Two peoples and a single land

[Scurrilous]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,1125590,00.html

<snip>

"Once again, Israel has reached a critical juncture in its tragic conflict with the Palestinians. In last week's Observer, Alex Brummer, a prominent member of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, wrote an article on the demise of the Greater Israel vision. The article shed some useful light on the great debate that is going on within the Likud ruling party about the future of the Jewish state. Unfortunately, Mr Brummer's analysis of where Israel is heading is based on little more than wishful thinking.

Mr Brummer interprets Ariel Sharon's recent move towards a unilateral Israeli disengagement from the heavily populated parts of the West Bank and Gaza as a sign of his conversion to the cause of peace based on a two-state solution. Nothing could be further from the truth. Throughout his long career as a soldier and politician, Sharon conducted a savage and relentless war against the Palestinian people and this is what he is doing today. Force is the only language he understands. Negotiation and compromise are completely alien to his whole way of thinking. The burly 75-year-old Israeli leader is no diplomat and no statesman. He is the unilateralist par excellence. His aim is to annex to Israel as much Palestinian land with as few Palestinians on it as possible. Anyone who believes that this is a contribution towards a stable solution of the 100-year-old conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine will believe anything."


<snip>

"There is no better illustration of Ariel Sharon's sinister designs or of his cruel brand of Zionism than the wall he is building on the West Bank to separate Israel from the Occupied Territories. The essence of Zionism is territorial expansion and its principal method is 'creating facts on the ground' by means of Jewish settlement on the land. Sharon is a leading land-grabber and the chief architect of Likud's policy of building Jewish settlements on Arab land. It is not for nothing that he is called 'the bulldozer'. His so-called 'security barrier' has relatively little to do with security and everything to do with expanding Israel's territory at the expense of the Palestinians by dispossessing them, harassing them, and making their life intolerable."

<snip>

"Over the past 36 years, Israel has tried every conceivable method of ending the conflict with the Palestinians except the obvious one - ending the occupation. And as long as the occupation continues, there will be no peace and no stability in the Middle East. Unilateral disengagement is an illusion. It takes two to go forward on the peace front. A negotiated settlement is the only way out of the impasse. In the absence of a negotiated settlement, the two communities are doomed to remain locked together in this macabre dance of death."

[bluesoul]

1. An important message

"And as long as the occupation continues, there will be no peace and no stability in the Middle East."

[Gimel]

37. What a hollow phrase

...if there ever was one.

:nopity: :think: :crazy:

[Muddleoftheroad]

2. Peace and stability

There was "no peace and no stability in the Middle East" before the "occupation." There will be none afterward either.

[bluesoul]

3. And you're a

fortune teller...

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. If this is all I have to tell

I could indeed make a fortune at it.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. Are you denying it's an occupation?

It's most definately an occupation, and to argue otherwise is to argue that Indonesia wasn't occupying East Timor, which is an untenable position to hold...

Ending the occupation would go a long way to bringing peace and stability to the Middle East. Of course if the US continues to invade and occupy countries in the region, there's no doubt there'll be peace and security any time soon, but if we're looking at Israel and the Occupied Territories, of course ending the occupation and the emergence of not one, but two viable and independent states will bring a level of peace and stability to that area that's not been seen yet. And there's no level of mind-reading involved to recognise that...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. No

It is a transition. Some, most or all of the land could, in theory, transition to a new peaceful Palestinian government. However, Jerusalem will stay part of Israel as its traditional capital.

[Violet_Crumble]

11. No?

Yr saying it's not an occupation, but a transition? I hope not, because if yr saying that, then you can try explaining exactly how the occupation of East Timor was a transition, not an occupation...

My suggestion is before you start talking in theory about what could or will happen, study up a bit on what international law has to say on the subject of retaining territories taken in war. As for Jerusalem, the part occupied in 67 is no different than any other territory, and as the state of Israel only came into being in 1948, there's no 'traditional' capital any more than Hebron for example, being a 'traditional' part of Israel...


