’s Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and … will not withstand judicial scrutiny…. The bill contributes to and reflects the process of the demonization of the Palestinians.” Kremnitzer also pointed out that the amendment would enable plaintiffs to successfully seek redress in foreign courts based on their lack of remedy in Israeli courts.

Orna Kohn, a staff attorney at the domestic human rights organization Adalah, also testified in opposition to the bill. She said that “approving this bill would not only deprive Palestinians from the right to obtain a basic form of justice — compensation for the wrongs they have suffered — it would also further contribute to the military’s lack of accountability by taking away an important form of sanction for human rights violations committed under its command.”

Human Rights Watch on Wednesday released a report, “Promoting Impunity: The Israeli Military’s Failure to Investigate Wrongdoing,” documenting how the Israeli government has failed in its legal obligation to investigate whether soldiers have killed or injured Palestinian civilians unlawfully or failed to protect them from harm.

The report found that Israeli authorities have investigated fewer than five percent of fatal incidents to determine whether soldiers were responsible for using force unlawfully. When investigations were undertaken, they frequently fell far short of international standards for an independent and impartial inquiry. Human Rights Watch called on Israel to establish an independent, civilian commission authorized to receive complaints and investigate human rights violations by Israeli forces.

Related stories:

Promoting Impunity: The Israeli Military’s Failure to Investigate Wrongdoing
Report, June 22, 2005

Israel: Failure to Probe Civilian Casualties Fuels Impunity
Press Release, June 22, 2005

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/06/24/israb11223.htm

So you think Israel is concerned, even remotely, about the rights of Palestinians? This, along with the practices of stealing land, and policies that make it hard for long-time Palestinian residents to remain in Jerusalem (they need hard-to-obtain permits; some policies separate husband and wife, etc.) surely sounds like apartheid policies to me.

[Coastie for Truth]

31. Wordie

I believe that the Bill was voted down. But I could be wrong. If so, I most humbly apologize in advance and beg your pardon.

[Wordie]

32. Passed by a 54-15 vote...

OCCASIONAL PAPER
RIGHTS WITHOUT REMEDIES:
ISRAEL'S COMPENSATION LAW
October 2005
Overview
On 27 July 2005, the Israeli Knesset (parliament) passed the amended Civil Wrongs (Liability of the State) Law (the Compensation Law)1 by a 54-15 vote. This law proclaims that the State of Israel "is not civilly liable for an act done in the course of a war operation" of the Israeli military. Individual state agents are also protected from such liability. The amended law narrows the eligibility of Palestinians to submit claims for compensation as a result of illegal actions carried out by Israeli forces, including acts of negligence. As outlined in Article 5B(a), the first exclusion relates to claims filed by specific groups of individuals:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the State shall not be subject to liability under the law of torts for damage sustained by any person included in paragraphs (1), (2) or (3), with the exception of damage caused in the types of claims or to the types of claimants set forth in the First Annex.
(1) A citizen of an enemy state, unless he is legally in Israel;
(2) An activist or member of a terrorist organisation;
(3) Anyone who incurred damage while acting as an agent for or on behalf of a citizen of an enemy state, or an activist or member of a terrorist organisation.
In addition to limiting which claimants are eligible to file for compensation, it also restricts claims coming from certain areas. Article 5C states that claims regarding incidents which took place in a declared conflict zone (an area outside Israeli territory which has been defined as such by the Minister of Defence) and in which Israeli forces acted or were present in the context of a conflict, are also
prohibited:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the State shall not be subject to liability under the law of torts for damage sustained in a conflict zone due to an act performed by the security forces, with the exception of damage caused in the types of claims or to the types of claimants set forth in the Second Annex.
The Israeli Minister of Defence may declare that an area is a conflict zone retroactively: such a determination may be made within 90 days of receipt of a claim. If it is made after that period, the court may, "for special reasons," accept the argument that the incident in question took place in a conflict zone. If the area in question is deemed a conflict zone, the Minister must notify claimants of its status as such in writing within 30 days of the receipt of the claim, or within the 90-day period if the determination is made retroactively. However, the law then adds that failure to do so does not adversely affect the area's determination as such.
The ability to make such determinations retroactively is exacerbated by the application of the law to any act which took place on or since 29 September 2000, i.e., since the outbreak of the current intifada. Further, the Minister of Defence may, within the first six months of the passage of the amended law, deem any area a conflict zone with regard to the period between 29 September 2000 and the date the law was published. The extension of the law's application both territorially and temporally is no accident: in the first four years of the intifada, Israeli occupying forces have killed 3,044 Palestinians and totally demolished 5,479 houses, clear evidence of the need for Palestinians to have access to a remedy.
It should be noted that three exceptions are provided for in the law. One exception is made for instances in which a detainee/prisoner is harmed whilst in the custody of an Israeli agent, provided that the detainee/prisoner does not later become a member of or an agent for a "terrorist organisation."
Secondly, claims resulting from bodily or property harm resulting from a traffic accident involving a 1

See Appendix I for full text. Translation by Adalah: The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel. The law is also sometimes called the Tort Law; a tort is an illegal act which has civil (as opposed to criminal) legal consequences. Civil
wrongs may also entail separate criminal consequences.

You can get the full pdf version of this here: http://asp.alhaq.org/zalhaq/site/books/files/Rights%20Without%20Remedies%20-%20final.pdf

I did not obtain the full pdf file; I've posted all of the google html conversion.

[Coastie for Truth]

33. That is a fallacious argument -

Have you ever seen the crap that Rich Pombo, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancrato, Rick Santorum, and the Repukes generally introduce.

Three physician members of the US Congress introduced a bill to make it a felony to go over seas to receive stem cell research derived therapies.

Come on.

[Wordie]

34. Sorry...I thought I had hit the "preview" button. Reply updated now.nt

[Coastie for Truth]

35. Why don't you look at the US Federal Tort Claims Act

and the US Navy JAG Manual.

You may also want to read Scheuer v Rhodes (The Kent State Massacre Case).

[Wordie]

36. Why don't you cite the info, if you feel it relevant? eom

[Coastie for Truth]

42. A comparison of the Israeli Act with the US Law

(Federal Tort Claims Act, 42 USC 1983, Eleventh Amendment, Scheuer v. Rhodes) indicates to me that the US and Israeli Laws are not materially different for the narrow factual issues contemplated.

You can only understand this provision if you understand “Sovereign Immunity” See Sovereign immunity or crown immunity is a type of immunity that, in common law jurisdictions traces its origins from early English law. Generally speaking it is the doctrine that the sovereign or government cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution. In many cases, the government has waived this immunity to allow for suits; in some cases, an individual, such as an attorney general, may technically appear as defendant on the government's behalf.

In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity, as it has to a limited extent mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over contractual claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party.

The federal government and nearly every state have passed tort claims acts allowing them to be sued for the negligence, but not intentional wrongs, of government employees. The common-law tort doctrine of respondeat superior makes employers generally responsible for the torts of their employees. In the absence of this waiver of sovereign immunity, injured parties would generally have been left without an effective remedy.

The is a statute enacted by the United States Congress in 1946 which permits private parties to sue the United States in a federal court for most torts committed by persons acting on behalf of the U.S. Liability under the FTCA is limited to "circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred." 28 U.S.C. 1346(b). The law also exempts a number of intentional torts, although it exposes federal law enforcement officers to greater liability to torts such as assault, battery, and false imprisonment.
Because the U.S. government has absolute power to define the jurisdiction of its courts, and could withhold any jurisdiction to hear cases against the U.S., the FTCA constitutes a limited waiver of sovereign immunity.

This is the basic “Waiver” of “Sovereign Immunity” by the United States

Title 28, Sec. 2674. Liability of United States

The United States shall be liable, respecting the provisions of this title relating to tort claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, but shall not be liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages.

If, however, in any case wherein death was caused, the law of the place where the act or omission complained of occurred provides, or has been construed to provide, for damages only punitive in nature, the United States shall be liable for actual or compensatory damages, measured by the pecuniary injuries resulting from such death to the persons respectively, for whose benefit the action was brought, in lieu thereof.

With respect to any claim under this chapter, the United States shall be entitled to assert any defense based upon judicial or legislative immunity which otherwise would have been available to the employee of the United States whose act or omission gave rise to the claim, as well as any other defenses to which the United States is entitled.

and

Title 42, Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

Of course, you have to realize, Section 1983 is really a “end run” around the 11th Amendment, i.e.,

Eleventh Amendment

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

and the Federal Tort Claims Act also has some severe limitations. The ones relevant to this analysis are enumerated in

Title 28, United States Code, Section 2680
The provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) of this title shall not apply to--

(h) Any claim arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights:

Provided, That, with regard to acts or omissions of investigative or law enforcement officers of the United States Government, the provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) of this title shall apply to any claim arising, on or after the date of the enactment of this proviso, out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, or malicious prosecution. For the purpose of this subsection, ``investigative or law enforcement officer'' means any officer of the United States who is empowered by law to execute searches, to seize evidence, or to make arrests for violations of Federal law.

(j) Any claim arising out of the combatant activities of the military or naval forces, or the Coast Guard, during time of war.

(k) Any claim arising in a foreign country.

You have cited the July 27, 2005 Act, and I will accept your citation with some redacting

The amended law narrows the eligibility of Palestinians to submit claims for compensation as a result of illegal actions carried out by Israeli forces, including acts of negligence. As outlined in Article 5B(a), the first exclusion relates to claims filed by specific groups of individuals:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the State shall not be subject to liability under the law of torts for damage sustained by any person included in paragraphs (1), (2) or (3), with the exception of damage caused in the types of claims or to the types of claimants set forth in the First Annex.

(1) A citizen of an enemy state, unless he is legally in Israel;

(2) An activist or member of a terrorist organization;

(3) Anyone who incurred damage while acting as an agent for or on behalf of a citizen of an enemy state, or an activist or member of a terrorist organisation.

In addition to limiting which claimants are eligible to file for compensation, it also restricts claims coming from certain areas. Article 5C states that claims regarding incidents which took place in a declared conflict zone (an area outside Israeli territory which has been defined as such by the Minister of Defence) and in which Israeli forces acted or were present in the context of a conflict, are also prohibited:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the State shall not be subject to liability under the law of torts for damage sustained in a conflict zone due to an act performed by the security forces, with the exception of damage caused in the types of claims or to the types of claimants set forth in the Second Annex.

The bolded, underlined provisions, while not identical in haec verba address substantially the same issue – with substantially the same result.

Turning now to the issue was a very narrow issue, did the Eleventh Amendment act as an absolute bar. The court has a very thorough discussion of “sovereign immunity” but remanded the case foran evidentiary hearing.

[Wordie]

45. Now here is the relevant, applicable law:

...Israel’s obligation to provide an effective remedy is enshrined in the international human rights treaties that it has ratified, including Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 6 of the International Covenant for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, Article 14 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Article 39 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The right to an effective remedy is also recognized under international humanitarian law (IHL), the body of law governing the conduct of armed forces during a belligerent occupation or armed conflict. The obligation can be found in Article 3 of the Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 concerning the Laws and Customs of War and Land (Convention No. IV of 1907), Article 91 of Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), and Articles 68 and 75 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. While Israel has not ratified any of these conventions, the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that the 1907 Hague Regulations are part of customary international law, and thus binding on all states, including those not party to the treaty.

There is a growing international consensus on the right to compensation for victims of serious violations of human rights or humanitarian law. This principle has been recently enunciated in the U.N. “Basic Principles and Guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law.” The principles, adopted in April 2005 by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, are the result of 15 years of drafting, research, consultation and debate in the international community. They constitute an authoritative set of guidelines specifying that a victim’s right to a remedy includes compensation, which should “be provided for any economically assessable damage, as appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the violation and the circumstances of each case.” According to the principles, these damages may include compensation for physical or mental harm; lost opportunities including employment, education and social benefits; material damages and loss of earnings, including loss of earning potential; moral damage; cost required for legal or expert assistance, medicine and medical services; and psychological and social services.

One of the central problems with the current amendment arises from the fact that it gives sole discretion to the Ministry of Defense to determine when and where a “conflict zone” exists, and then excludes claims deemed to arise in a “conflict zone.” This determination is not governed by international humanitarian law standards for when the threshold of armed conflict has been crossed. Furthermore, the ministry is authorized to make this determination with no independent or judicial oversight and with no possibility for appeal from the determination. The minister of defense can make this determination even after a claimant has notified the state of his/her intention to file a civil claim. While the bill does contain some qualifying language for what constitutes a “conflict zone,” the term remains loosely defined and could be applied so broadly as to cover the majority of the actions of the Israeli security forces in the OPT, especially since the Government of Israel has repeatedly stated that since September 2000 it has been engaged in an armed conflict.

According to the analysis of Human Rights Watch and many international legal scholars, the situation in the OPT since September 2000 has often remained below the threshold of armed conflict. During non-armed conflict situations, Israeli security services are subject to standards of law enforcement, which impose stricter conditions for the use of lethal force than those applicable during armed conflict. These standards are laid out in the U.N. Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials and the U.N. Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials. Over 1,700 Palestinian deaths and thousands of injuries since September 2000 have occurred outside of combat situations, during policing operations (such as enforcement of curfews, administration of civilian checkpoints, and dispersion of demonstrations) or even when it is unclear why the security services were in the area at all. However, according to this bill, the minister of defense could broadly interpret “conflict zone” to include these types of policing operations and therefore exclude any consequent claims. The Ministry of Defense has previously mis-used concepts such as “military necessity” to justify violations of international humanitarian law –including mass house demolitions in Rafah and the building of Israeli settlements in the OPT. Therefore there is a credible reason to fear that the Ministry will also apply an overly broad definition of “conflict zone” in order to exempt Israel from any damage claims against its security services in the OPT.

While the bill does provide an exemption in cases where a court has convicted members of the security forces of a criminal offense (not including negligent offenses), the government’s extremely poor record of investigations and convictions since September 2000 means that this exemption would rarely, if ever, apply. Furthermore, civil claims should be completely independent of criminal investigations and should not be dependent on the findings of a court for criminal charges.

Indeed, the proposal of this bill comes at a particularly disturbing time, when the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have adequately investigated very few Palestinian civilian deaths and injuries. Of the 1,700 non-conflict deaths and thousands of non-conflict injuries during this period, the IDF has investigated only 131 cases, and Israeli courts have convicted only seven IDF soldiers for criminal conduct, with sentences ranging from 2 – 20 months. As documented in our report, “Promoting Impunity: The Israeli Military’s Failure to Investigate Wrongdoing,” the IDF’s failure to investigate over 90% of the cases of deaths of civilians taking no part in hostilities has contributed to a culture of impunity among IDF soldiers.

