No...it's an opinion. Respond all you want. Enter a bunch of hyperlinks. Post some youtube videos. It is well within your right to do so but just know that it ultimately harms your cause. For no negotiation, compromise, or ultimate realization of a two-state solution can ever be achieved with an individual who throws around a word like "Apartheid" so easily.
So he backs up his positions with facts and examples as proof....And you come back with 'providing proof only hurts your cause'? ) I get it....it's the word 'apartheid' that is preventing peace. Anyone who uses it is an extremist and won't negotiate, compromise, or accept a two state solution.
That is correct. Anyone who uses the term Apartheid or Ethnic Cleansing when discussing Israel is not of sound mind. They damage the cause of Palestinians everywhere by comparing their plight with historical atrocities when no comparison exists. You can post your "proof" but just like I will never be able to convince you, you shall never convince me. One does not negotiate under this scenario so until that time a rational peaceful partner emerges unfortunately the status quo shall reign.
You guys realize that arguing on a forum page is like running a race in the Special Olympics, right? You may win the argument, but you're still "intellectually challenged"
No...it's an opinion. Respond all you want. Enter a bunch of hyperlinks. Post some youtube videos. It is well within your right to do so but just know that it ultimately harms your cause. For no negotiation, compromise, or ultimate realization of a two-state solution can ever be achieved with an individual who throws around a word like "Apartheid" so easily.
So he backs up his positions with facts and examples as proof....And you come back with 'providing proof only hurts your cause'? ) I get it....it's the word 'apartheid' that is preventing peace. Anyone who uses it is an extremist and won't negotiate, compromise, or accept a two state solution.
That is correct. Anyone who uses the term Apartheid or Ethnic Cleansing when discussing Israel is not of sound mind. They damage the cause of Palestinians everywhere by comparing their plight with historical atrocities when no comparison exists. .
Many people who lived in South Africa during apartheid, many great people, have made that comparison. To just dismiss it as coming from people who are "not of sound mind" is just really pathetic.
Add that to the fact that Israel supported Apartheid South Africa, -
But forget the 'name'...call it whatever makes you happy. The fact remains that Israel is still building more settlements, which we know is a major source of conflict. Israel has the power.
I understand your frustration,I just don't approve of the actions being taken to try and resolve the issue.
Good. So now we can agree on something. I don't agree with the actions being taken to try and resolve the issue either. In fact, I don't see any actions being taken to try and resolve the issue. All I see is more so-called 'peace talks', which it is perfectly clear serve the sole purpose of giving the Israeli's more time to steal more land and perpetuate the conflict. This situation is being prolonged by the U.S, which as I explained above, stands alone in the World in rubber-stamping Israel's crimes, including the occupation.
They want al of the land stolen since 1967, in accordance with international law, and in accordance with the will of the whole of the international community, excluding the U.S.
I would think a best case scenario to start would be to stop expansion,Stop violence and work toward a more civil moderate peace agreement that allows for the building of a Palestinian state in a more advance able environment while at the same time a denouncement and cessation of violence be immediately implemented.If all those hotheads over there could do that then maybe a PJ concert could be enjoyed by all sometime before Vedder needs a walker.
The thing is, many ceasefires have been maintained, and every time they are broken by the Israeli's. 2008 was a prime example: the ceasefire was maintained and on November 4th 2008 the Israeli's killed 6 Palestinians and reignited hostilities, leading to the bombardment and invasion of Gaza which left 1600 civilians dead, including over 400 children. But this conflict suits the Israeli's, because, like the so-called 'peace talks' it allows them time and excuses to grab more land.
And this is why any artist with a conscience should boycott performing in that country at the present time. Because if you do, then you're lending tacit support to ethnic cleansing, racism, and violence.
The logic is that Pearl Jam disagrees with boycotts of artists who choose to speak their mind. They may or may not support the state of Israel but if they agreed with you and Roger Waters they would certainly say so.
They haven't said that they don't agree with me either.
A band like Pearl Jam have no business performing in a dangerous racist state like Israel.