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. Newsflash

This is not the East Timor news group. I'm sure you can find one closer to home if you so desire.

The state of Israel came BACK into being in 1948. Its capital is Jerusalem.

Good luck trying to make something other than that happen.

[bluesoul]

14. I thought

Tel Aviv was the capital...

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. Nope

[bluesoul]

18. Jerusalem is still

contested, even LonelyPlanet.com says so.

Don't bet on all of it going your way...

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Yr right...

Most atlases I see have Tel Aviv listed as the capital. I've seen one where Jerusalem was listed, but it said that it was disputed. All bar one or two states have their diplomatic representations in Tel Aviv and recognise Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel. Me, I've wondered what the big deal is about insisting that Jerusalem is the capital. I know that in the past Tel Aviv was seen as the secular city and Jerusalem as the more orthodox, spiritual one, so maybe that's got something to do with it...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. By many definitions

Israel is still contested, yet it exists.

Jerusalem is the capital. The Palestinians might not like it, but...

[the_boxer_]

27. bluesoul,

Most of the world recognizes Tel Aviv as the capital.

[Lurking Dem]

28. So Israel is not allowed to

declare which city is its capitol? Why?

[the_boxer_]

35. Not the part that's under occupation.

As for why? You may consult Resolution 242's acquisition of territory by war being illigitimate. Not my rules. It's international law.

[sabbat hunter]

36. jerusalem.....

is NOT occupied territory. at least not in the sense that it is part of a potential Palestinian state.

when the mandate was divided into Palestinian and Israeli land, Jerusalem was SUPPOSED to be an international city, ruled by the UN.
one where all people could go to, no matter their nationality or religion.
not a capital of a Palestinian state or an Israeli one.

However IMO, the UN abrogated their right to control Jerusalem, when they failed to do anything substantial to protect Jerusalem as an international city prior to 1948, during the years 1948-1967 when Jordan ruled it (and no Jews were allowed in).

when Israel took control of it during the 6 day war, they reopened it to all peoples, religions. that is the way it should stay

the Muslim holy sites should be governed by a joint Muslim council (one that encompasses all recognized sects of Islam). probably under a similar arrangement to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (sp)

but a would be palestinian nation has no 'right' to jerusalem. it never belonged to them in the first place. (remember even though there are a palestinian people, there was never an independent palestine)

Israel did and continues to do a much better job in keeping the spirit of keeping jerusalem international (by allowing all religions to go there) than the UN ever did.

as far as chosing a capital, every nation has a right to chose their capital.

nations of the world can decide they dont recognize washington DC as the capital of the US, and instead recognize NYC as the capital, but that doesnt make it so.

Israel controls jerusalem, they moved their government offices there years ago.


peace
david
:hippie:

[the_boxer_]

48. How is it not occupied?

Just because it's supposed to be international doesn't mean that it's not occupied.

[sabbat hunter]

52. not occuppied....

in the same sense that that gaza and the WB are occuppied.

those areas should belong to a palestine, jerusalem doesnt.

the UN gave up its right to control Jerusalem years ago, IMO, when the failed to put a force in there in 1947 to make sure it remained under its control. therefore it became a 'free city'

something cannot be considered 'occuppied' if it didnt belong to someone. jerusalem falls under that catagory.

it at one time belonged to the UN, but they gave it up years ago.


peace
david
:hippie:

[GabysPoppy]

57. To which we have said for hundreds of years

L’shanah ha’ba b’Yerushalayim ha’benuyah

[bluesoul]

59. And Palestinians said something

else in Arabic...

[GabysPoppy]

64. I don't know Arabic

What is the translation for "over my dead body"?


referring to only those who blow themselves up

edit to clarify

[tinnypriv]

66. I guess it depends on how you define Jerusalem

Doesn't it? :shrug:

[the_boxer_]

72. Really? Is there documentation stressing that by decree, the UN...

gave the whole of Jerusalem to Israel?

I think not, sir. It is not Israel's by default anymore than the rest of the West Bank or Gaza.