In this climate, the threat of a civil suit remains one of the only levers of accountability against IDF abuses, and certainly the only potential remedy available for victims. Civil suits do not require action on the part of state officials in the same way that criminal investigations or indictments do. Victims of harm can file a suit even if the state has not taken any steps to investigate and bring wrongdoers to account. While civil remedies can include awards for damages and related expenses, they also serve as a deterrent from future wrongdoing.

The Israeli government claims that Palestinians from the OPT have filed over 400 claims in Israeli courts since September 2000, and that thousands more people have notified the state of their intent to file claims in Israeli courts. The government has argued that this number of claims places an undue burden on the state and on reservists who would have to testify. The government also has argued that such cases may require it to disclose classified military intelligence regarding the conduct of military operations. Inconvenience to state agencies and actors, however, is no justification for denying certain victims their rights under international law. Furthermore, claims for compensation raise no greater need for disclosure of sensitive information than already exist when courts investigate misconduct by the Israeli military. Israeli courts can determine on a case-by-case basis whether and how to disclose sensitive information in a manner that does not compromise national security.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/07/27/isrlpa11466.htm

I think I trust HRW's analysis more than yours, Coastie.

[Coastie for Truth]

58. Do you even know the differenjce between

a statute and a court decision and a recommendation by an NGO - an advocate's brief.?

I trust the plain ttext of the FTCA and the reasoned decuision of SCOTUS before I trust an NGO without basis in a treaty.

[Wordie]

76. Israel simply is unconcerned about international law? eom

[TokenJew]

78. International law, to be blunt, is a crock

HRW has nothing to do with said law btw. But in any event, considering the way "international law" has been applied regarding Israel, it's not wonder they have little interest in it. When said law is used to declare a defensive barrier illegal, but not to hold a people responsible for regular mass murders (suicide bombings), said law isn't worth the paper it's written on.

[Wordie]

79. So you acknowledge that Israel simply ignores international law. Thanks.

Israel seems to only acknowledge those laws, UN Security Council decisions, HRW opinions, etc., which are in Israel's favor.

[TokenJew]

82. which nations don't?

And UN security Council decisions? Israel has been subject to more of them than any nation on the planet and yet there has not been a single resolution that condemned the murder of an Israeli.

[Coastie for Truth]

85. And where did you learn international law?

and ?

You have already refused to recognize the hierarchy from a mere advocate's brief to statutes to a SCOTUS decision. - week 1 of year 1.

[Wordie]

103. Don't kill the messenger who brings unpleasant news. eom

[Coastie for Truth]

104. I'm just asking

don't you know the difference between advocacy briefs and position papers on the one hand -- and statutes and SCOTUS decisions on the other.

HRW has less juridicial standing then the ICRC.

You asked me to do research on the FTCA and Scheuer v Rhodes - then you come back with "Well here's an advocacy paper from a non-juridicial NGO that says something different ... and that's what I want to believe" and then when I ask you for your basis for saying that HRW trumps the US Code and Scotus you say "Don't kill the messenger who brings unpleasant news."

That's a quick route to a "cookie" -- <> which I haven't clicked yet.

[Wordie]

117. Missing the point entirely.

You initially said:
Why don't you look at the US Federal Tort Claims Act and the US Navy JAG Manual.

You may also want to read Scheuer v Rhodes (The Kent State Massacre Case).

And I replied that you should cite them if you believed them relevant. I don't, and therefore was unwilling to take my time looking for them. As I read them when you posted them, I'm not convinced they make your argument anyway, but as I don't believe that quoting US Supreme Court decisions is going to lead us any nearer to the implications of this Israeli law, I'm not going to to into that.

The HRW info I posted on the other hand, was about the Israeli law, and contained the opinions of a variety of international law scholars relevant to that law.

And as far as your threat to put me on ignore, please, don't hesitate. It would be a relief on this end.

[Coastie for Truth]

118. I gave you a comparison of the waiver of sovereign immunity laws

--- and that is a bit more relevant then a discussion of "what would be nice in a perfect world."

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coastie for Truth]

84. Noted NT

[julianer]

51. I don't know about

France's immigration policy. Do you have any evidence that it is racist? I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

The point about using France as an analogy would be more apt if there was a large group of French residents who had been forced out of their homes into refugee camps on the borders of Germany, Spain etc and had their places taken by some other people, which is what has happened to the Palestinians.

I may have 'failed to note' that Palestinians 'seek to remove all Jews' from the west Bank because the issue I'm addressing is the crimes of the occupiers, not the occupied. In any case I've never seen any evidence for this - except presented as assertion by defenders of Israeli racism.

Jewishness is not a 'race' as such. I'm not sure there is a definition of race at all. However you cannot deny that Jews are subject to racism and, consequently, are also able to be racist in turn. The point is that Palestinians aren't a 'race' either - yet they are subject to racism from Israel.

[Wordie]

162. Your last point was excellent. Surely nobody would claim Hitler was not

racist in his treatment of the Jews, using an argument that the Jews were not truly a race. These overly-technical definitions are often applied by those wanting to avoid noticing the elephant in the room.

[eyl]

10. Preferential fast-tracks to citizeneship

exist in several European countries (e.g., Germany allows any "ethnic German" to claim citizenship) - I haven't seen anyone accuse them of racism.

And due I really have to explain the difference between a private organization holding a conference even with a council member's support) - IOW, their discussion what public policy they'd like to be set - and actually setting public policy? Or are you in favor of removing their right of free speech?

[julianer]

59. Any such discussion in the UK

would be illegal. Most civilised coutnries would not tolerate public policy based on race.

[Case01]

11. Many nations have the same policy of Israel

It's called "Jus sanguinis"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_sanguinis

In addition to Israel, several other countries provide immigration privileges to individuals with ethnic ties to these countries (so-called leges sanguinis). As examples:

Section 116 of Germany's constitution allows people of "ethnic German origin" from Eastern Europe residency and citizenship rights.

Section 375 of the Greek citizenship law confers automatic citizenship to people of "Greek nationality" if they enlist in military service.

Section 25(1) of the Bulgarian constitution gives people of "Bulgarian origin" special access to obtaining Bulgarian citizenship.

Section 13(3) of the Armenian constitution confers automatic citizenship on a "native Armenian" living in the Armenian republic.

Section 18a of the Finnish foreigners' law states that a person from the Soviet Union who is of "Finnish origin" may, along with their spouse and children, receive permission for permanent residence and citizenship.

Section 14a of the Irish citizenship law of 1986 grants the interior minister authority to confer automatic citizenship on any applicant of "Irish origin or affiliation".

They also cite many other countries with similar laws, including Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, and Croatia. Similiarly, the Liberian constitution (currently defunct and being rewritten) allows only people "of Negro descent" (regardless of ethno-national affiliation) to become citizens. All these peculiar citizenship laws seem to have been enacted by states wishing to guarantee a safe-haven to diaspora populations assumed to be living under precarious conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_return

Are all these nations racist?

[Boojatta]

14. "Are all these nations racist?"

If they had a fair amount of room for more people but they never let very many peaceful refugees into their countries, then maybe the answer is "Yes, all those nations are racist."

[TokenJew]

16. what if they had limited room

and was subject to a steady stream of attacks by said refugees over the course of its existence?

then what?

[Boojatta]

17. Each refugee should be judged as an individual. One who is violent or

supports violence should not be classified as a "peaceful refugee."

Many thousands of people have had to find an alternative to living in Iran. If some people believe that at least one country will welcome them, then are they not refugees until after they have been denied entry by everybody?

[TokenJew]

18. I also wonder how the world justifies the fact

that a majority of Palestinian refugees today have never lived in Palestine or Israel.

[Boojatta]

19. Okay, they are descendants of Palestinian refugees, but like all refugees

they do lack secure citizenship. In fact, they lack citizenship period. It's not a very kind and gentle world for people who aren't protected by a government. Furthermore, if a government begins to slaughter its own citizens, the UN can be expected to do little or nothing.

[TokenJew]

20. Palestinian refugees are the only refugees

who need not be actually from the country they claim as their home of origin.

[Boojatta]

22. Are you worried about the word "refugee" or about actual people who have

no country?

[julianer]

60. Are you saying that

people choose to become Palestinian refugees?.....I'm a bit lost for words....can you back this up at all?

[TokenJew]

66. What I am saying is that Palestinian refugees can be

born into refugee ism. Rather than become citizens of their country of birth, they are automatically classified as refugees.

That's wrong in my book.

[julianer]

68. I get you now n/t

[Wordie]

97. ...and yet the entire premise of Zionism is based on a similar claim. eom

[TokenJew]

99. similar, not the same

Zionism doesn't hold that Jews living in diaspora are refugees who have been dispossessed. It holds that Jews make up a nation and as such, are entitled to self-governance.

The refugee issue with the Palestinians is actually much more of a problem exacerbated by the other Arab states general refusal to give Palestinians citizenship based on the same criteria as other residents. I believe only Jordan allows Jordanian born Palestinians to become citizens. The rest treat them like refugees from their date of birth.

They essentially use them as a political weapon and ignore their humanity.

[Wordie]

102. Similar enough to reveal a contradiction that semantics can't overcome.

The concept of a Jewish nation, in the sense of our modern concept of a political state, didn't come about until the 19th century, with the rise of Zionism. It predated the creation of the actual state of Israel, in 1948. Ancient claims of ancestral residence are often used to justify the massive influx of Jewish people to the area, prior to 1948, are they not? Are you saying you disagree with those claims as well?

[TokenJew]

105. My basis for supporting Zionism are not based on ancient claims alone

they also are based on modern actions that led to the rise of Zionism. If not for the actions of Europeans, there'd be no need nor real want for a Jewish state. But what happened happened and it caused Jews to stop trusting foreign powers to take care of them. So, Zionism became a logical and quite legitimate alternative.

Now, as I'm sure you're no doubt aware, the UN partition didn't give land to anyone; it just recognized that Jews made up a majority of the population in partitioned Israel and Arabs made up a majority in partitioned Palestine. No one was forced to leave. The problem came from the Arabs rejecting the partition and subsequently beating the drums of war until the 1948 war began.

[Wordie]

110. But do you reject that portion of Zionist claims saying European Jews had

a right to the land because of an ancestry many centuries previous? It seems you must, or abandon consistency.

I'm not asking about any other reasons for Zionism. I won't be led off on a tangent to dispute your other claims. You can't answer my question in the negative without demolishing your own earlier argument about the Palestinians.

[TokenJew]

112. I don't reject it. I just don't find it to be the sole basis

for the right of European Jews to move to then Palestine. And that's really what is at issue, the right to flee persecution and move to a land where you can start anew.

My only argument about the Palestinians was that they are the only people on earth who are deemed refugees even if they never stepped foot on Israeli/Palestinian soil.

[Wordie]

113. Just as the European Jews had never stepped on Palestinian soil.

You have a logical contradiction going there. But I doubt you will see it. I give up on this.

[TokenJew]

114. No logical contradiction

I don't claim Europeans Jews are refugees from palestine.

[eyl]

120. Under your logic, no-one can ever immigrate anywhere

The historical connection with the region is the reason it was chosen for a Jewish national state. But the pre-state settlers didn't take control of the territory by arguments of "ancestral rights" - they did so by purchasing the land. Since that would have been the process even if the state had been established elsewhere, your analogy doesn't hold.

[Wordie]

145. Actually not my point at all.

I was pointing out the illogic of a belief by some that the descendants of the 1948 Palestinian refugees are somehow unqualified to return to their ancestral land. Yet many of the people who hold that belief believe just as strongly that the European Jews who immigrated to the area before the creation of the state of Israel had a right to return there based on a far older claim.

And your statement that the Jewish settlers had purchased that land before 1948 is inaccurate. I think you'll find if you research that a bit, that the level of Jewish private ownership was actually quite low before the creation of the state of Israel. That the land was transfered to Jewish control afterward does not change this fact.

The lands owned by the state are the lands that were owned by the British Mandate over Palestine until 1948. These lands constitute about 75 percent of all Israel lands.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/land.html

That the British occupiers transferred the lands to the Zionists, with no concern for the people who actually lived there, does not a moral claim make. Can you understand the Palestinian perspective better, with those facts in hand?

[TokenJew]

148. I didn't realize land had moral deeds as well as legal deeds

when did the US get its moral deeds?

[Wordie]

149. Since you've gone off on a tangent, and failed to address the most salient

points of my previous post (instead addressing what was essentially an afterthought), can I presume that you agree with my debunking of the claim that Jews owned most of the land prior to the creation of the state of Israel? If not, why not?

[eyl]

151. Those lands which went to the Jews

which were not privaetly owned were - as you pointed out - state owned lands, which were split between the two populations. Jews owned between one quarter and one third of all privately owned land - the majority was owned by the state. My point was that the Jews didn't rely on an ancestral claim to lay claim to the land - the state owned lands were split between the populations because both populations already had land ownership.

[pelsar]

121. you give up way too fast....

too many times you just stop....and "give up" ......it seems like you cant continue the arguements to the finer points and understand the differences....

[Wordie]

142. LOL pelsar, I should argue with a brick wall or broken record???

[pelsar]

157. on the contrary....

the little differences, misunderstandings...are what its all about.....this is a very slow form of conversation with no eye contact, no abiity to "interupt" and put the emphisis on a specific point...its way to easy to ignore precisly the points some ones is making..

for instance....once anybody here can either give me an answer to the incoming kassams, how can they claim israel has the right to self defense if everything israel does is a "war crime"?....thats a "stickler" for me...

answer that and i can them move on, but with out acknowleding that israel has right to defend itself and put forth realistic options that can be implemented, to me, i find the aruguments of "give back the west bank and all will be hunky dory" to be a fantasy

but it takes a lot of stubberness to get that point made.....

[Wordie]

160. Here's the real truth of the story, from the horse's mouth:

The reality needs to be faced head on. �The Jewish philosopher and leader of cultural Zionism, Martin Buber, wrote to Prime Minister Ben Gurion in March of 1949, �We will have to face the reality that Israel is neither innocent, nor redemptive. And that in its creation and expansion, we as Jews have caused what we historically have suffered; a refugee population in Diaspora.� David Ben Gurion, the first Israeli prime minister, knew this and wrote: �If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been anti-semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?�

http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=1626


But of course, there must be posters here who know more about what was going on than ben Gurion did. And he is wrong about one thing, btw: the Muslims believe the Jewish, Christian and Muslim Gods are the same.

(No offense meant to Ben Gurion from the use of the term, "horse's mouth." And apologies for some stray punctuation marks which have cropped up in the article. They appear in the original for some reason ans so I have left them there.)