The whole World is opposed to Israel's occupation, and continuing land-grab, and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
Canada isn't, Australia isn't, United States isn't. Pearl Jam has played a few of those places recently.
You're right. Canada joined 5 other countries last year in supporting Israel's race war and land-grab. Shame on them. Though Australia abstained from voting, and didn't cast a vote in opposition.
Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine - A/RES/68/15 Vote: 165 Yes, 6 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States) with 6 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, South Sudan, Tonga)
So we have 165 countries on one side calling for a peaceful settlement of the conflict under the terms of U.N Resolution 242, and 6 countries - including Israel - on the other, opposing a peaceful settlement, and lending their support for the ongoing hostilities, and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
Maybe because the band doesn't think Israel is a racist, Apartheid state? Have you even contemplated that? Neil Young is an artist "with a political conscience, a long history of left-wing political activism" and he is playing there. Again I don't pretend to speak for the band but anyone who has really followed Pearl Jam knows they have never ever backed away from a fight. Ticketmaster, women's right to choice, the Iraq War, President Bush, the West Memphis 3, environmental policy, guns, you name it. No matter the issue at hand this band has time and again proven that they will take tough stands regardless of the blow back that might come their way. So this leads me to wondering...why hasn't Pearl Jam joined Roger Waters and his artists boycott of Israel already? If they agree with you Byrnzie on the substance, that Israel is truly "a racist, Apartheid state" then why haven't they spoken out on the issue? Do you think Pearl Jam would have the capacity to remain silent if they truly agreed with you? I don't speak for the band but my guess is absolutely not.
And labeling that country a racist Apartheid State isn't an opinion, it's a fact.
No...it's an opinion. Respond all you want. Enter a bunch of hyperlinks. Post some youtube videos. It is well within your right to do so but just know that it ultimately harms your cause. For no negotiation, compromise, or ultimate realization of a two-state solution can ever be achieved with an individual who throws around a word like "Apartheid" so easily.
I'll just post the definition of Apartheid instead. It's as plain as day for all to see. You can try and bury your head in the sand, or try and turn reality on it's head all you like. But the reality will still be right there in front of your face:
The crime of Apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."
According to former Italian Prime Minister Massimo d'Alema, former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had described to him "at length" that he felt the "bantustan model" was the most appropriate solution to the conflict in the West Bank.[212] The term “Bantustan” historically refers to the separate territorial areas designated as homelands under the South African apartheid State. Adam and Moodley argue that Israeli officials such as Sharon and Ehud Barak had used the analogy "self-servingly in their exhortations and rationalizations" and yet that, while they repeatedly deplored the occupation and seeming 'South Africanization', yet "have done everything to entrench it".
Shulamit Aloni, who served as Minister for Education under Yitzhak Rabin, discussed Israeli practices in the West Bank in an article published in the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth. Aloni wrote that "Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what’s right in front of our eyes. It’s simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population. The US Jewish Establishment’s onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies."
Yossi Sarid, who served as environment minister under Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, writing in Haaretz stated that "the white Afrikaners, too, had reasons for their segregation policy; they, too, felt threatened — a great evil was at their door, and they were frightened, out to defend themselves. Unfortunately, however, all good reasons for apartheid are bad reasons; apartheid always has a reason, and it never has a justification. And what acts like apartheid, is run like apartheid and harasses like apartheid, is not a duck - it is apartheid."
Jamal Zahalka, an Israeli-Arab member of the Knesset argued that an apartheid system has already taken shape in that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are separated into "cantons" and Palestinians are required to carry permits to travel between them.[214] Azmi Bishara, a former Knesset member, argued that the Palestinian situation had been caused by "colonialist apartheid."
Michael Ben-Yair, attorney-general of Israel from 1993 to 1996 referred to Israel establishing "an apartheid regime in the occupied territories" in an essay published in Haaretz.[216]
Some Israelis have compared the separation plan to apartheid, such as political scientist, Meron Benvenisti,[143] and journalist, Amira Hass.[217] Ami Ayalon, a former admiral, claiming it "ha[d] some apartheid characteristics."