[sabbat hunter]

77. by default....

means there is no documentation.
it means the UN failed to do anything to keep Jerusalem an international city, they put no army in there to prevent the Jordanians from taking it in 1948, nor any force to get the Jordanians out.
the UN abandoned Jerusalem, much in the same way a slum lord abandons a building. when a slum lord does that, he gives up his rights to that building. the UN gave up its rights to Jerusalem.

in no case should it go to a would be palestine.....it never was theirs in the first place. under no partition plan was Jerusalem to go to Palestine.

peace
David
:hippie:

[the_boxer_]

81. The UN did not give up it's right.

Just because it didn't go in and take it by force. It is still an illegally occupied city. Thank you.

[Muddleoftheroad]

82. No, it only would be if the UN took it

The city of Jerusalem is the capital of a sovereign nation -- Israel.

[GabysPoppy]

83. L’shanah ha’ba b’Yerushalayim ha’benuyah

[bluesoul]

84. What

ever...

[GabysPoppy]

89. Whatever or Whenever?

Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow.

[the_boxer_]

85. No it is not. It is the illegal capital in a unilateral move to make

Jerusalem Israel's capital. Big difference. You can spin it any way from Sunday it doesn't change reality.

[GabysPoppy]

86. Correct

REALITY says Jerusalem is Israel's capital. No spin needed.

[the_boxer_]

91. Correct.

Jerusalem is Israel's illegal capital.

[GabysPoppy]

94. L’shanah ha’ba b’Yerushalayim ha’benuyah

[the_boxer_]

95. Um...yeah...right back at ya...

;-)

[GabysPoppy]

96. Thank you

Meet you at the King David Hotel

[sabbat hunter]

90. the UN...

abandoned Jerusalem. whether or not it is written down somewhere is irrelevant. the fact remains that the UN over 50 years ago, by failing to live up to its obligations, abandoned any claims it has over Jerusalem.

peace
David
:hippie:

[the_boxer_]

92. No it did not.

[Lurking Dem]

50. You mean the part that

was ethnically cleansed of Jews.

[the_boxer_]

73. No, the part that was taken over by Israel illegally in the 1967 war.

Both sides can claim ethnic cleansing.

[Lurking Dem]

87. Illegally?

What a fascinating view of history you have.

So Jordan can ethnically cleanse an area, desecrate synagogues, cut a road through a graveyard and build a hotel there, use the headstones to line latrines, make Christian kids go to school on Sunday and forbid them property so now that all legally belongs to the Palestinians?

By that logic, if Israel were to ethnically cleanse the West Bank of Palestinians, they can just move right on in, eh?

[the_boxer_]

93. You wish to divert attention to the illegal occupation of Jerusalem.

Fine. Jordan had it illegally as well. Guess what? They don't have it anymore. Guess what else? Israel does. Guess what? It's inadmissable as acquisition of territory during war.

Again, anyone claiming that the rightful capital of Israel is Jerusalem is spinning six ways from Sunday.

[Gimel]

39. What do they have to say about it?

The seat of government in Jerusalem. It is the capital of Israel. Outdated books are around, as well as new books that print lies.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[bluesoul]

68. Glad to know your opinion

about most of the world Jim. At least now we know...

[bemildred]

71. I've often wondered about that.

If you consider the billions of years the world is supposed
to have been around, and the billions of billions of creatures
that have lived in that time, how much of the planet's surface
has been cycled through the intestines of some creature or
another? How much of you or I has been so processed?

[the_boxer_]

74. That analysis, bemildred, certainly lends credence...

...to Jim Sagle's statement.

[bemildred]

75. You have to admit its a, ummm, deep subject.. nt

[the_boxer_]

76. Your pun is pardoned.

:hi:

[Jack Rabbit]

78. The Bard put it better

EDIT to correct typo in text

KING. Now, Hamlet, where's Polonius?

HAMLET. At supper.

KING. At supper! where?