[Violet_Crumble]

25. The world doesn't need to justify it...

If their parents or grandparents had been allowed to return to their homes back in 1949-50 then they would have been born in Israel or the Occupied Territories and this wouldn't be an issue. Using the excuse that time has marched on and therefore children born while in refugee camps shouldn't qualify for any compensation or return to Israel or the Occupied Territories isn't right. btw, the majority of Jews who were forcibly expelled from Arab states around that time have died, so why should their families be demanding compensation? Or is there a different set of rules for them?

Violet...

[Jim Sagle]

116. The world doesn't have the right to do anything but sit down and

shut its fuckin' mouth about it.

[Violet_Crumble]

161. Token Jew said the world had to justify itself...

Go and tell him..

[julianer]

54. The world doesn't need to justify that

Good grief...the reason they have never lived in Palestine or Israel is because of the ethnic cleansing that brought about the creation of Israel and the subsequent racist laws that banned their return.

Talk about blaming the victims...

[julianer]

53. If there is limited room

they wouldn't specifically allow unfettered access to co-religionists. There would be general immigration bans, not ones targeted at Palestinians and arabs.

[julianer]

52. You are coming at this from the wrong angle

Most countries have some degree of racist immigration laws. Israel's are far worse than anywhere else in that they ban the original residents of the country from citizenship.

It is as if you were suddenly swept out of your home and stuck in a refugee camp over the Canadian border - then US law is changed to deny you citizenship but allow it to someone else who has the same religion/race as the person who kicked you out. They then move into your old home.

That is racism. Can't deny it - it's an apartheid regime.

[TokenJew]

96. Arabs aren't forced to live in arab only towns in Israel

as for the "ban" on former residents immigrating, please show me said ban. I know that Israel put a temporary stop to immigration from the territories in lieu of the intifada, which I disagreed with. But as for an outright ban, I don't believe one exists.

[Coastie for Truth]

30. The Law of Return

is because the 1930's PROGRESSIVES in direct violation of International Humanitarian Law refused to grant asylum to the Jews fleeing the Holocaust.

Not Sir Neville Chamberlain. Not Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Nobody. The turned around and took the asylum seekers back to certain death (not a refugee camp - but DEATH in Europe's Nazi Hell Hole). The 1930's PROGRESSIVES in direct violation of International Humanitarian Law refused to grant asylum to the Jews fleeing the Holocaust.

If you had been alive then what would YOU have done - appenders. There weren't enough to go around. Too few and too few

That's why there is a Law of Return - because the 1930's PROGRESSIVES in direct violation of International Humanitarian Law refused to grant asylum to the Jews fleeing the Holocaust.

It seems to me you need to come to terms with the ugly facts of British and US racism, Judeo-phobia, and support (before WW2) for the Nazis.

[julianer]

61. Most people on the left

in fact most people generally in the UK, accept the fact of racism and anti-semitism of the pre-war period. We don't make excuses for our past errors, even if we (the left) had very little to do with it. We've been fighting against the remnants of it all of our lives, FFS.

We have come to terms with these past sins. We are now a very tolerant society, largely due to the efforts of the left who have consistently challenged racism, sexism and religious persecution.

It is now your turn. How can you tolerate the obvious racism in Israeli society?

Motes and bleeding great logs.

[Coastie for Truth]

62. Becasue the left didn't do crap while 1/3 of my family died.

The Left let them die. And if Israel disappeared today the Left would say "Tsk,. tsk, deserved it. No asylum."

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coastie for Truth]

69. Go somewhere besides I/P and check out my posts - NT

I am not a one issue poster -

Who crowned you Iquisitor General of DU and Prefect of the Congregation and Chair of the Credentials Committee.

once again I'm surprised to have to say such things on DU, but you seem not to be a leftist, unless you blame yourself for the death of your family - I wasn't even born then.

I would say that a single state solution is racist. Your idealistsic wish ("want to see an end to the present racist and colonialist state of Israel but are quite happy for there to be a federation of Jews and Palestinians under a secular democracy that equally respect human rights, regardless of race or religion.") - is dreaming. Quit smoking them funny cigarettes.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[julianer]

75. If you tell me why I should

and you are right, I certainly will apologise.

However, I don't think I have any need to since I haven't said anything that I haven't been able to back up or that hasn't been based on your own comments.

[Name removed]

193. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TokenJew]

106. It would be racist because it would deny the rights of Jews

to have their own state.

[Violet_Crumble]

169. A secular binational state with equal rights for all is racist??????

Now I've seen everything!

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

172. Have you ever heard of a secular bi-national state

with Jim Crow or Apartheid. And then there's dhimmi.

You'll notice Czechoslovakia split in two, Yugoslavia split into how many parts (Muslim, Eastern Orthodox Christian, Roman Catholic). Periodically Canada has "problems" - even the model, India, has "problems."

[Violet_Crumble]

192. Try explaining how the concept of a secular binational state is racist...

That's the question I asked you....

Violet...

[TokenJew]

70. Ah yes, the fictitious bi national state

Which is code word for no more Israel and back to the problems of old.

What is amazing is how so many "progressives" just don't give a damn about the rights of Jews.

[julianer]

72. How do you derive not giving a damn

about Jews from asking for equal rights under the law?

I don't think the present situation is tenable, to be honest. There will be no peace without justice. There will be no justice if the present situation continues. Do you see?

What compromises are you willing to make for peace? Would you support a new 'land for peace' deal? What hope do you hold out for the future?

[TokenJew]

73. Land for peace is the only solution that is tenable and just.

The original partition was probably the most just solution, but it was rejected.

but the key is the peace part, not the land part. Israel seems to do fine giving away the former; the Pals can't seem to produce the latter.

[julianer]

77. I think that is a biased view

I would support a two-state solution if there was any chance of the Palestinians having a viable, contiguous territory.

But the old story of 'facts on the ground' make it less and less likely.

What do you mean by the original partition being rejected? My understanding is that the area set aside for a Jewish homeland was quickly extended by Israeli military action, in partnership with Jordan, to overrun the Palestinian area and to share it between them.

[TokenJew]

80. Both states can't be contiguous

because if one is, the other will not be. But I don't think such a requirement is necessary. The sunken road/railroad ideas of connecting Gaza and West Bank seem pretty workable and similar to other nations, mostly island nations, where such a situation was impossible.

I mean the UN partition. The one the Jews accepted and the arabs rejected. Yes, it was extended due to the 1948 war. But Jordan and israel were hardly working together. And you forgot Egypt took the land meant for the Pals in the south.

[julianer]

90. Yes you are right

I've corrected myself (about Jordan/Israel (and Egypt)).

It needn't be totally contiguous in both cases, but the demand for contiguity stems from a need to remove the settlements which create the discontiguity to a large degree(obviously nothing to be done about WB/Gaza except for dedicated links).

This is the problem - it is very difficult in practical terms - which is why the most practical option left is the submersion of Israel and Palestine into an overarching state, IMO.

[eyl]

93. Something which neither population wants n/t

[pelsar]

119. eyl...you noticed that too?

people who have little understanding of the cultures involved propose solutions that neither of the involved parties want or deem tenable....sounds like an attitude of "i know better, than those involved because I am........(what do we call that attitude?)

[Violet_Crumble]

170. There are Israelis and Palestinians who support a binational state...

Are you saying they also have little understanding of the cultures involved?

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

171. Three sigmas out on the Poisson Distribution Curve. NT

[Violet_Crumble]

174. Psst, yr ignore button doesn't seem to work properly

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=111158&mesg_id=111357

[pelsar]

175. there are always "extremists"

by far a small minority.....not even considered by the main "bodies".....and yes they have very little understanding of the main cultural groups involved

[Violet_Crumble]

177. There's nothing extreme about binationalism...

And considering there were some early Zionists who were advocates of a binational state where Jews and Arabs lived as equals, there's no reason to believe that any Israeli or Palestinian who now supports a secular binational state with equal rights and protection for all has no understanding of their own culture...

Violet...

[pelsar]

196. given 2006?

the cultures have changed since the 30s and 40s...the violence has made "nationalism" a very important part.

shall we try the "practical aspect again'?

the jews will not be willing to become the 'second class citizen again", a minority in a majority.....which is what your ignoring and what is the definition of a binational state.

more so the palestenian culture with its honor killings, regulating women to a second class status (exceptions noted) are hardly compatable with israels present democracy

or shall we look a gaza?....that shining example of palestenian democracy in action (best part about gaza is that we can actually see palestenian society in action, minus the excuses (well some exist like the "occupation electricity....)

no, we dont need to destroy israel or some "pie in the sky" fantasy.

[Violet_Crumble]

199. What you described isn't a binational state...

Is there something about the words 'secular' and 'equal rights for all' which isn't computing? Do you oppose the idea of a secular state with equal rights and protection for all, regardless of their ethnicity?

The comment about Palestinian culture is just a bit on the bigoted side, btw...

Violet...

[pelsar]

200. cultures are not the same...

nor are they equal...secular and equal rights compute very well....so does local environments, history and local culture and that ugly word call reality......and looking at the local arab/islamic culture in the middle east, it doesnt look good for being a jew in the minority (pick any arab country...

i'm hardly bigoted about palestenain culture, i'm just not blinded by some "fantasy"......the palestenain culture today is very far from the western ideal of civil rights, open press etc...

but I am VERY bigoted in that i believe the ideals of civil rights, free press, open elections, womens rights a society governed by open proceses are far superiour than govts/countries that have honor killings, a press thats not free, that has no civil rights, etc.

the palestenian society is in flux today....whether it goes the way of the potatoe sack on women or give them equal rights is yet to be seen, but what it does have today is a society that still condons honor killings. kills homosexuals etc...you may not like it, may pretend that it doesnt have an affect on its population, but thats just closing your eyes to the reality. A palestenian majority, as we shall soon see might just prefer shari law to the western version of governing. i for one am not even willing to put myself in the position of such a gamble.

the idea of having a binational state, putting the jews back in the minority and hoping that we get treated "right" ..well we've been there before, the history wasnt to succsesful, no need to try again after 2,000 years of failure (we finally realized that it doesnt work...)

the vast majority of the jewish israelis (and many non jewish) seems to agree-check who votes for the "communist partyies or that latest variation

[julianer]

122. No doubt it will

be hard whatever happens in the future - either continued violence and occupation or fairly traumatic re-settlement of populations, IMO.

Not an easy choice but it will only get harder the longer justice is delayed.

What are your ideas about the next step in the 'peace process'?

[eyl]

135. At this point?

Israel needs to start making it clear that more of the isolated settlements are going to be dismantled, whether unilaterally or bilaterraly. This is in addition to dismantling the illegal outposts, which should happen regardless of the peace process.

The Palestinians now control Gaza - they need to prove they can get it under control and run a state, without the usual excuses, before negotiations go any further. And whether that's just or ai is irrelevent - Israel simply cannot afford the chaos in and attacks from Gaza to replicate themselves in the West Bank.

[TokenJew]

139. Justice isn't achieved by imposing unjust solutions

on people who aren't accepting of them.

[TokenJew]

94. The main settlement blocs are close enough to Israel whereby

land swaps can be made to allow for a contiguous west bank to exist. The bigger problem is about the issue of water.

[Coastie for Truth]

98. Water is a non-issue

You suggested

The bigger problem is about the issue of water.

Actually, the world centers of purifying brackish water are Israel, the ME, and the US -- but Saudi Arabia will not let Jewish researchers attend technical conferences in Saudi Arabia.

The magic pixie dust is the newer ion exchange resins such as

(CF2CF2)(CF2CFO-X)
where X is an acid group, such as SO3

Don't blame the Israelis - Muslim students are enrolled at Technion and Univ of the Negev, and working on this.

[Violet_Crumble]

173. Water definately is an issue...

Dressing up domination as 'cooperation': the case of Israeli-Palestinian water relations

This article analyses the extent to which Israeli-Palestinian water relations were affected and transformed by the Oslo process. Focusing in turn on the management of water systems and supplies, the monitoring of water resources and the development of new supplies, the article suggestes that many of the seeming and much-lauded achievements of the Oslo process were more cosmetic than real. Comparing Israeli-Palestinian water relations before and since the onset of the Oslo process, the article contents that the Oslo agreements did little more in this particular sphere than to dress up and discursively repackage Israel's domination of the West Bank water sector in a new vocabulary of Israeli-Palestinian 'co-operation'.

[Coastie for Truth]

178. That's a poli sci paper

I was posting about the engineering issues.

The saddest thing is that the Technion and King Fahd engineers have to leave the ME to work together.

Here are a few patents I found (easier to search this database then say Chemical Abstracts)

US Patent 6946081
The invention provides methods and an apparatus for more efficiently and economically producing purified water from sea water or some other salty or brackish water source. The efficiency is derived from the co-location with a power plant or other thermal generating source that will heat the feed water. Reverse osmosis membrane filtration systems work optimally when the feed water is at certain higher temperature, where that temperature is typically higher than the feed water at ambient temperatures. By using the heated sea water as the byproduct of the power plant electricity generating process and if necessary mixing it with ambient temperature sea water, if needed to lower the water temperature, and using this feed water with a higher temperature than ambient water temperature, the efficiency of the reverse osmosis system can be increased.

US Patent 6387885
The present invention relates to the use of a hydrophilic membrane to provide by the process of pervaporation through the membrane water suitable for agricultural irrigation, industrial use, hydrating or rehydrating of food or agricultural or pharmaceutical compositions. The present invention also relates to a water purification apparatus which includes the hydrophilic membrane, comprising one or more layers of hydrophilic polymers, to purify water which may contain suspended or dissolved impurities and solids, including but not limited to seawater, brackish water and other kinds of polluted water.

US Patent 6863822
Parallel desalting (PDS) includes a hybrid membrane softening (MS) system for de-mineralizing water for residential and commercial use. Parallel desalting produces "soft" water without the use of salt, or any other liquid chemical reagent normally used to carry out pH adjustment in industrial membrane and precipitation processes. The PDS process balances the operation of a RO (potable water) membrane unit with the operation of a tubular MF (wastewater) membrane unit, thereby providing a highly efficient and regenerative water treatment technology: (1) The optimum operation for the PDS system transforms roughly 90 percent of a potable, slightly brackish water supply into <50 mg/L TDS water with <1 -grain (10-15 mg/L as calcium carbonates) water hardness; and (2) The operation of the PDS system produces, in salinity terms, in a 100 percent reusable effluent for downstream recycling. Virtual prototype results suggest that with Colorado River Aqueduct source water (570-620 mg/L TDS and 16-grain water hardness), parallel desalting can produce an effluent with a TDS 40-70 mg/L lower than the originating supply (excluding TDS contributed directly by the particular type of use of the soft water).

US Patent 6849184
There is disclosed a process and device for Forward Osmosis (FO) Pressurized Device (FOPD) in general and one hydraulically coupled to a reverse osmosis (RO device for a FOPRO (Forward Osmosis Pressurized Reverse Osmosis). Specifically, there is disclosed a passive device (that is, not needed energy input) for using forward osmosis to generate significant hydraulic pressure that can be used to drive a reverse osmosis process, wherein the reverse osmosis process (not needed external energy to run pumps) can separate salt from salt water to generate potable water from water with high salt content (such as sea water, urine, sweat, brackish water and the like).