A major 2002 study of Israeli settlement practices by the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem concluded: "Israel has created in the Occupied Territories a regime of separation based on discrimination, applying two separate systems of law in the same area and basing the rights of individuals on their nationality. This regime is the only one of its kind in the world, and is reminiscent of distasteful regimes from the past, such as the apartheid regime in South Africa." A more recent B'Tselem publication on the road system Israel has established in the West Bank concluded that it "bears striking similarities to the racist Apartheid regime," and even "entails a greater degree of arbitrariness than was the case with the regime that existed in South Africa."
Does anyone here remember all that peace that happened when Israel left Gaza in 2005?
Oh yeah, sure. That benevolent act of peace committed by the Israeli's? Really? Are people really still singing that tune?
Are you referring to the fact that the Israeli's withdrew the illegal settlers from Gaza, whilst the crippling economic arrangements imposed on Gaza remained in place, along with it's maintaining absolute control over Gaza’s land borders, coastline and airspace? Are you referring to the fact that Ariel Sharon's senior adviser, Dov Weisglass, who was one of the initiators of the disengagement plan, said that "The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians...what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did." http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/top-pm-aide-gaza-plan-aims-to-freeze-the-peace-process-1.136686
The disengagement of a handful of settlers from Gaza was merely a smokescreen allowing the Israeli's to strengthen their control of the West Bank, and increase the settlements there; which is exactly what happened.
And just what happened to most of the settlers who were pulled out of Gaza? They relocated to illegal settlements in the West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem. As soon as the evacuation of the illegal settlers from Gaza was completed, Ariel Sharon began expanding settlement construction in the West Bank and elsewhere.
'Despite the pullout from Gaza, there will still be more Zionist settlers at the end of 2005 than there were at the start of the year, according to the Peace Now organisation. Annually, some 10,000 Israelis join the approximately 200,000 settlers already living in East Jerusalem and 250,000 in the West Bank.'
Did I just read that Israel is a dangerous place? Really? Why?
This is why. To mention a handful of examples.
1948 Arab–Israeli War (November 1947 - July 1949) [Including Plan Dalet, a systematic plan of ethnic cleansing] Reprisal operations (1950s - 1960s) Suez Crisis (October 1956) Six-Day War (June 1967) [In which Israeli forces attacked Egyptian and Jordanian forces and seized a large part of the West bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights]. 1982 Lebanon War (1982) [Including the Sabra and Shatila massacre overseen by Aerial Sharon, in which approximately 3000 civilians were killed]. 2006 Lebanon War (summer 2006) - [in which over 1000 Lebanese civilians were killed by Israeli forces, who attacked ambulances, and refugee convoys, and saturated South Lebanon with approximately 4.6 million cluster sub-munitions on south Lebanon during the war - described by Human Rights Watch and others as a war crime] Gaza War (December 2008 - January 2009) [In which Israel attacked the Gaza Strip killing over 1600 civilians, including over 400 children. Israel was found to have dropped white phosphorous shells on residential areas, deliberately targeted unarmed civilians, including women waving white flags, and bombed U.N safe-houses and hospitals]. Operation Pillar of Defense (November 2012) - Military offensive on the Gaza Strip [In which approximately 150 Palestinian civilians were killed, including 10 members of the Al-Dalu family in an Israeli airstrike. Human Rights groups, and the U.N, accused Israel of war crimes, including the deliberate targeting of civilians].
When Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, that showed that they are willing to work for peace.
No it didn't. They turned Gaza into a virtual prison, and the pullout was a smokescreen behind which they planned to expand their occupation of the West Bank, which is exactly what happened. And this has been fully documented and admitted to by the Israeli leadership.
How's this for being threatened with being wiped off the face of the Earth?
"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever." -- Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine.
"The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the River Jordan for future generations, for the mass aliya (=Jewish immigration), and for the Jewish people, all of whom will be gathered into this country." -- Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declares at a Tel Aviv memorial service for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem Domestic Radio Service.