HAMLET. Not where he eats, but where he is eaten: a certain convocation of politic worms are e'en at him. Your worm is your only emperor for diet: we fat all creatures else to fat us, and we fat ourselves for maggots: your fat king and your lean beggar is but variable service, two dishes, but to one table: that's the end.

KING. Alas, alas!

HAMLET. A man may fish with the worm that hath eat of a king, and eat of the fish that hath fed of that worm.

KING. What dost you mean by this?

HAMLET. Nothing but to show you how a king may go a progress through the guts of a beggar.

-- Hamlet, 4.3.16-31

[bemildred]

79. Indeed he does, Sir.

That is most apropos.
:thumbsup:

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Try answering the question...

I wasn't aware that we weren't supposed to bring up similar happenings in this forum. After all, there's constant refrains of 'yeah, but what about (insert name of country here) whenever someone criticises Israel. In case you weren't aware, East Timor was an occupation very similar to that of the Occupied Territories, so if you claim one is a transition, then logically the other is. Of course everyone knows that the situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is an occupation, though...

No, yr wrong. Israel didn't exist as a state prior to 1948. Are you again confusing state and nation? They're two entirely different things...

Huh? I'm not trying to make anything happen. I'm kind of aware that posting on the internet doesn't Make Things Happen. What I suggested was that you read up on international law when it comes to things like the inadmissability of territory taken in war....

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. I DID answer the question

You asked a question that might relate in your mind, but has nothing to do with I/P.

I gave it all the time it deserved. If you with to start an East Timor discussion group, have at it.

Israel existed prior to 1948 as both a state and a nation.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Nope, you didn't...

Again, are you trying to claim that here in the I/P forum we should not bring up any situations that are similar? That's strange, because I've seen you talking away about cops in the US and comparing them to troops in the Occupied Territories plenty of times. So let's get this straight. I don't feel the need to start an East Timor discussion group. I asked you a very logical question about how you'd go about describing a similar occupation as a 'transition'. The fact is that neither occupation was a 'transition'. They were both occupations, one of territory that later became a state, and the other of one that will hopefully become a state...

No, Muddle. Repeating the same thing over and over again will not make it true. Israel did NOT exist as a state prior to 1948. This has been explained to you before. States and nations are two different things. It could be claimed that Israel existed as a nation, the same way as it could be argued that Palestine exists as a nation, but Israel didn't become a state until independence was declared in 1948...


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. East Timor

While that subject might be both mentally and physically close to home for you, it is not for many of us.

I don't claim the knowledge, expertise or interest to pursue a debate in that area of concern. Why you insist on harping on it is quite ... unusual.

To make a more reasonable analogy however makes perfect sense. I choose analogies that all can relate to, even in other nations or cultures. You seem bent on doing the exact opposite.

States and nations can be different or the same. Israel was both prior to 1948.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. White Australia Policy...

Not knowing anything about that and the reasons behind it didn't stop you in another thread. And how would you know that it's not a reasonable analogy if you have no knowledge of the Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor? There's nothing too difficult to grasp about the situation with and the similarities were given to you. I haven't asked you to debate it. I've asked you to explain why you would have called that occupation a 'transition'. You clearly can't for the simple reason that military occupations are occupations...

A nation of people can be a state, but there is a difference between a state and a nation. Yet again, Israel did NOT exist as a state prior to it being created as a state. If it had been, what do you think all the hoopla was about at the time??

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. East Timor is especially obscure

Nor will I accept your synopsis of the situation since I don't accept your synopsis elsewhere.

I call it a transition because that is what it is. Most of the Mideast has transitioned since Ottoman and English rule. That area has not. It is still settling down. When it finally does, a Palestinian state will exist but I cannot begin to guess the borders, except to say that Jerusalem will be part of Israel and that Gaza and much of the West Bank will be part of the Palestinian state.

As for Israel, it once was a state, a nation, a people and a country. Then the Romans came and disrupted some of those definitions. It is now all of them again. Once before Jerusalem was its capital. It is again.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. No, it's not...