US Patent 6804962
A desalination system is driven by a solar powered boiler that outputs a pressurized vapor to drive an expander that generates output motive force. A pump is responsive to the motive force to output pressurized saline water. A reverse osmosis unit receives the pressurized saline water to output fresh water and pressurized brine. A recuperator that transfers heat from the expander exhaust to the boiler feed liquid is incorporated to improve the efficiency of the system. In a particular embodiment, a hydraulic motor receives the pressurized brine and outputs an augmenting motive force to the pump. In another embodiment, a novel motorless boiler feed pump is defined.

And there are 370 more abstracts just in the US Patent Office databse., and an additional 320 in the Derwents World Patent Database. I didn't go into the Chemical Abstracts Database, or the Dialog and Insite engineering databases. Didn't go into Dissertation Abstracts, either.

[Violet_Crumble]

180. Which proves that water has been and still is an issue...

And please don't bother posting more abstracts that are totally irrelevant to the issue of water resources in the Occupied Territories and its need to be addressed in any future negotiations - assuming that the negotiations will be of a political nature and not of an engineering one ;)

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

185. The technology

is absolutely relevant, more relevant then the caterwauling of a bunch of politicians and journalists and bloggers.

As soon as one assume that

the negotiations will be of a political nature and not of an engineering one

they will drag on endlessly and get nowhere.

The engineering solutions are there. The political will is missing.

[Violet_Crumble]

187. And this is a political discussion board last time I checked...

To claim that the political aspects of water relations is 'caterwauling' is defying reality. Water relations is a big issue, which is why it was addressed in the Oslo Accords (note that not all big issues were addressed, though)...

If you wish to discuss the political nature of water resources, that would make more sense than claiming that only talking about engineering is relevant to any political discussion on a political discussion board...

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

188. I see your point exactly.

:shrug:

[Violet_Crumble]

191. You can always try reading my post...

That should do away with the little shrugging man :)

btw, just a reminder that you responded with the comment that water was a non-issue to a post that was talking about politics, not engineering. Though they're now departed from DU, their comment that it was an issue was totally correct...

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

195. There are a lot of technical and scientific threads on DU

so I don't know what you mean.

:shrug:

[julianer]

129. Isn't that a regional issue

involving the headwaters in Lebanon and Syria? Doesn't it need a regional settlement or do you think some power will try to control water supply for their own needs?

It is obviously a looming problem. What hope of solving it? practically none without goodwill. Is there any goodwill? No.

[TokenJew]

138. nope. no good will at all.

But if you think that it's just Israel who doesn't offer goodwill, you're mistaken.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pelsar]

158. is this guy for real?

If Israel was to show goodwill by removing settlements the rabid right wing would rebel, threatening the stability of Israel itself.

did he miss the "distracting" Look over there" gaza pullout?

and whats with the:
zionism still lusts after their lands and the headwaters and the neighbours know this

us zionists actually "lust" after those Norwegian blonds that come down to eilat....

[Coastie for Truth]

159. NO

And if he was (directly or indirectly) responding to my post about phoretic desalination he doesn't know crap about ground water hydrology or membrane processes or phoretic processes or desalination -- but he thinks he knows more then your average chem engineer with a dissertation in membrane technology (as desalination, fuel cells, biotech).

The magic word--

(CF2CF2)n-(CF2CFCOA))nwhere A is typically SO3. ("Nafion", "Flemion", etc.)

[eyl]

81. After the UN partition decision was announced

in 1947, the Yishuv accepted it while the Arabs (Palestinians and otherwise) rejected it. That led to the violence which led to the war, in the course of which Israel took control of territories beyond the borders designated in the partition decision. As someone (Shlaim, possibly? I remember reading it in the last two days) pointed out, the borders as set in the partition would have been hard enough to manage under peaceful conditions; in the event of war, they were indefensible (note also that there were Jewish communities in the areas slated for the international zone and the Arab state which came under attack - they had to be defended). As for Israeli-Jordanian collusion, I've addressed that here; there was no such deal by the time the war started. For that matter, given the cirumstances, I'm not sure why the original deal is viewed as so nefarious (on Israel's part, that is).

[julianer]

86. This backs up what I was saying

Israel immediately extended its borders beyond that set aside by the international community. I'm sure they felt justified in doing so, but I'm equally sure the Palestinians whose land was taken didn't agree.

I don't really think you addressed anything on the other post - no links, no references.

Edit: minor textual tweaking.

[eyl]

91. My reference

- which was included in the post I referred you to (Shlaim) - is the same one commonly used to maintain the agreement existed in the first place (neve mind, I'll requote below).
And if the Palestinians had accepted partition - rather than choosing to settle the issue by force - that land would not have been taken.

[Colorado Blue]

88. WHAT???? Israel is partnership with Jordan? In 1948?

Jordan (then known as Transjordan) was one of the states which tried to destroy Israel.

The Arab Legion, based in Jordan and commanded by an Englishment, John Glubb (Glubb Pasha), was perhaps the best army the Israelis faced.

In fact, Jerusalem was nearly cut off by Arab Legion troops, and people there were starving to death. Only a nearly miraculous road building endeavor, in the middle of the night and under fire, over a mountain, saved the city.

Here's a link, briefly covering the 1948 war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Israeli_conflict

and one on the Arab Legion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Legion

[julianer]

89. You are right

It wasn't a formal partnership - they just split Palestinian land between themselves:

'When the fighting ended in 1949, Israel held territories beyond the boundaries set by the UN plan - a total of 78% of the area west of the Jordan river. The UN made no serious attempt to enforce the internationalization of Jerusalem, which was now divided between Jordan and Israel, and separated by barbed wire fences and no man's land areas...The rest of the area assigned to the Arab state was occupied by Egypt and Jordan. Egypt held the Gaza Strip and Jordan held the West Bank. About 726,000 Arabs fled or were driven out of Israel and became refugees in neighboring Arab countries. The Arab countries refused to sign a permanent peace treaty with Israel. Consequently, the borders of Israel established by the armistice commission never received de jure (legal) international recognition.'

http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

[TokenJew]

92. It's interesting that no one brings up the fact

that Jordan annexed the Palestinians land in 1950 or that Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip till the 1960s.

and when I say no one, I'm specifically talking about the anti-occupation activists. where were they then? why is "arab occupation" ok (and we aren't even discussing Lebanon btw) but "israeli occupation" is bad?

[Coastie for Truth]

101. Me detects a little bit of either

Ill-liberalism, or
Racism, or
Hypocrisy

And then they want to read us out of the Progressive Community.

[TokenJew]

107. Yes, there is certainly a portion of the progressive

community who want to silence all pro-Israel (or even just non-anti-Israel) voices.

[Coastie for Truth]

108. If they are Progressives - we AMERICANS are living

in a doppleganger, parallel universe consisting of anti-matter and where i has physiical meaning.

[TokenJew]

109. well, they are mirror images of Republicans

or more like Bizzaro republicans.

[Coastie for Truth]

111. And we are starting to see Allison Weir and Paul Findley

as reliable sources? That's beyond insulting, beyond racist, beyond Republican. . That's the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" that funded Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and funded the Arkansas project, and killed health care reform.???

:shrug:

[julianer]

124. No that's not true in my experience

Can you prove this in any way?

[TokenJew]

140. The Michael Lerner/ANSWER debacle to name one

as well as anecdotal experience I've had personally where "progressive" people have called me a "neocon" for sticking up for Israel.

[Coastie for Truth]

144. Some "good" articles on this point

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4578&search=why>, The Democrats sign up with the anti-Semites,
and
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5106&search=why], Why Does the Left Hate israel.

I realize it is not Alexander Cockburn's Counterpunch - or Juan Cole.

[julianer]

123. Yes but that no longer applies

does it?

Obviously Israel now occupies the land that Jordan previously occupied. Can you prove that people weren't concerned about the Arab occupation? Why should you think this is a fault in today's anti-occupation groups?

It's a bit silly really. You need to show that people who oppose the Israeli occupation support 'Arab occupations' (that no longer exist).

[TokenJew]

141. It's not silly

the truth is up until 1967 the issue was freeing the land known as Israel from the Jews. The status of the west bank and gaza was not an issue. Once the 1967 war occurred, the rules changed and now the issue was "occupation".

[eyl]

95. From Shlaim

The Iron Wall (2000) p. 32

On 11 May, Golda Meir, disguised as an Arab women, made the dangerous trip to Amman in a last-ditch effort to salvage the agreement she had reached with the king at their meeting six months earlier....She suggested that instead of Abdullah's new offer* they should adhere to their original plan for the partition of Palestine. Abdullah did not deny that they had an agreement, but he explained that the situation had changed and that he was now unable to stand against the current for military intervention in Palestine. Mrs. Meir warned the king that the Jews had dramatically increased their military strength in recent months, and that, while willing to respect the UN borders in the event of peaceful partition, they would fight everywhere and with all their force in the case of war. The king urged her to think again about his offer and to contact him anytime before May 15.

*To cede control of all of Mandatory Palestine to Jordan, with Jews enjoying local autonomy

[julianer]

125. This is not evidence for a partnership?

It seems that I was more correct than I thought.

How else can this be interpreted but haggling over Palestinian land between Israel and Jordan? Am I missing something or are you?

[eyl]

133. It means

there was originally an agreement, but by the time the war actually started, it was null and void.

As for "haggling over Palestinian land" - that's not quite accurate. Note the quote I gave above. Had the war not happened, Israel would have remained within the partition borders. Had the war started, but Jordan stayed out of it, Israel would not have expanded beyond those borders in the area which can be termed the "expanded West Bank" (i.e. the area which would subsequently comprise the West Bank, expanded westward to the partition borders), as opposed to the area which would become the Gaza Strip and the north, where the fighting was against the other Arab countries. IOW, rather than splitting Palestinian territory with Jordan, Israel was acquising to Jordan's control of the whole Palestinian territory* - something Israel wouldn't have controlled anyway - in return for removing the best-trained Arab army from the war. Do you expect Israel to have offered to fight Jordan on behalf of the Palestinians (who were, remember, fighting Israel at the time)?


*Regarding the areas where an agreement with Jordan would be relevant in the first place.

[Colorado Blue]

100. Right. This doesn't imply a partnership between Israel and

Jordan - but rather its opposite: non-recognition of Israel by the Arab states.

This is a problem even to this day. There IS no formal border. Nobody will sit down and negotiate one.

Meanwhile, the problem of the Palestinian people, caught in the middle and used as pawns throughout the Cold War, remains.

Unless several Arab states 1) recognize Israel 2) work with each other, with Israel and with the P.A., the people in the refugee camps will continue to suffer.

That just isn't right. But denial that Israel exists or that helping the Palestinians should somehow = the destruction of Israel and the creation of millions of NEW victims, also isn't right.

[julianer]

126. Yes it does

a partnership to carve up Palestinian land.

It couldn't be much clearer really - discussion about how to divvy up the land backed up with reference to armed force. How can this not be about a partnership between Israel and Jordan?

I think I'll have to revisit my original retraction if you keep supplying evidence to support my (I thought erroneous) claim.

[eyl]

134. Your quote in post #89

refers to the division of Jerusalem between Jordan and Israel - something which didn't happen by agreement (to say the least) and which wasn't part of the Palestinian territory anyway (it was slated for the international zone).

See also post #133.

[Colorado Blue]

146. What argues against this are the actions of Jordan, in 1948,

after the war in 1948, and in 1967.

There may have been communication, yes. But in fact, Jordan was part of the war effort in 1948, they did expel the Jewish residents of the West Bank, where many settlements were destroyed. The holy sites in East Jerusalem and Hebron, etc, were cut off from Israel after 1948 until the 6 Day War in 1967; and, even though Dayan contacted Hussein in 1967, during the 6 Day War and said the West Bank wouldn't be entered unless Jordan attacked Israel, Jordan attacked.

So yes, there may have been communication and contact but there was war, expulsion, war. In this case, actions spoke much louder than words.

Looking at it from the Palestinian perspective, though, I can see where - by simple virtue of the fact the the Jordanians themselves were occupiers in a sense and didn't work to help create an independent Palestinian state - it may have appeared that there was collusion. Does this make sense?

What I don't know, however, is how this looked from the Jordanian side. Perhaps you can recommend some reading from their point of view? And on the other hand, Jordan itself is the major part of the Palestine Mandate. 70% of Jordan is Palestinian Arab. So it gets confusing.

Also, I had friends from the West Bank in the 1970's, 1980's. They considered themselves Jordanian. I NEVER heard them speak of desiring to be liberated from Jordan. They never referred to themselves as Palestinian.

So you'll please consider this personal perspective?

I do know that PLO attacked Hussein and subsequently was evicted from Jordan during the Lebanese Civil War years (Black September in Jordan). Was Palestinian statehood a broadbased political movement among ALL the residents of the Jordanian-occupied West Bank? What about those living in Jordan?

Also, to make matters more complicated, there was a pan-Arabic movement at the time. I don't think Palestinian statehood per se was a front burner issue for Nasser, for example? I don't think Palestinian statehood was a major issue for al Husseini, either. Rather, I believe he too envisioned a pan-Arabic state.

I think, there was a lot going on, many conflicting points of view and ideas. All of this was complicated by the Cold War and the proxy wars between major powers, that were conducted by their pawns - excuse me - "client states." A lot of people got caught in the middle.

[julianer]

128. You are being disingenuous

Who is 'denying' the Israel exists? Who is calling for the 'destruction of Israel'?

You should see this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1684472,00.html

'Hamas drops call for destruction of Israel from manifesto'

It's another canard to avoid negotiations. Israel could have negotiated with the PLO who dropped the idea of the destruction of Israel decades ago, but chose not to in order to increase its settlements.

As a result Hamas thrived - they could say 'look at Arafat trying to negotiate and getting nowhere - the only option is violence'

Now Hamas are making the same movements as the PLO as they get closer to real power - is Israel going to repeat the trick of ignoring negotiations, marginalising Hamas and provoking a new hostility from the extremes of Palestinian sociey? I would say: probably. There is not much evidence that mistakes are learned from, or indeed that they are mistakes as far as zionists are concerned.

[Colorado Blue]

143. Respectfully, I don't think I'm being disingenuous. You should

read about this topic from the Israeli perspective, in Ha'aretz.

Hamas doesn't have much credibility there. If the feedback forum on this subject (it was covered in an article in Ha'aretz) is still up, you'll find that many people feel Hamas is merely changing tactics in order to gain an advantage, that the goal of "liberating" all of Israel remains.