Byrnzie, your one way of thinking is why there will never be peace. People like you that will search and search for any means to justify the actions of the Palastinians are why there will never be peace. Everything on the internet is true right? Either open your eyes or live in ignorance. I'm guessing you will pick the latter and stick with it. Keep fighting your good fight. I really hope Pearl Jam plays Israel, and you stick by your guns, denounce them for their injustice of playing in Israel, and go become a groupie for Nickleback. It's a pointless conversation when one side always plays the victim. Good job. Oh, and you might as well burn your Beatles records, Paul played there (even received death threats from Palastinians, which shows so much class Palastinians have), stop listening to TOTD, and Soundgarden. Yup, that's right Cornell has played there a couple of times. As have many artists. Pixies boycotted in 2010, but are playing this year. Wonder why they changed their tune? Hmm. Probably because when people actually look at real history, playing for the Israels, well it's just not a bad thing to do. Now go ahead, type up your long rebutle, google the shit out of things till you find something that is biased, post your links. Continue to make your case and keep changing peoples minds. I'm out of this thread, it was entertaining at first, but then the same old shit is just getting regurgitated.
Byrnzie, your one way of thinking is why there will never be peace. People like you that will search and search for any means to justify the actions of the Palastinians are why there will never be peace. Everything on the internet is true right? Either open your eyes or live in ignorance. I'm guessing you will pick the latter and stick with it. Keep fighting your good fight. I really hope Pearl Jam plays Israel, and you stick by your guns, denounce them for their injustice of playing in Israel, and go become a groupie for Nickleback. It's a pointless conversation when one side always plays the victim. Good job. Oh, and you might as well burn your Beatles records, Paul played there (even received death threats from Palastinians, which shows so much class Palastinians have), stop listening to TOTD, and Soundgarden. Yup, that's right Cornell has played there a couple of times. As have many artists. Pixies boycotted in 2010, but are playing this year. Wonder why they changed their tune? Hmm. Probably because when people actually look at real history, playing for the Israels, well it's just not a bad thing to do. Now go ahead, type up your long rebutle, google the shit out of things till you find something that is biased, post your links. Continue to make your case and keep changing peoples minds. I'm out of this thread, it was entertaining at first, but then the same old shit is just getting regurgitated.
Don't slam the door on your way out.
And if you can ever manage to explain what 'real history' you're referring to, pop back in and let me know all about it.
Only in the U.S could so many people - on a left-leaning rock bands website of all places - jump to the defense of a racist lunatic state like Israel.
Your media must be doing a real job on you all over there.
If Israel ever goes the way of Apartheid South Africa and ends up being pressured into accepting peace, and ending it's racist, expansionist policies, then I wonder how many of you will answer when your children or Grandchildren ask you where you stood on this issue, and/or what contribution you made? I hope you can look them in the eyes and answer truthfully.
Pearl Jam were never a band that subscribed to the 'Shut The Fuck Up and let's rock' philosophy. Unfortunately for the people who support this thread, Eddie Vedder is not a moron without a political conscience.
Only in the U.S could so many people - on a left-leaning rock bands website of all places - jump to the defense of a racist lunatic state like Israel.
Your media must be doing a real job on you all over there.
If Israel ever goes the way of Apartheid South Africa and ends up being pressured into accepting peace, and ending it's racist, expansionist policies, then I wonder how many of you will answer when your children or Grandchildren ask you where you stood on this issue, and/or what contribution you made? I hope you can look them in the eyes and answer truthfully.
My Children already know and my future grandchildren will know how their lives have been impacted by the cowardly terrorist actions of the Islamic fundamentalist that seem to always be disrupting the lives of innocent people through out the Middle East and the world.They will know why we live differently know then when I was younger.They will see that some people in this big world of ours have little respect for Human life (see Syria for a recent example).They will see that some groups justify violence and terror against innocent people as a way to make a statement or be heard.I think they will also realize that Israel stands strong against numerous aggressors and has thru the corse of history.They will know what a strong friend The USA has in A region that is filled with war mongering terrorists that want to not only wipe out the Jewish people but westerners as well.I can see just by our spirited conversation on this board that there is no resolve coming anytime soon.So if I'm telling my family the truth ,I am telling them that this world is safer when we stand with Israel and denounce and fight terror by middle eastern extremists.