Anyone with a bit of basic interest in world affairs would know of the invasion and occupation of East Timor. Instead of telling me you don't accept anything I say, while seemingly thinking that I must accept everything you say, how about telling me what I've got wrong about the basics I told you which can be confirmed by anyone with zero awareness of East Timor by a quick Google. Here. I'll do it for you and all you have to do is click the link and read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Timor

You don't believe Indonesia invaded East Timor? You don't believe there was a long-term and brutal occupation? You don't believe that like the Occupied Territories, East Timor wasn't a state while it was occupied? Weird...

Israel is occupying the West Bank and Gaza. Jordan was occupying it before. The invasion of territory during war and retaining it afterwards is what an occupation is. We're not talking about some supposed 'transition' of the region into statehood in case you hadn't noticed. And I'm not interested in yr guesses as to what final borders will be. Final borders will come about through a negotiated settlement between equals, not as some dictatorial 'we keep this. you get that. so there!' sort of nonsense...

Yr wrong. Israel never existed as a state prior to 1948 when it was created as a state. If you believe states exist prior to their creation then why are you so insistant that Palestine isn't or has never been a state? States are a reasonably new concept and trying to repeatedly say that Israel was a state prior to its creation in 1948 is like trying to claim that Italy was a state back in the times of ancient Rome...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. Ah, hubris

Again, your lack of understanding of America comes into play. You don't seem to understand there are some things we just don't focus on and many of them are tiny places in the ocean far away. You think, "anyone with a bit of basic interest in world affairs would know of the invasion and occupation of East Timor." I know of the invasion. There my knowledge stops. I don't know the causes, the history, the heroes or the villains.

Sorry, I only have so many waking hours in the day. I accept there are some things I just don't have time or interest for.

If you are waiting for a final settlement of the I/P situation as one between equals, then we will wait for a bloody long time. Israel and Palestine are not equals. They are not equals financially, economicly, strategically or militarily. Why must all those be in place for a settlement?

Many settlements thoughout history have been imposed and worked just fine.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. But continue you must

Yes, I used to read WSWS regularly. I have also read Chomsky. I read a lot. I read a lot on the web. I work a lot. I watch football. I have family. I have friends. I follow what goes on in Africa. (I'm African-American. Go figure why I'd do that.) I follow the Mideast.

Sorry, East Timor isn't even vaguely on the list. If the U.S. gets close to invading, I promise to catch up though.

As for the rest of America, if one in 10 Americans could even pin down East Timor withing 500 miles, I'd be tempted to buy them ALL a beer.

Americans know nothing about East Timor. Most care even less.

Ah, so now we are back on I/P? Cool.

Well, since the UN doesn't rule the world, what Israel does is ultimately some of its own business. One of the things it is NOT required to do is make a peace that harms its own security.

Nor will it give up territory that makes up its capital.

There doesn't have to be equality in the settlement. There won't be in fact. The Palestinians will get a state. That much will happen. But it won't be everything they want.

[bluesoul]

43. Nor will it be everything

some in Israel and elsewhere would want.

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. You mean peace

[bluesoul]

45. No I mean territory

that doesn't belong to them in the first place...

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. Sure, sure

Israel has traded territory for peace before. Funny, some have actually offered peace.

Anyhow, Israel is perfectly willing to trade territory for peace. Just not ALL the territory Palestinians wish.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[Muddleoftheroad]

49. Ah, more from the East Timor Underground

I am aware of East Timor. I could probably even find it on a map. And when I see stories on it, I move on.

Period.

Getting back to the subject at hand, international law is more of a theory than a reality. States ignore it when it works to their advantage and obey it when it doesn't. This applies to all states.

[Violet_Crumble]

51. You've already claimed you don't know anything about the occupation...

Now yr claiming you do. Yr not being asked to find it on a map. Yr not even being asked to be interested in the fact that there was a brutal occupation and genocide there...

Period....

No, international law is just like civil law. Responsible states and people try to adhere to law. Criminal states and individuals don't...

Violet...