The fact that they have not disarmed and continue to support the use of "armed struggle," gives credence to these suspicions.

I hope we are wrong.

As far as not negotiating with PLO - I suggest a reading of Bill Clinton on the topic of Oslo and Yassir Arafat.

[julianer]

155. I don't think Israel with ever

give 'respect' or 'credibility' to anything coming out of Palestine.

Israel said that they couldn't negotiate with Arafat and wanted Abbas. They get Abbas and suddenly he's not good enough either.

Hamas gets its support, indirectly, from Israeli intransigence.

In this regard Israel creates its own enemies and has no one else to blame for their existence.

[Behind the Aegis]

156. And vice-versa

Nothing out of Israel will have "respect" or credibility for Palestinians and anti-Israelis. Israel wanted Abbas because he was a moderate and made promises he has yet to keep, like reining in "militants."

Hamas doesn't get its support from Israel, but that is very clever, because it is yet one more "Israel is always responsible."

[Colorado Blue]

164. Wait a second.

When you say "Israel", what exactly do you mean? Is "Israel" just a thing, an inanimate object?

Israel is 6 million plus human beings. Many are Arab themselves, Druze, or Bedouin. Many are very left wing. The new Labor leader, Peretz, is Sephardic, of Moroccan ancestry. He calls the Palestinians, brothers. The majority of Israelis, what one Ha'aretz columnist calls "The Radical Center", are unifying behind the new party Kadima. They most certainly do want peace with the Palestinians.

In the larger sense, "Israel" is the Jewish nation, as in our prayer, "Shema Yisrael..." - hear, oh Israel...worldwide. There are 13 million of us, give or take, about probably 26 million opinions. So I'd be careful about stereotyping us and our points of view.

Some do feel contempt or feel afraid of the Palestinians. That does not mean even they wouldn't respect a just and honorable Palestinian leadership.

I won't deny this simple fact: the scars between the two peoples are very deep and decades old. But essentially, we are brothers. What we do not need is more inflammatory rhetoric, and more attempts to stoke the fires of conflict. We need voices of reconciliation. The Left in particular can help here, but instead many on the Left seem to be determined to magnify the sense of Palestinian grievance, minimize the sense of Israeli victimization, and fan the flames of conflict instead of helping us find just, real-world solutions to our problems.

As far as Hamas is concerned, it is, for one thing, is an Islamist party. Culturally, this puts them at odds with secular, modern Israel as well as with secular Palestinians. Secondly, their publicly avowed mission in life is the destruction of Israel. Third, PLO, whose charter was written in 1964 - years before the West Bank was captured from Jordan - was also dedicated to the destruction of Israel and that charter has never been rescinded. Indeed, shortly after the Oslo Accords were signed, Arafat was giving speeches in Arabic which contradicted any appearances that peace and reconciliation with Israel were the desired goal. The violence of the intifadas speaks for itself. And the fear is that no such government, no government born from such an avowal, could ever be trusted.

This violence and sense of distrust has deeply scarred even the most liberal Israelis, as I'm sure the Palestinians have been scarred. But from the Israeli point of view, the most obvious problem, right now, has been the failure of Palestinian leadership to disarm and control the militias whose avowed goal is the destruction of Israel.

All along, the fears of creating a Palestinian state have been simply this: given the tiny area we're discussing, empowering a state which would have airports and weapons, and which is determined to wipe out its neighbor, strikes many as suicidal. Hamas doesn't appear to be an answer to this problem, not that the extreme rightwing Israelis are much help either.

So I'm not underestimating the difficulty in trying to forge new relationships. But your statement that the majority of us don't want to get along with Palestinians or make peace, is simply erroneous. Standing in our way is fear of being wiped off the map.

I hope you'll consider these words and take them to heart.

[Violet_Crumble]

179. A correction....

This comment about Hamas was posted on the 15th:

'Secondly, their publicly avowed mission in life is the destruction of Israel.'

This was three days after this article had already been posted in this forum:

Hamas drops call for destruction of Israel from manifesto

Also you said:

'But your statement that the majority of us don't want to get along with Palestinians or make peace, is simply erroneous.'

Julianer never made a statement saying that the majority of Americans don't want to get along with Palestinians or make peace, and the reason for that is that if a comment along those lines were to be made and to make sense, it'd have to be about Israelis, not Americans. But then, I didn't see Julianer make that comment about Israelis either, so there ya go :)

Violet...

[eyl]

183. What about that article?

they haven't disavowed the call to destroy Israel; they're just muting the calls to do it.

[Violet_Crumble]

186. It proves the poster's claim was incorrect...

They've removed the call to destroy Israel from their manifesto or Charter or whatever it's called. It's probably no more ambiguous than the Likud Charter, the last version of which I saw openly stated that the West Bank was part of Israel...

imo, Hamas are wasting their time, because even if they included something in their Charter saying they think the occupation is the best thing since sliced bread, those whose stances on the conflict totally rely on the scenario of Israel constantly being on the verge of destruction, will totally ignore it...

Violet...

[eyl]

208. Wrong

they removed it from their platform for these elections. They didn't remove it from the Hamas Covenant.

Looking at today's headlines, I see in Yediot that Likud dropped its objection to a Palestinian state from the platform for the coming elections. From now on, given that, will you accept Likud is in favor of such a state?

[Violet_Crumble]

176. Uh, it's a fact that Israel and Jordan colluded...

Eyl and I have been discussing it in another thread.

Rather than track down the thread and copy'n'paste the bits from The Iron Wall that are already there, here it is in a nutshell:

November 1947 - Golda Meir and King Abdullah reach an agreement that the Jewish Agency looked favourably on Abdullah's plan to invade and annex the areas of Palestine that were allocated to be the Arab state. This wasn't a formal agreement, but clearly shows that the myths about the Zionists having been willing to allow a Palestinian state to emerge is complete rubbish.

May 1948 - With the collapse of the Palestinian resistance, the Arab League committed their armies to try to reverse the partition. The Jewish Agency turned down a US proposal for an unconditional cease-fire and also a British proposal for a truce in Jerusalem. At no time did the Jewish Agency make diplomatic attempts towards a truce with the Palestinians. Golda Meir revisited King Abdullah (who was under a lot of pressure) in an attempt to persuade him not to join the Arab League plan to invade Palestine. Meir insisted that Abdullah stick to their original agreement which was making sure that the Palestinian state never came into being, but Abdullah now wanted Palestine to be undivided with Jewish autonomy in areas that had a majority Jewish population. They couldn't reach agreement, and she departed.

While it's a fact that the original agreement came unstuck, it's not a fact that Israel and Jordan didn't collude to stifle the birth of the new Palestinian state. And while the agreement did come unstuck, by the second half of the war, Jordan was back to adhering to the original agreement. From the Iron Wall (p38):

'In the second half of the war, the special relationship between the Zionists and King Abdullah slowly began to reassert itself. In the summer of 1948 their armies came to blows, but even at the height of the war the two countries remained, in Uri Bar-Joseph's apt phrase, "the best of enemies." Throughout the war King Abdullah continued to pursue limited objectives and made no attempt to encroach on Jewish state territory'

Violet...

[eyl]

184. Again,

that description of "gentlemanly enemies" is misleading. One of the worst massacres of the war occured in the Etzion Block - under the auspices of the Jordanian military.

BTW - would you accept it if I said the Palestinians and Jews were the "best of enemies" in that war? The actions of Jordan towards Jews in that war differed from Israeli actions against Palestinians in scale only - and with much less in the way of justification.

[Violet_Crumble]

190. Keeping on repeating it doesn't make it true, eyl...

The description of "the best of enemies" (btw, that quote saying "gentlemanly enemies" is one I'm not familiar with) is from Uri Bar-Joseph and is the title of a book I'm going to grab a copy of: 'The Best of Enemies: Israel and Transjordan in the War of 1948'. There seems to be an emotional investment by some in painting Jordan as being intent on destroying Israel from the start, when the facts say otherwise.

Did this massacre occur in the first or second half of the war? Because if it was the first half, then that would support what Shlaim is saying.

Also, this discussion is about the relationship between Jordan and Israel, not the Palestinians and Israel, so I think yr question isn't anything more than an attempt to divert the discussion away from the relationship between Jordan and Israel....

Violet...

[pelsar]

197. you dont know much about wars....

battles and wars have a habit of changing orignal plans.....its an ongoing process of taking advantage or guessing at what may or maynot be.

its quite simple: whatever jordan and/or israel planned, or didnt, in the end, jordan destroyed israeli settlements, killed israels and took over land not for them.

and for the israelis in the field at that time, who were fighting the jordanians were fighting for the state of israels survival just as those on the other fronts. Pretending that if israel was losing on the other fronts, jordan would suddenly stop...is absurd, they would have continued their land grab up until the met the syrians and egyptians.

[Violet_Crumble]

198. I know enough about them...

What's quite simple is that trying to rewrite history to falsely portray Jordan and Israel as never having colluded is an ongoing process of total denial.

I'm not quite sure what point yr trying to make, apart from assuming that disagreement over something means the other person knows jack shit about it. I haven't denied that during the first part of the war Jordanian forces did battle the Jewish forces. But if you are trying to claim that any of that 'land not for them' was land allocated for the Jewish state, then you are wrong. And that 'land not for them' was the land that Golda Meir had agreed that the Jewish state would not stand in the way of Jordan annexing...

As I haven't claimed that if Israel was losing on other fronts, Jordan would suddenly stop (during the first half of the war), why are you talking as though I had said that?

Violet...

[pelsar]

207. agreements change during wars....

it was an explanation that "wars have a life of their own"....agreements are kept or discarded on the battlefield as events take place. Whatever the agreeements or temp agreements or what is "local agreements" between commanders on a battlefield (which are never "written) change in time.

but all wars have "agreements between warring parties" it may mean not to bomb each others capitals, not use gas, etc, but they are there, and they are just as easily discared as events change.

If the israeli state decided not to "stand in the way" which means not attacking and losing lives of whatever jordan planned on doing, was also subjective to events on the ground.

it seems your trying to proclaim that jordan and israel planned to screw the palestenains as if it was some plot....more likly as far as israel was concerned, there was a way to avoid further conflict and save some jewish lives (having major loses up to that point in time....).

[eyl]

209. No diversion attempted

On the basis of the expulsion of (some of the) Palestinians in 1948, Israel has been accused variously of crimes up to and including genocide (by the hysterical) and its very legitimacy called into question. Yet the same crimes committed by Jordan against Israel make them the "best of enemies"?

I don't have any "emotional investment in painting Jordan as being intent on destroying Israel from the start". I've already said that relatively speaking, Jordan's relationship with Israel was benign. But painting them as some kind of semi-allies is a gross distortion of events.

One more thing I'll repeat here* - from the Yishuv's point of view, it would have been stupid not to collude with Jordan. They were acquising to Jordanian control of land the Yishuv would not have controlled anyway (note the quote in the aforementioned Shlaim excerpt, that Israel would not expand beyond the partition borders if Jordan refrained from attacking), in exchange for removing the best-trained Arab army from the order of battle**. With six other Arab armies arrayed against them, do you really expect the Yishuv leaders to offer to fight the Jordanians on behalf of their Palestinian enemies?

(The "gentlemanly" quote is for Shlaim, though I may be misremembering; in any event the exact wording isn't very important)

*It should properly be further down, but I don't want to scatter this discussion more than necessary
**And if the Palestinians objected to Jordanian control, they would be diverted from attacking the Israeli forces

[Coastie for Truth]

83. "Bi-National" state is a code word for

"Jews out of the ME" (including the Sephardi and Mizrahi - indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa . see also .

and probably "Quit butting into American, Canadian, British, and Australian politcs" on choice, womens' rights, equal employment opportunity, public education, public higher education, stem cell research, single payer universal health care, etc." (this is the schtick of Allison Weir and Paul Findley).

and (in some cases) "Jews out of UK, France, Canada, US, and Australia"


"Coastie the Glockster"

[julianer]

127. No it's not

Why would you say that except as an excuse to retain the status-quo. After all you can't negotiate or trust these people so why even try?

Can you provide evidence for this statement:

'and (in some cases) "Jews out of UK, France, Canada, US, and Australia"'

I can't speak for the other countries but I would like to know about any increase in anti-semitism in the UK. I've heard nothing like this before. But I expect you are just making this up.

[Colorado Blue]

147. OK - on this there are firm statistics. The police reports

show an enormous increase in antisemitic incidents, including attacks - some very serious - on people.

This is happening bigtime in Britain and throughout Europe.

[julianer]

153. Links????

An 'enormous' increase in anti-semitic incidents and attacks in the UK? I don't think so, though it is true that plenty of pro-Israeli zealots constantly make this claim.

Can you show me your 'firm statistics'?

[Colorado Blue]

163. We've had several discussions on this, they're archived here

in the I/P forum along with supporting documentation.

Meanwhile you can check this out for yourself. The situation throughout Europe is becoming dangerous again for Jews, especially since 9/11. In Britain, the situation is probably less dangerous physically than in France, for example, though there have been many assaults, etc. Disturbingly, though, the barriers against public antisemitism in Britain seem to be falling. From our point of view, cartoons of Jewish politicians portrayed as flying pigs are an assault on common decency. We feel that certain powerful politicians, Mayor Livingston, for example, have crossed the line on several occasions, and this is enabling others to follow his lead.

There is only a narrow gap between words and deeds. And we've seen this before.

In Russia, people are now beginning to think they need police protection around synagogues. There are special protocols for Jewish travelers throughout Europe, to protect them. There have been attacks on Jewish children and old men. Graffiti and vandalism are common. I have seen this in my own neighborhood, in America. There is something devastating about the sight of a local synagogue, two blocks from my home, damaged by fire and desecrated by swastikas.

I've submitted pages of links substantiating this but people either don't respond to my posts or try to deny the seriousness of the implications. So I think maybe people, yourself for example, might benefit more by doing some research personally. Tel Aviv University keeps track of antisemitic attacks, incitement and incidents around the world, organized by region, on an annual basis; and there is documentation of course locally, country by country.

I will say this: attacks on Muslims, or people who appear to be Muslim, which has included some Jews, have also increased and this is very upsetting. The purpose behind them seems to be different however.

What is most disturbing of all, I think, is a growing stress between Muslims and Jews, which I think is manifest in England. It's a shame.

[Colorado Blue]

189. OK - here's one quick article - from the BBC. This should

get you started:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3586543.stm

Anti-Semitism 'on rise in Europe'


Attacks against synagogues have been documented

Attacks against Jews in Europe have sharply increased, says a report by a European anti-racism watchdog.

The study singles out Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Britain, where it says the rise in anti-Semitism has been of particular concern.

Other countries, including Ireland and Portugal, showed little sign of any rise in attacks, the report says.