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[bluesoul]

55. That's not all of the world

Many countries do respect international law and don't violate it. No need to look up to those that don't...

[Muddleoftheroad]

63. Care to name them?

Then we all get to point out ways we think they don't.

Human rights abuses alone would probably nix most nations.

[Violet_Crumble]

56. Third degree?

That involves demanding answers to questions. I'm not demanding anything. I've pointed out to you a few facts, and if you want to continue replying, then that's yr prerogative...

I'm quite aware of violations of international law. What I don't do is support the law being violated or saying that's what they should have done. That's where the difference is...

[Muddleoftheroad]

61. International law

International law is a hope, not a concrete reality. It doesn't exist and is applies inequitably. Every nation violates it, so why should I get excited about it?

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

65. You've already said that...

And it's been replied to. Why you insist on harping on it is quite ... unusual ;)

Where is anyone asking you to get excited about international law? No-one is. What I pointed out was that while states do violate it, I don't support them or advocate them doing it. International law is just like civil law. Responsible states and people try to adhere to law. Criminal states and individuals don't...

Violet...

[Jim Sagle]

70. International law is HOTTTT!!!!

[Violet_Crumble]

54. No hubris from me...

Again yr lack of understanding of the world comes into play. You don't seem to understand that yr lack of knowledge on something that anyone who claims to have read WSWS and Chomsky and is interested in world politics would be aware of does not translate into those who do have an interest in world affairs being unaware. I'm quite aware that the US like every other place has its fair share of folk who aren't interested in the outside world and don't care what happens to other people...

I'm a bit surprised when people say they haven't got the time or interest to do the basic reading it'd require to learn about something that involves the oppression of a group of people where genocide occured. Got to admit that I don't really care if they want to learn or not, just that it surprises me...

A negotiated settlement has to be one where the negotiation is done between equals. There is nothing in Resolution 242, which Israel agreed to, that says that Israel gets to pick and choose what it wants...

As you told me earlier in this thread that if I want to talk about other situations with a similarity to the I/P conflict, to do it somewhere else, I'll give you the same suggestion when it comes to you bringing up other settlements ;)

Violet...

[Jim Sagle]

69. Why don't you set up an East Timor seminar thread?

Some of us might even show up.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. The difference between nations and States...

Can't get any clearer than this. Sates are a modern concept and didn't exist back in Roman Times. Try reading this essay. I tested it out on a guinea pig who didn't think there was any difference and that states had always existed, and she understood the difference straight away...

State or Nation?

While the terms State and nation are often used interchangeably, there is a difference. A State (note the capital "S") is a self-governing political entity (the term can be used interchangeably with country). A nation is a tightly-knit group of people which share a common culture. A nation-state is a nation which is bounded by a state. Let's begin, however, with what makes a State.

A State:

Has space or territory which has internationally recognized boundaries (boundary disputes are OK).
Has people who live there on an ongoing basis.
Has economic activity and an organized economy. A State regulates foreign and domestic trade and issues money.
Has the power of social engineering, such as education.
Has a transportation system for moving goods and people.
Has a government which provides public services and police power.
Has sovereignty. No other State should have power over the State's territory.
Has external recognition. A State has been "voted into the club" (Glassner, 46) by other States.
The U.S. State Department maintains a list of States which are recognized by the United States. There are currently 190 such States. Some States take the form of the "European State model" which includes a representative government and a central capital city.
The State Department also has a list of territories or dependencies which are not independent States (such as Hong Kong, Antarctica, and Puerto Rico).

A "state" (with a lower-case "s") is usually a division of a federal State (such as the states of the United States).

Nations are culturally homogeneous groups of people, larger than a single tribe or community, which share a common language, institutions, religion, and historical experience.

When a nation of people have a State of their own, it is called a nation-state. Places like France, Egypt, Germany, Japan, and New Zealand are excellent examples of nation-states. There are some States which have two nations, such as Canada and Belgium. Even with its multicultural society, the United States is also referred to as a nation-state because of the shared American "culture."