It identifies "young, disaffected white Europeans" as the key culprits followed by North African or Asian Muslims.

snip

[julianer]

201. You mentioned a rise in anti-semitism

in the UK. I asked you for links. You haven't provided any though you reply as if your claims were proven beyond doubt.

'The CST
recorded 532 incidents in 2004, a 42
per cent rise on the 2003 total of 375
incidents.'

http://www.thecst.org.uk/downloads/Incidents_report04.pdf

Which is not, as claimed by the Chief Rabbi, a 'tsunami' of anti-semitism by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed this increase is worrying and it no doubt has its reasons in the war in Iraq and the general heightening of political tensions.

For some perspective on the nature of racist violence in the UK:

'The number of racist incidents recorded by the police rose by 9.7% from 49,078 in 2002/3 to
52,694 in 2003/4, following an 11% fall in the previous year.A majority of forces showed an increase
in the number of incidents, but figures from the Metropolitan Police Service showed a slight decline.
The 2003/4 BCS however shows that the number of victims of racist attacks remained the same as
in 2002/3 (206,000)'

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/s95overview.pdf

In comparison with general racist attacks, those that are specifically anti-semitic appear to be a tiny fracion. It is also worth mentioning that these high figures are partly the result of the police now being far more diligent in correctly describing attacks as racist something that the 'institutionally racist' police force has not been good at in the past.

So please keep a sense of proportion about this. It is no good for anyone to claim that the situation is worse than it actually is.

[Colorado Blue]

202. As I said, I've already put up a lot of links on this topic. The

data indicate, as the article mentions, a sharp increase in incidents. Not necessarily showing up in police reports but equally or even more disturbing, are changes in language and general stereotyping and demonization of Jews, that had been considered impolite in the years following WWII.

I will find my links and post them, AGAIN. But it would save time if you would do some googling on this topic.

Meanwhile, I suggest that the people who feel threatened are the ones whose voices should be heard. A 42% increase, as mentioned in your post, is alarming by any standards. And that doesn't, as I said, begin to reflect rhetoric, cartoons or vicious posters like the one linked by Token Jew. Police reports don't show the Star of David superimposed by swastikas, at "peace" rallies. Police reports don't reflect the comments by certain notables, such as the Mayor of London, or people who don't think Holocaust Day should be recognized.

Also there is more than a little hypocrisy going on here. There has been a great deal of talk on the thread and other related threads, about how Zionism is racism, Israel is a racist state that should stop being the Jewish homeland, Zionists want to take over other lands besides Israel, and so forth and so on.

Yet, when it is pointed out that antisemitism is on the rise, nobody wants to believe it.

Amazing.

[Behind the Aegis]

203. Amazing.

You say: "Yet, when it is pointed out that antisemitism is on the rise, nobody wants to believe it."

Makes you wonder what the reactions here might be if an African-American poster said "racism" is on the rise, or a gay person said that "homophobia" was on the rise and was met with..."PROVE IT! I don't believe it. Perhaps, you are just 'over-sensitive" (grow a thicker skin)." I am guessing the person making the claim about the rise of the forms of bigotry would be applauded, and the detractor, would be scorned, rightly or wrongly. Yet, here we are. Proof that anti-Semitism is on the rise...WORLDWIDE...and we are met with ..."PROVE IT! I don't believe it. Perhaps, you are just 'over-sensitive, (grow a thicker skin)."

George Orwell said it best in "Animal Farm"...."All animals are equal. Some are more equal than others."

[julianer]

205. I would hope the reaction would be the same

if the allegations weren't true.

You are being disingenuous as well. I am not denying anti-semitism is rising world wide. I don't know, I haven't seen any figures. I am saying that anti-semitism is not noticeably on the rise in the UK. Most racism is directed against muslims/brown skinned people at the moment.

Out of over 52,000 racists incidents reported to the police in the UK for the year 2004, 50 involved violence identified as anti-semitic, a rise from 30 the previous year. The rise in overall anti-semitic racist incidents rose by a huge souding 42% from a very low 300 or so to 500 or so (see above link). A drop in the ocean, less than 1% yet you make it sound as if Brownshirts are roaming the streets.

[Behind the Aegis]

206. Word parsing.

There is someone being disingenuous, it isn't me or CB. Neither of us said you were denying anti-Semitism worldwide. You asked about anti-Semitism in the UK, CB provided information, as did you.

You said, in post #153: "An 'enormous' increase in anti-semitic incidents and attacks in the UK? I don't think so, though it is true that plenty of pro-Israeli zealots constantly make this claim. Can you show me your 'firm statistics'?" Then, you continue with: "Out of over 52,000 racists incidents reported to the police in the UK for the year 2004, 50 involved violence identified as anti-semitic, a rise from 30 the previous year. The rise in overall anti-semitic racist incidents rose by a huge souding 42% from a very low 300 or so to 500 or so (see above link). Yet, in post #201 you say: "In comparison with general racist attacks, those that are specifically anti-semitic appear to be a tiny fracion. It is also worth mentioning that these high figures are partly the result of the police now being far more diligent in correctly describing attacks as racist something that the 'institutionally racist' police force has not been good at in the past." So, is it possible that the police are now counting anti-Semitic crimes they didn't in the past?

So I must ask you, how can you say, in post I can't speak for the other countries but I would like to know about any increase in anti-semitism in the UK. I've heard nothing like this before. But I expect you are just making this up.?" Did you also make up or not hear about your own post, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=111144&mesg_id=111877">#153: "[i>Out of over 52,000 racists incidents reported to the police in the UK for the year 2004, 50 involved violence identified as anti-semitic, a rise from 30 the previous year. The rise in overall anti-semitic racist incidents rose by a huge souding 42% from a very low 300 or so to 500 or so?" Then, turn around and say: "I've heard nothing like this before. But I expect you are just making this up.?"

So, has anti-Semitism increased in the UK, per your own post, or doesn't it matter? Also, per your own post #205 where you say: "A drop in the ocean, less than 1% yet you make it sound as if Brownshirts are roaming the streets.?" Is "1%" not enough?

[Colorado Blue]

211. We also have to consider the tiny percentage of the population

that is Jewish.

And again, the statistics on actual assaults, etc, don't begin to capture the verbiage, the cartoons, etc.

[julianer]

215. That is true - the Jewish

community is smaller than other ethnic groups but a 'tsunami' of anti-semitism is not being experienced by that community.

I am an anti-racist activist so I would have heard about a real rise in anti-semitism, yet I haven't. I have heard about a large rise in racist attacks againsts muslim and brown skinned people and massive efforts are underway to show solidariy with these people and to confront their attackers.

Shoudn't you be joining in those efforts? How about an expression of solidarity with all people suffering racism?

This is a much simpler issue than you are making it out to be: either show some evidence that what you claim is true or stop making the claim.

[Colorado Blue]

221. I think the rabbi, when he wrote about the "tsunami", was

speaking in global terms. Did you read his article? Have you done any research on this topic? You might especially be interested in the Middle East.

The UK is far, far better than other places in the world in this respect and he was clear about that. That doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist. And again: the onus isn't on me to prove the problem exists. It is on you, since you don't believe our voices, to become more sensitive to the issue.

Also I take offense at your comment that I should be showing solidarity with other people who are suffering racism. I was participating in civil rights marches when I was a teenager. This is typical of the Jewish community. We have long led the fight against oppression and I totally resent your tone.

Those civil rights marches were in the 1960's.

I have a feeling that was long before you were born. Am I right? If not, I apologize for misunderstanding your point of view.

Also, you don't really know WHAT color I am, do you? In any case, I don't identify with "white" people. Also I've been pretty cutting edge in feminist causes, which is one reason I have a problem with people who blindly condemn Israel.

By the way I've done quite a bit of impassioned writing, on the left and on the right, in defense of minorities. On the Left, I tend to defend Jews. On the right, Muslims, Latins, Native Americans and my fellow people of color.

An apology wouldn't be out of line. I'll thank you in advance.

[julianer]

235. Finally

Yes I agree that the problem of anti-semitism is rising world wide. I have never tried to deny it - I have merely denied that there is a significant rise in anti-semitism in the Uk and that the major problem of racism we face at the moment in Islamophobia.

The UK IS much better at racism than most countries because the left (including liberals and many, tories) have always vigourously opposed racism of any sort, including anti-semitism.

I am glad that you accept this at last.

I'm glad you say you are an anti-racist, though I won't apologise for calling for solidarity until I see some evidence that you do in fact have some as regards muslims in Palestine and elsewhere. No evidence from what I've seen so far, merely dogged insistence that anti-semitism is somehow far more relevant than the more pressing problems faced by muslims throughout the world.

[Colorado Blue]

245. LOL! I would have a lot more time to defend Muslims from

racism if I weren't being accused of being a racist all the time.

Think about that for awhile.

I do have a lot of thoughts on this topic and have written about it at length. I will get back to you anon but I have to get some work done.

Later.

[Name removed]

247. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Colorado Blue]

225. WOULD YOU BELIEVE THE POPE????????

Pope meets Rome rabbi, expresses worry over fresh anti-Semitism

VATICAN CITY - Pope Benedict XVI, meeting with Rome's chief rabbi Monday, expressed pain and worry over fresh outbreaks of anti-Semitism, and called on Jews and Christians to wage a united battle against hate.

Waves of anti-Semitic violence and vandalism have hit Europe in the past few years. Last week, worshippers in a Moscow synagogue were attacked by a man with a knife.

Benedict did not mention specific occurrences of anti-Semitism in his speech to greet Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni in an audience at the Vatican.

The rabbi led a delegation from Rome's Jewish community, one of the oldest in the world.

Benedict said that Jews and Christians have the responsibility to cooperate to promote justice, love and freedom.

"In the light of this common mission, we cannot not denounce and combat with decisiveness the hate and incomprehension, the injustices and the violence that continue to sow worry in the soul of men and women of good will," Benedict said.

SNIP

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/671022.html

[julianer]

236. This does not address the point at issue

which is anti-semitism in the UK.

[Colorado Blue]

243. I think the documentation is clear. The fact that, in 2004,

there was a 42% increase, speaks for itself.

Do you want some more articles? Of course, you'd probably argue that the writers don't espouse your point of view so therefore they're invalid.

The fact is, you don't WANT to see this. But it's there. It has been, for hundreds of years. Sweeping it under the rug or pretending it doesn't exist won't make it go away.

And if you're going to write on the topic of Israel, you should make it your business to learn as much as you can about this painful topic, and about Jewish matters and history as possible, as I have tried to learn about Arabs and Islamic culture and history as I can.

Even so I admit I'm limited because I can't speak more than a bit of Arabic. But I do know the music, the great architecture that was created throughout the Islamic world, the textiles, and I read. I'm a professional belly dancer for more than 30 years. I've worked with Arab musicians and I've danced at Arab weddings. I've been deeply involved with Islamic art, as a collector and writer; I've lectured on tribal textiles. I have friends from throughout the Islamic world - Arabs, Persians, Pakistani.

I'm trying to learn, and I've tried to overcome inherent cultural bias and especially, fear.

It's better than nothing - in fact it's a lot. If you would try to learn a bit about my people, it would mean a lot as well, about Jews in Europe, the history of Jews throughout the world, and the people of modern Israel. Ultimately, if enough of us did the same thing, it would add up and it would really mean something.

If we don't make a serious effort to blast themselves out of our preconceptions and really learn, try to feel and understand other people, how can we solve the world's problems?

[julianer]

246. I entirely agree with your comments

It is vital that we learn about each other. But we need to recognise injustice wherever it comes from (even from previous victims of injustice and murder). And we need to recognise and deal with faults in our own communities and beliefs.

You accuse me of not wanting to see other evidence, but you don't provide any. I'm not sure why you say this except you wish to paint me as closed minded or unthinkingly biased. The sort of politics I come from demands that you don't hide from evidence no matter how inconvenient it may be for your political beliefs. If they are refuted by the evidence from the real world it's your beliefs that are easiest to change, after all.

I object to the scares about rampant anti-semitism in the UK because I think it is dangerously self-defeating - like the boy who called wolf once too often. When or if there is another major upsurge in anti-semitic racism (similar to that faced by black Britons in the 70's and 80's and to that presently faced by Muslims) it will be harder to motivate people to defend the Jewish community because Zs will have alienated so many anti-racists with their constant depiction of us as anti-semitic because we object to Israeli racism. Divided we fall.

PS. It was me who originally provided the 42% figure of increase from 350 incidencts to 530 incidents. A small yet worrying increase - probably caused as a result of increased tensions resulting from the Iraq war. Yet this figure (without the contextualising figures) is now brandished as an argument against me and used as if I'm denying the figures I myself produced.

[julianer]

214. Yes it has increased

Why would you interpret my posts, which largely cited government reports, in any other way.

But it is a drop in the ocean in comparison to the real increase in racist attacks against muslims and dark skinned people.

Why are you trying, firstly, to exaggerate a problem that doesn't exist to anything like the extent you claim, and, secondly trying to suggest (as ever) that I am somehow unconcerned about anti-semitism?

[Colorado Blue]

222. I am not exaggerating a problem. I think you are trying to

ignore it, or are totally insensitive to it. I think you should raise your conciousness on this issue.

There have indeed been more attacks on Muslims and people of color. The percentage of their population is much higher and they are more visibly "different".

That doesn't argue against the seriousness of attacks on Jews, verbally, physically, in the press, in day to day discourse.

Historically, many believe that antisemitism is a sort of "canary in the coal mine," a precursor of big trouble. It's not something to be taken lightly.

[julianer]

234. Once again I am not 'insensitive' to racism

of any sort. Why should you think that? Can you back it up?

Which 'day to day attacks are you talking about in the press? Do you actually read the British press or are you just making stuff up? There is no noticeable anti-semitism in the British press, though I have seen plenty of Islamophobia.

This is the problem: you claim anti-semitism is hugely increased in the UK. I show you the statistics that prove otherwise. You then repeat your claims as if nothing had been said and claim I am 'insensitive' to a situation which doesn't exist outside of the propaganda mills of z.....m.

[Colorado Blue]

244. Please. It would help convince me that you're not insensitive

if you would stop denigrating the Zionist ideal. We have a point of view. That doesn't make us propagandists and it doesn't make us evil.

Indeed, I could point out that the Muslim world, the Arab world, the world of those who really hate Israel, who really hate and despise Jews, is far larger than we, and far richer, and spends billions on top flight ad agencies. I could point out the "electronic intifada" and the proliferation of hate and misinformation sites, the attempts to reconstruct our history, deny the Holocaust, denigrate our religion, rewrite the past.

But back to the topic at hand.