As well, there are nations without States. The Kurds and Palestinians are stateless people.

Violet...

[Gimel]

38. Do you deny

Can you even think of denying that the PA harbors terrorists?



:crazy:

[Violet_Crumble]

41. Off-topic PA moment!

I thought I'd mention that yr post is totally off-topic from the discussion you just replied to, seeing as how you've told other people in other threads that their posts are off-topic. Of course you can try addressing what was being discussed, which was Muddle denying that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are under occupation :)


Violet...

[Gimel]

58. The topic under discussion

The topic is peace and stability between Israel and the Palestinian people, not E. Timor. Muddle was saying that that there was instability in the area before an occupation. I asked you a question relevant to that issue of instability. You have not answered it but have tried to deflect my question. It is definitely on topic.

[Violet_Crumble]

60. No, it's off-topic...

Go and read the post that yr talking about. Muddle denied there was an occupation. If you want to talk about something else that was brought up, maybe you should do it in response to a post that's going on the tangent that you want it to go off on. So yr post was definately off-topic in regard to the sub-thread you posted in...

The PA didn't exist prior to the Occupation, Gimel. How's that for an answer?


Violet...

[Gimel]

88. It's not an answer

Your statement is hardly relevant to the question.

I did review the posts before I responded. Your posts about E. Timor and trying to make that fit into the Israel/Palestine conflict is like making tomato soup taste like rhubarb. Not relevant.

[Violet_Crumble]

97. Yr question wasn't relevant...

It had nothing to do with the subthread it was in, and it got all the answer it deserved. I was asking Muddles a specific question because he appeared to be denying the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza was an occupation. Which is why I said: 'It's most definately an occupation, and to argue otherwise is to argue that Indonesia wasn't occupying East Timor, which is an untenable position to hold...'

Of course, if you believe that the comparisons between the occupations of East Timor and the Occupied Territories aren't relevant, feel free to explain why. The only comparison I was pointing out was that they were both occupations, and that to call the occupation of East Timor something other than what it was would be something I'd find rather repugnant, even though I'm aware that Indonesia and its supporters at the time would have had all sorts of harmless words to label the occupation with...

It's kind of weird, isn't it? I've lost count of the times that I've seen '(insert name of country) does this too! Why single out Israel???' Yet when I point out a similarity in that both Israel and Indonesia have carried out occupations in territory that wasn't part of their respective states, I'm suddenly encountering all this We're Here To Discuss The I/P Conflict, Not (insert name of country here) attitude ;)

[Gimel]

98. One question regarding E Timor

Did the good people of E Timor ever attack the Indonesian Islands, murdering dozens of it's citizens and harbor terrorists to make continuous attacks on innocent civilians? If so, I will admit to some similarity between the situation in E Timor an that of the Palestinian territories, not yet having attained statehood.

[Violet_Crumble]

99. What's that got to do with whether it was an occupation or not?

Because that's the similarity I'm pointing out. I could trot out a long list of differences between the two occupations, but seeing none of them have anything to do with whether or not it was an occupation, they'd be totally irrelevant...

btw, heard of Fretilin? There's yr terrorist factor...


Violet...

[Gimel]

100. Main factor

The factor that is relevant here is that attacking a nation is an act of war. In such a case, occupation is justified. When an occupation is justified, it has an entirely different basis than an occupation that is not justified. International law recognizes acts of war as a justification for occupation in self-defense.

[Jack Rabbit]

5. Discussion on Brummer's piece from last week

Please click here.

[Jack Rabbit]

6. Thanks for posting

I agree with Professor Shlaim that peace following unilateral withdrawal is an illusion. As for Sharon, my view of him has not changed in a quarter of a century. He is neither a hero nor a man of peace. He has never been willing to negotiate peace, only impose it without regard to justice. As Shlaim says:

There is no better illustration of Ariel Sharon's sinister designs or of his cruel brand of Zionism than the wall he is building on the West Bank to separate Israel from the Occupied Territories. The essence of Zionism is territorial expansion and its principal method is 'creating facts on the ground' by means of Jewish settlement on the land. Sharon is a leading land-grabber and the chief architect of Likud's policy of building Jewish settlements on Arab land. It is not for nothing that he is called 'the bulldozer'. His so-called 'security barrier' has relatively little to do with security and everything to do with expanding Israel's territory at the expense of the Palestinians by dispossessing them, harassing them, and making their life intolerable.