Yes, I read the BBC almost daily online as well as other articles as I have time; and I've seen some pretty hairy examples, comments by Livingston, by Sacranie, pictures of policians portrayed as flying pigs. I've read comments by Galloway, I've seen reports of rallies in London advocating the destruction of Israel. I read about Oona King being pelted with eggs at a memorial for the Jewish war dead and I've seen photos of cemetaries desecrated with swastikas. I followed the attempts by the AUT to isolate and boycott Israeli universities and I'm aware of Christian divestiture attempts.

It adds up.

[Name removed]

248. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

249. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

250. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

251. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

223. Are you for real?!

Yes it has increased...Why would you interpret my posts, which largely cited government reports, in any other way.

Oh, I don't know, maybe I came to that 'wild' conclusion because of post #153 where you say: "An 'enormous' increase in anti-semitic incidents and attacks in the UK? I don't think so, though it is true that plenty of pro-Israeli zealots constantly make this claim." Then, again, maybe I arrived at my conclusion, because in the very post to which I am responding, you say: "Why are you trying, firstly, to exaggerate a problem that doesn't exist to anything like the extent you claim..."

Why are you trying, firstly, to exaggerate a problem that doesn't exist to anything like the extent you claim, and, secondly trying to suggest (as ever) that I am somehow unconcerned about anti-semitism?

I would say a 42% increase is not exaggerating the problem! As for your second question, well, I think describing a 42% increase in anti-Semitism as a "drop in the ocean" is fairly indicative that your concern does not "bubble over" when anti-Semitism is the problem. If you were really concerned, I doubt that you'd describe its increase (after finally accepting it) in the fashion you did, nor would continue to divert the discussion to other forms of discrimination that you introduced.

[julianer]

237. Italics and underlingings

do not alter the fact that you are not contradicting what I said. There is no huge problem of anti-semitism in the UK.

Shout as much as you like, it won't alter the fact.

Though I am baffled why you should seem to want there to be such an increase so desperately. Why is that?

[Behind the Aegis]

238. Why do you misrepresent your own posts?

Your own post said a 42% increase, yet you originally claimed there was none! There is a problem, but I guess it is not big enough for you to care? :shrug:

Why are you so desperate to pretend the problem isn't there and hasn't increased 42% in one year (per your post)?

BTW....THIS IS SHOUTING! Using italics, bold, and exclamation points are emphasis!

[julianer]

239. Actually I said 'a huge seeming 42%'

(or similar) because the rise from 350 to 510(both approx) (all incidents including about 50 violent in one year) is not really huge at all, but the percentage figure (the only one you mention, naturally) does sound threateningly large.

Which goes back to the question: why do you want the instances of anti-semitism to seem worse than they are? Shouldn't you be celebrating the fact that anti-semitism in the UK is not a major problem?

[Name removed]

240. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[julianer]

241. Are you now accusing me

of being in favour of violence against Jews?

Increasing Islamophobia:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4740015.stm

You will find several interesting reports on this site:

http://eumc.eu.int/eumc/index.php

Are you denying a rise in Islamophobia?

For the last time, I am not 'downplaying' anti-semitism. Once again you try to impute nefarious, anti-semitic motives to my posting when you run out of arguments. I warned you about this before.

[Behind the Aegis]

242. No.

I am not saying you are being in favour of violence against Jews, nor am I saying that you are employing anti-Semitic motives; that is of your own design and opinion.

I have not denied a rise in Islamophopia. This sidebar was created because you denied an increase in anti-Semitism, then proved it, then claimed it was a "drop in the bucket," and now are trying to change the subject because you cannot admit that "yes, there is an increase in anti-Semitism, even in the UK."

[julianer]

204. Again you are not

providing evidence, merely assertions. I'm sure you can find a lot of misinformation on Google but that is not the same thing. The statistics I linked to are at least from reputable organisations.

There is no real evidence that anti-semitism in the UK is rising like a 'tsunami'. You are trying to create a panic that isn't justified.

Why do this? I imagine you are really just trying to categorise critics of Israel as anti-semites - the standard tactics of ....... (not allowed to mention the word, thanks mods, that's debate!).

With regard to the inherent racism of ....... as a political philosophy in action - links have been provided.

You deny the proven, existing racism of the Israeli state and its political philoshphy of ......., yet attempt to create a fear of anti-semitism where it isn't justified by actual facts.

[Colorado Blue]

213. OK. Here are some links.

One is a very concise and well-written article about antisemitism and the New Left. It is well worth reading I think. The title of the article is:

A DISCOURSE OF DELEGITIMISATION: THE BRITISH LEFT AND THE JEWS
By Ben Cohen

http://www.axt.org.uk/

Just enter the site and you'll find the article.

Two links are from Tel Aviv University, which tracks antisemitic incidents throughout the world on an annual basis. These are for the UK only, but the reports on the rest of the planet also make interesting reading.

The last if from the US State Department and is the most recent. I'm including a quote from this one:

From July 2004 through June 2005, the Community Security Trust (CST) recorded 482 anti-Semitic incidents in the United Kingdom. CST recorded 77 assaults and 43 instances of desecration and damage to property. The number of anti-Semitic incidents rose significantly during 2004. Figures from Israel's Global Forum against Anti-Semitism stated that 310 anti-Semitic incidents occurred in the United Kingdom during the year, of which 77 were violent, as opposed to 163 anti-Semitic incidents in 2003, of which 55 were violent. The report stated that a "central cause" of the increase in incidents was "years of hostile reporting and commentary about Israel in the UK press."

On August 22, 2004, cemetery officials discovered the desecration of approximately 60 gravestones in a Jewish cemetery in Birmingham. Police charged two suspects with racially aggravated criminal damage, racially aggravated public disorder, and causing racially aggravated harassment, alarm, or distress. On October 19, police charged Abu Hamza al-Masri with 16 criminal offenses, including soliciting or encouraging the murder of Jews, inciting racial hatred, and possessing a document that contained information "of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism." At the end of the period covered by this report, his trial was pending.

The numbers vary from the CST report you quoted. I'm assuming that is because they are working with a different cycle, month to month.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51589.htm

It should be mentioned that many other incidents occurred in 2005, but haven't been included in reports like this one yet. As I mentioned, discussions about these more recent incidents are archived here in the I/P forum.

And again, the State Department traces such incidents throughout the world. I believe you can access them from the link I've provided but if not I'll forward one that shows country by country reports.

http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2003-4/uk.htm
http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2002-3/uk.htm

Finally, there are many other sources which comment on verbiage, cartoons, and social customs, that indicate rising and ever more respectable expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment. Of course this is nothing new. Historically this has waxed and waned, in cycles. Nevertheless it is discouraging to see.

I'll stick to these links for now.

[julianer]

216. Those figures confirm my arguments

There is a small rise in anti-semitism, probably due to increase ethnic tension surrounding the Iraq war.

However the attack on the British left is more about the left's opposition to the policies of Israel and not to do with anti-semitism. It is the strategy of the .......(censored word) movement to predicate a 'new anti-semitism' which conflates the issues of opposition to Israeli policies with anti-semitism or Jew hating. This is spurious nonsense that cannot be supported by fact or evidence - so we have this wide ranging smear campaign which effectively accuses everyone not in complete agreement with Israeli occupation and violence of anti-semitism.

Of course much of the British left is composed of Marxist, socialist, pacifist and all other sorts of Jews. How can you explain this? These apparantly anti-.......(censored word) Jews? The links between the British left and Britsh Jews are historically close since they fought together in the past against the fascists.

[Coastie for Truth]

219. Backup please

you posted

Of course much of the British left is composed of Marxist, socialist, pacifist and all other sorts of Jews. How can you explain this? These apparantly anti-.......(censored word) Jews? The links between the British left and Britsh Jews are historically close since they fought together in the past against the fascists.

Your first sentence, viz

Of course much of the British left is composed of Marxist, socialist, pacifist and all other sorts of Jews.

is the classical anti-Jewish meme of the old, establishment right.

Your last sentence, viz

The links between the British left and Britsh Jews are historically close since they fought together in the past against the fascists.

makes even less sense, since Jews have been systematically squeezed out of the far left in the United States (and I would assume also in England).

To some extent this had to with different perceptions of remedies fashioned under Brown II, 349 U.S. 294 (1955), and also with academic hiring and tenure decisions, and with medical school and law school admissions criteria (see, e.g., Jerome Karabel, The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton) inter alia.

But I digress. You have asserted - now produce the evidence to support your assertions.

[julianer]

231. What are you asking me to prove?

Once again I can't follow your argument. Are you saying I'm lying about Jews being part of the British left? Are you saying that the British and US left have 'systematically squeezed out' Jews?

I think you should justify such a silly claim, not me.

With reference to the unity between the British left an British Jews:

http://www.eastendtalking.org.uk/OurHistory/legends/default.asp?ID=11

There is no animosity between the British left and the Jewish community, so I'm surprised you seem to think there is. But you also think that anti-semitism is much greater than it is in the Uk so I have to assume you are arguing from a position of ignorance.

Please explain yourself. I am not responsible for any ignorance or misunderstanding on your part.

[Colorado Blue]

220. Oh my.

It is amazing that one can sit at a safe remove and condemn a nation thousands of miles away for being racist, yet ignore racism at home, and ignore the significance of attacks on people who are in fact being harmed by the same bigoted propaganda that shows up in the constant distortion of the ........ philosophy and ideal.

I think a comparison of racism and apartheid, human and civil rights should be done between Israel and the 22 Arab League states, Iran, and the P.A.

Wouldn't that be an interesting project? Maybe we could also include France, in view of the recent riots there.

[Coastie for Truth]

224. In today's academe

that kind of study does not get one tenure.

[Colorado Blue]

226. Yeah. That is probably true, unfortunately. EOM

[julianer]

233. What does this mean? n/t

[julianer]

232. How many thousands of miles away are you

from the situation you are 'commenting' on?

Can you back up your claim that I'm 'ignoring racism at home'. This is pretty offensive since, in effect, you are saying I'm a racist.

This is ok, is it?

[Colorado Blue]

165. I hope you'll forgive me for interjecting a few words here.

Your characterization of Israel as racist and colonialist is extremely offensive. It denies the purpose and need for Israel to exist as a JEWISH homeland, that there are only 13 million of us in the world, and that we need and deserve, one small place on this planet where we can just be people. And we are nobody's colony. Beyond that, Jewish people have lived continuously, except between 1948 and 1967, on the West Bank, for thousands of years. How can we be colonizing our own homeland?

Beyond that, history has proven that we can't exist forever as a minority, hunted and scorned and persecuted, our numbers periodically decimated. So your assertion that simply getting rid of Israel doesn't equate to killing Jews is erroneous. It does equate to killing Jews. And it equates to killing hope.

I also question your assumption that "most" leftwingers would like to see her disappear.

Like Coastie, I've been a leftie all my life. What troubles me is that these hard-left voices are starting to sound like the far right. Do you really think that THIS left wing is the majority? A core principle of the Left has been the defense of minorities. If there is any minority that needs defending it is Jews. Yet, you would strip of us of our only homeland.

Look at the numbers. 13 million Jews, 1.3 billion Muslims, billions of Christians and followers of other religions. 13 million Jews on the planet, manifestly in danger. Yet, you would deny us the right to our home? Is this really a worthy goal?

Think about it, please. And also think about this: if this attitude truly represents the Left, then a lot of people are going to be moving to the center or the moderate Right, because we can't support the persecution of minorities in the name of "justice" - we don't believe this attitude is moral or just on its face, and that THIS version of the left is actually very close to the far right. Defense of Palestinian rights shouldn't trump Israeli rights: the Israelis are human beings, and in the scheme of things represent a tiny and endangered group of people.

Also, the very idea that a binational state would be just or even possible, hasn't been borne out by the facts of recent years. I might have supported such an idea on principle myself - until the Intifada. I think many other leftwing Jews have been stung by this, even people like Benny Morris.

Plus, culturally, there is a tremendous and growing gap between Israel, between Jewish people and the west, and the Islamist philosophy that is gaining power, even among the Palestinians. Trying to force people of such differing philosophies to live together doesn't make sense. And, alas, history has shown that Jews have suffered endlessly under such conditions. Minorities in the Middle East suffer terribly.

So this outlook would in fact doom us.

[Coastie for Truth]

167. Some of the people that former VP Agnew called "Radic-Libs"

could almost care.

They are so myopically, single issue. See .

These Radic-Libs are going to give 2008 to the Frist-Jebbie Team.

[Colorado Blue]

168. Or, they'll inspire the rest of us to stand up and shout.

This isn't right.

[Coastie for Truth]

166. Listen up.

I have been a leftie longer then you have - when it was career dis-enhancing.

1. Had - and survived a "Captains Mast" (lowest level of Court Martial) for standing up for a gay enlisted Coastie.

2. Had - and survived a "Captain's Mast" for having Democratic Campaign literature in my cubicle.

3. Was "warned" by my manager for taking a personal 'vacation" day to work on a Democratic campaign.

4. Was, in effect, told to resign, for complaining about an employer PAC contribution to an extreme RW candidate.

So, please don't effin lecture me.

[mantrid]

131. Neville Chamberlain was a progressive?

Well that's certainly been well hidden all these years...;)

Not to miss the wood for the trees though- I actually agree with you about the Law of Return.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. There is an apartheid system in the West Bank...

Personally, I don't care less what you choose to call it, because no matter what word is used to desribe it, it's ugly and discriminatory. btw, making sweeping false and negative generalisations about the Palestinian people is not the way to try to get a point across if the argument is that there is no apartheid-style system in the West Bank...

Violet...

[pelsar]

44. its called war.....

the palestenains we are fighting are "white/dark...and many other colors.......our discrimination involves a national identity, we dont let palestenains walk around freely since many of them have this habit of trying to kill us, and we dont know who they are....its normally in other parts of the world call war (care to check other parts of the world and compare?)

of course it comes down to the usual question: perhaps you have an ID solution for us, so that we know who is on the way to blow us up and who isnt, that doesnt bother the other palestenains?.......

that would solve the "apartheid" problem....

[Violet_Crumble]

46. Sorry, it's called illegal settlements...

There is no way that the 'war' excuse can be trotted out to try to justify the apartheid-style system in the West Bank. Why then if you use the 'war' excuse, aren't Israeli Arabs also subjected to the same apartheid system as the Palestinians in the West Bank are? And can you explain how those settlements and bypass roads in the West Bank prevent anything other than any chance of a viable Palestinian state...

Claiming many Palestinians want to kill Israelis is just as wrong as claiming many Israelis want to kill Palestinians. Trying to justify the discrimination with such a claim is even worse...

Violet...

[pelsar]

48. settlements are not the issue.....

aparteheid...the use of the word is:

but to answer your question:...and i'm surprised your asking it, because its such a basic part of the conflict:

israeli arabs are not subjected to the the same system as palestenains. Israeli arabs are israelis

as far as claiming many palestenains want to kill israelis is wrong?...how is that, i guess those bullets and kassams arent being shot by palestenians?....my friends were killed by......aliens?....facts are facts...many palestenians want and are trying to kill israelis.

as far as discrminating against those other palestenains, sure its wrong, but we havent yet developed the mind reader technology, to figure out who is who.....hey! they could wear uniforms!!, this way we wont have to discriminate!

[Violet_Crumble]

50. They most certainly are the issue...

The settlements are the hub of it all, pelsar. Without the settlements, there'd be none of the things that make this so much like apartheid. Pretending that the settlements and the Israeli-only policies in parts of the West Bank are all about security is totally incorrect...

Uh, you do realise that Israeli Arabs in the past have carried out or assisted in carrying out suicide bombings? There's something that doesn't sound right here. It's okay to carry out systematic discrimination against occupied people seeing as how they're not Israeli?

Sorry, but if yr going to continue to claim that many Palestinians want to kill Israelis, then you better acknowledge that many Israelis want to kill Palestinians. I'm positive Palestinians can talk about family members and friends killed by Israelis, and come to the same conclusion...

Here's a novel idea. How about Israel dismantle those settlements and bring the settlers back to Israel? That way there wouldn't have to be any discrimination against the Palestinians carried out by Israelis in the West Bank...

Violet...

[pelsar]

67. apartheid.....

the issue was the definition of apartheid....its not the case. If you prefer to use the word "like apartheid"...i'm a bit more agreeable as it does have elements that are similar...but the system itself is not an apartheid system. (i never claimed the settlements are about security)

and your point is well taken israeli arabs have assisted in suicide bombers yet israeli arabs are not 'treated as palestenains. They are treated as citizens of israel...hence the discrimination is nationalistic and not based on race...and since that occupied people are in the middle of a war with israel, yes it is quite standard to not let them walk around israel freely, make bombs freely etc. but it always come down to the same thing: the jihdankim refuse to wear uniforms.....so that they get to laugh at us while we play "who has the bomb' while trying not to hurt those not involved....and get critized for our efforts.

___________________________
we did dismantle some settlements.....and we dont dicriminate against the palestenaisn in gaza...what we do get are Kassams and terrorism and the PA saying that it not their problem.....(and others who say "do nothing" just accept the missles landing on your cities...)

so much for the novel idea.....

[Chautauqua]

210. Apartheid Absolutely!

Glad to see somebody discuss the elephant in the room. There is ABSOLUTELY an Apartheid system in the West Bank. While Israel has citizenship, civil rights and voting for citizens of all races, ethnicities and religions, the proposed Palestinian States in the West Bank and Gaza insist that full citizenship can only be granted to ethnic Arabs of Moslem or Christian religion. (and the Christian part is debatable depending on which faction you ask)

In fact the key sticking point in the debates seems to be the total refusal of the Palestinian Authority to accept any Jewish citizens. If not, they could have had a Bi-National state with the Jews living in the "settlements" as full citizens of the Palestinian State. But that was not acceptable when the Palestinian Charter was written, was not acceptable at Oslo or Taba and is apparently not acceptable now. And, I suspect, is not acceptable to any of the people here who claim to be friends of the Palestinian people and "bi-national states" and such opponents of "ethnic cleansing" and "Apartheid systems".

It's time for a bi-national Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank and a Jewish state (already Bi-National) in Israel.

That probably wasn't the solution you meant or one you find acceptable.

Perhaps it'd be interesting for you to explain why.

[Jim Sagle]

212. It would, but I doubt that anyone COULD explain it.

It's a truly monstrous - even exterminationist - double standard, and there is no defense for it.

[Englander]

217. Jimbo?

Seen this?

DU Profile;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=177703

[Jim Sagle]

218. No. I had not seen it. And it changes nothing.

It doesn't change my mind and it doesn't change the facts.

Someone got tombstoned for telling the truth? THAT'S your response? I'm supposed to be impressed?

Fugggggeddddddddddaboudddddddit.

[Colorado Blue]

227. Why did this person get tombstoned? I saw several of his

posts and didn't see anything obnoxious or wrong about anything he said?

Also Token Jew seems to have "died".

Strange.

[Coastie for Truth]

228. So.

How many ALERTs did you send in?

[Englander]

230. None. n/t

[Wordie]

28. Archbishop Desmond Tutu condemns Israeli 'apartheid' (BBC)

Tutu condemns Israeli 'apartheid'

Tutu said 'oppression' would not bring security

South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu has accused Israel of practising apartheid in its policies towards the Palestinians.

The Nobel peace laureate said he was "very deeply distressed" by a visit to the Holy Land, adding that "it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa".

In a speech in the United States, carried in the UK's Guardian newspaper, Archbishop Tutu said he saw "the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about".

The archbishop, who was a leading opponent of apartheid in South Africa, said Israel would "never get true security and safety through oppressing another people".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1957644.stm

He went on to say that these comments, critical of the Israeli government, did not represent anti-Semitism.

So many people try to tell these things to the Israelis, yet they just ignore them.

[bemildred]

29. Yeah, what would he know about it? nt

[Violet_Crumble]

47. He's anti-Israel and doesn't know jack shit about apartheid!!

What a nerve trying to act as though he knows something about it ;)

Violet...

[bemildred]

56. Well, it's an interesting point, but almost impossible to talk about.

There are similarities, and differences. I was reading a book called "Gorgon" about a paleontonogist working in S. Africa in the 80s and 90s, and he describes (among other things) what it was like in S. Africa and the "townships" during that period, and it reminds very much of events and situation one reads about in I/P. Yet there are obvious differences too. But as I say, you can't have a rational discussion.

[adriennui]

have you been boycotting

medical advances made be israeli drs. and scientists.

i've come to the conclusion that these selective boycotts are hilarious. i want boycotts of countries that exploit women and young girls.


oh, i forgot israel is the most evil country that has ever existed.

[TokenJew]

15. The British Teachers Boycott was my personal favorite

nothing like academics suppressing other academics because of their nationality, especially when the academics are their natural allies.

[adriennui]

21. some european countries have a bad habit

of shooting themselves in the foot.

[mantrid]

130. Mercifully that ended up being widely condemned

And more people signed on to the counter-petition than the original boycott. But I agree it was a shameful little episode.

[pelsar]

13. same old double standard....

one for israel...and one for the rest of the world......nothing new here folks.....

[Violet_Crumble]

26. The only double standard I see is from those who opposed SA apartheid...

..yet turn around and demand that no-one should even think about boycotting Israel...nothing new there at all...

Violet...

[pelsar]

43. boycotting...

either the palestenains or the israelis will not help anything....israel is hardly an apartheid state (I find that kind of accuastion to be insulting as well as simply ignorent) .....and as much as there are cries against the palestenains for "not allowing jews" to remain on palestenian soil, i hardly call that cry juednrein...its more of "get the godamn israelis out of here"...which i have no problem with, nor would i call that racist.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. My views on boycotting haven't changed...

In the case of Israel, pushing it's back to the wall would more than likely make the Israeli govt more resolute to ignore the international community. Boycotts and sanctions have in the past had really bad effects on people living in the country being 'punished' by the US and its gang of hanger-onners.

The main difference between the situations with Israel and South Africa is that with South Africa, the apartheid was happening in South Africa, whereas with Israel, there is no apartheid in Israel proper, but the situation in the West Bank is an apartheid-style system. So calling SA a racist state would have been accurate, while calling Israel the same wouldn't be. Does making that distinction make sense to you? Not sure if I've been as clear as I'd liked to have been in explaining it...

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

87. The Saudi (and Arab league) Boycott of Jews world wide

has only driven me out of petroleum and into alternative, renewable, and green energy. I would like nothing more then to be 100% free of petroleum. I would rather have a nuclear reactor on the Hayward Fault (1.5 miles east of me) then buy oil - from anywhere.

[mantrid]

132. Good question

It seems to me that all that will be achieved here is the compromising of Norway's ability to act as an honest broker between the two sides in future. Sad.

[Tom Joad]

23. This is nonviolent action. This can bring real change.

"We are being singled out." Old South Africa used the same protest.
It worked.
For a time.

Until South Africa decided they had no choice to change their policies (after many decades of the status quo), to change the very basis of their society. It is now a society run, however imperfectly, by and for all its inhabitants.

[Boojatta]

37. Who denied that South Africa is run for the benefit of the inhabitants of

South Africa? Unfortunately, the South African government doesn't seem to care much about what's happening in a nearby nation: Zimbabwe.

Some people in Norway focus on the Middle East, but most Europeans seemed to care little about violence in their own backyard: Bosnia, Croatia, etc.

Why dream about future regime change in Israel? Norway can bring more Palestinian refugees to Norway very soon. Is it easier to jump to the top floor of an office tower than to take the stairs? What's wrong with taking some small steps to provide some real help?

If an individual Palestinian refuses to accept an offer to live in Norway, then perhaps that particular individual should not be considered to be a "refugee."

[Tom Joad]

38. South Africa was once run under a very different system, that has

since been regulated to the dustbin of history. Apartheid, a bad idea from the start. It suggested that South Africa was a nation for White people, at one time is was not run for the benefit of all.

To care about problems in Palestine is not to deny or not care about problems elsewhere.

[julianer]

55. Why do you want Palestinians in Norway

for heaven's sake? Lebensraum?

Should these foot-shooting Europeans have not concerned themselves with South African apartheid? Why do you insinuate that Europeans are unconcerned about violence in Europe yet make a fuss about innocent old Israel?

You seem to be implying that Europeans don't mind violence at all - they really just want to mount unreasonable attacks on Israel, presumably because 'Europeans' are anti-semitic. Could you clear this up for me, please?

[Boojatta]

136. "Why do you want Palestinians in Norway for heaven's sake?"

It's not about what I want. It's about what Palestinians want. If each Palestinian is very happy with the status quo, then of course the opportunity to live in Norway would not be appealing. I wasn't suggesting that Palestinians should be forced to live in Norway. My thought was simply that a refugee is typically someone who is forced to flee his or her native country and who nevertheless would like to go on living. It follows that a refugee will typically live somewhere other than his or her native country.

I mention Norway simply because it is the topic of the thread. There are people of Chinese descent in various parts of the world. Why should Palestinians be confined to one place? If some people in Norway are very concerned about Palestinians and are willing to help some Palestinians settle in Norway, then what's the problem?

[Boojatta]

137. South African gov't ignored Zim problem. European gov'ts ignored Bosnia

You wrote:
"Should these foot-shooting Europeans have not concerned themselves with South African apartheid?"

I wrote:

Who denied that South Africa is run for the benefit of the inhabitants of South Africa? Unfortunately, the South African government doesn't seem to care much about what's happening in a nearby nation: Zimbabwe.

Some people in Norway focus on the Middle East, but most Europeans seemed to care little about violence in their own backyard: Bosnia, Croatia, etc.

***

"You seem to be implying that Europeans don't mind violence at all"

Perhaps it was precisely their horror of violence that made them reluctant to address the violence close to home and more interested in remote, controversial violence.

[Boojatta]

39. "This is nonviolent action. This can bring real change."

Okay, I'll take the bait.

Were the economic sanctions on Iraq nonviolent action? They sure brought real change, right? Note: "real" does not mean "good."

It's a good idea to have a plan and not just a strategy. Just saying.

[Tom Joad]

40. Were the sanctions on South Africa?

I would have agreed to ending all military aid to Iraq. That should at least be the starting place with Israel. In fact, lets end all military aid period, everywhere, but especially in the middle east.

Besides, Israel is not going to starve, unlike Iraq. We are not talking about a complete embargo, enforced by the military.

[Wordie]

41. The sanctions and boycotts and disvestment worked in the case of SA.nt

[Coastie for Truth]

63. JOIN ME AT MOLLY STONES, CALIFORNIA AVE IN PALO ALTO CA

WE WILL PICKET THEMN UNTIL THEY QUIT SELLIN NORWEGIAN PRODUCTS.

[Violet_Crumble]

182. So boycotting is okay as long as you agree with it?

That's the sort of attitude that's starting to make me think about rethinking my previous no-boycott attitude when it comes to boycotts of Israel....

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

64. WHAT KIND OF CELL PHONE SHOULD I BUY - NOT NOKIA OR MOTOROLA

Some Nokias are assembled in Norway.
Motorola is Rummie's old employer.

I guess I'll stick with "RIM" or "Treo."

[Coastie for Truth]

150. Norwegian Herring May Be Traif--

Warning - Norwegian Herring may be traif--


Caution, herring from Norway may be traif.

Amazingly, most of the scales fall off the herring as they are being removed from the water. Most remaining scales are removed by fishermen using a process called vacuum harvesting. Even these shed scales have some economic value: fishermen sell them to cosmetic companies who grind them and use them in make-up!

By the time these fish are brought to the processing plant, they have almost no remaining scales. If a representative from the kosher certifying agency is not right there on the boat with the fishermen (which is not likely) how does the kosher certifying agency know that the fish are kosher? After all, the Torah requires that one identify kosher fish by their snapir v’kaskeses, fins and scales, and those scales are no longer present?

One answer can be found in comments from the Darchei Teshuva (Yorah Deah 83:1) who notes that, although scales may no longer be present on a fish, someone familiar with a kosher fish based on its skin can still identify that fish as kosher (a concept known as tevias ayin). This line of reasoning is accepted by the preponderance of kashrus agencies that certify herring. Other suggestions are also offered by Poskim for finding scales on a fish that apparently no longer possesses them. One can carefully check behind the gills, behind the fins (especially the dorsal fin), or by the tail, where one will likely find a remaining scale. Another suggestion is to wrap the fish in a cloth and check for scales in the cloth (Remah, Yorah Deah 83:1). These methods for identifying a fish are only applicable while the skin is still present. .

When the herring catch is brought to the processing facility, plant personnel remove any by-catch, which is the term used by the industry for species that were incidentally caught in the fishing process. Among the different species that can be found as by-catch are small sharks, and therefore it is the responsibility of the kashrus agency to monitor that one hundred percent of the non-kosher by-catch is removed.

As a percaution, I am avoiding all Norwegian fish -- it is like bacon wrapped shrimp.

Traif
:puke: :puke:

[Coastie for Truth]

152. "Socialist" or "National Socialist"

Is Party leader and Finance Minister Kristin Halvorsen a "Socialist" or a "National Socialist?"

Yes. I do know the diferences between "Socialists" and "National Scialists."

[Violet_Crumble]

181. If you know the difference why are you asking??

Implying that someone is a Nazi because they support a boycott of Israel because of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is disgusting, imo...

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

229. Thank you so very much. NT

:hi:

[Darranar]

194. A very stupid move for a political leader.

But the position itself is understandable.

[Lithos]

252. Locking

Thread has evolved into purely one involving personalities.

Lithos
I/P Forum Moderator