That statement is a little harsh, but there is a lot of truth in it. Sharon will go forward with his "unilateral steps" because that is easier for him than dealing with Palestinians as equals.

While this may lead to a disengagement of Israeli occupying forces from much of the Palestinian territories, it will not lead to a permanent peace. That can only be reached through a negotiated agreement. This would be true even if the Wall were constructed on the Green Line, as I and many others on this board believe it should be.

Without a negotiated settlement, the Israelis abrogates any influence they might have had otherwise in the creation of a Palestinian state. There will be a Palestinian state as a result of Sharon's unilateral steps, but it will not necessarily be one that agrees to borders with Israel or even to Israel's existence. Indeed, the Palestinian state that comes about as a result may be the worst nightmare for all on this board: a state sworn to the recovery of the remaining land on the Levant and to the promotion of Islamic puritanism.

Sharon's unilateral steps may lead to a respite in the conflict, but they cannot end it.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. I don't know...

I do agree with you about the possible result of Sharon's unilateral steps bringing about the emergence of a Palestinian state that isn't secular, but an extremist fundamental one. What I think I do disagree with is this:

That statement is a little harsh, but there is a lot of truth in it. Sharon will go forward with his "unilateral steps" because that is easier for him than dealing with Palestinians as equals.

There's an awful lot of truth to it, which is why I don't think the statement is too harsh. Sharon's a brutal man with a brutal past, and finds force easier than dealing with the Palestinians as equals because he never has and never will view Palestinians as being equals...

Apart from the obvious fact that unilateral disengagement where Israel dictates boundaries isn't a recipe for an end to the conflict, I'd be thinking that it'd be illegal for any state to retain by force any territory captured during a war, no matter whether it's the entire territory or bits and pieces of it...

Violet...

[Jack Rabbit]

9. I took exception to one sentence in that paragraph

What I took exception to in that paragraph was:

The essence of Zionism is territorial expansion and its principal method is 'creating facts on the ground' by means of Jewish settlement on the land.

At least in terms of the present program of Israeli settlements in occupied territory, I don't think that is essential to Zionism. Zionism is simply the belief in the creation and maintenance of a Jewish state as a positive goal. Expanding it further is nonessential and, as we now see, even detrimental to Zionism.

However, it is a description of Sharon's ideas of Zionism. The rest of the paragraph, as harsh as it is on Sharon, is nothing with which I disagree.

Retaining any territory captured in the 1967 without agreement from the party from whom it was seized is certiainly a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of Resolution 242.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. I agree with that...

It's definately not essential to Zionism now, and in fact territorial expansion is a huge danger to Zionism the way I see it. I do think early Zionism in Palestine did involve creating facts on the ground and dreams of territorial expansion, and that mindset has remained in old dinosaurs like Sharon....

Violet...

[JasonDeter]

29. A blatant lie repeated long enough does not make it true.

"Sharon conducted a savage and relentless war against the Palestinian people"

Sharon has waged a savage and relentless war against those who would murder Israeli's! A big difference and one not lost on those of us in America who fully support Israel and her being secure within her historical biblical borders.

[number6]

31. Somebody has ...

conducted a savage and relentless war (occupation) against the Palestinian people..

[JasonDeter]

34. Yes, the groups are called hamas and hezbolla and lets not forget

arafat.

[number6]

80. RFLOL

good one, great comedy - satire :crazy:

[Scurrilous]

32. Historical Biblical borders?

...I didn't know they used the Bible to teach history.

[number6]

33. you know, just ask Fowlwell and Robertson ...

;)