Pearl Jam were never a band that subscribed to the 'Shut The Fuck Up and let's rock' philosophy. Unfortunately for the people who support this thread, Eddie Vedder is not a moron without a political conscience.
He is also someone who will tell an establishment to "STFU", and do what he wants…
So as you sit there in your Anonymity and continue your keyboard heroics, I am planning my 14 year old daughter's trip to that "dangerous" place called Israel. There, she will learn, 1ST HAND, about the conflicts surrounding the state of Israel from all borders in all its complexity and beauty. Not from a textbook. Not through Google. She will honor her ancestors at Yad Vashem and Mount Herzel. She will sit atop the Golan. She will see the demilitarized zone along the boarder of Lebanon. She will stand in Sderot, 1/2 a mile away from Gaza City. It is a slanted view from a specific perspective. But hopefully, she will reach her own conclusions in time with her own experiences.
Peace is a two way street. Netanyahu will someday be gone… Abbas too. And hopefully, Hammas will be reduced. What do we do next… More of the same? Rehash history and point fingers.
...Or protect the land and all people from all borders and beyond.
Only in the U.S could so many people - on a left-leaning rock bands website of all places - jump to the defense of a racist lunatic state like Israel.
Your media must be doing a real job on you all over there.
If Israel ever goes the way of Apartheid South Africa and ends up being pressured into accepting peace, and ending it's racist, expansionist policies, then I wonder how many of you will answer when your children or Grandchildren ask you where you stood on this issue, and/or what contribution you made? I hope you can look them in the eyes and answer truthfully.
My Children already know and my future grandchildren will know how their lives have been impacted by the cowardly terrorist actions of the Islamic fundamentalist that seem to always be disrupting the lives of innocent people through out the Middle East and the world.They will know why we live differently know then when I was younger.They will see that some people in this big world of ours have little respect for Human life (see Syria for a recent example).They will see that some groups justify violence and terror against innocent people as a way to make a statement or be heard.I think they will also realize that Israel stands strong against numerous aggressors and has thru the corse of history.They will know what a strong friend The USA has in A region that is filled with war mongering terrorists that want to not only wipe out the Jewish people but westerners as well.I can see just by our spirited conversation on this board that there is no resolve coming anytime soon.So if I'm telling my family the truth ,I am telling them that this world is safer when we stand with Israel and denounce and fight terror by middle eastern extremists.
You still haven't answered my question. I've asked it twice already. I'll ask it again a third time: Do you support the Israeli occupation and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians?
I am planning my 14 year old daughter's trip to that "dangerous" place called Israel. There, she will learn, 1ST HAND, about the conflicts surrounding the state of Israel from all borders in all its complexity and beauty. Not from a textbook. Not through Google. She will honor her ancestors at Yad Vashem and Mount Herzel. She will sit atop the Golan. She will see the demilitarized zone along the boarder of Lebanon. She will stand in Sderot, 1/2 a mile away from Gaza City. It is a slanted view from a specific perspective. But hopefully, she will reach her own conclusions in time with her own experiences.
Are you going to teach your daughter how the Golan was stolen from the Palestinians during the 1967 war of aggression waged by Israel, and how the settlements there are illegal under international law? Or will you let her 'reach her own conclusions' about that?
What do we do next… More of the same? Rehash history and point fingers.
...Or protect the land and all people from all borders and beyond.
You could begin by ending the illegal occupation and by evacuating the settlements, in accordance with international law, and in accordance with the will of the whole of the international community.
I am planning my 14 year old daughter's trip to that "dangerous" place called Israel. There, she will learn, 1ST HAND, about the conflicts surrounding the state of Israel from all borders in all its complexity and beauty. Not from a textbook. Not through Google. She will honor her ancestors at Yad Vashem and Mount Herzel. She will sit atop the Golan. She will see the demilitarized zone along the boarder of Lebanon. She will stand in Sderot, 1/2 a mile away from Gaza City. It is a slanted view from a specific perspective. But hopefully, she will reach her own conclusions in time with her own experiences.
Are you going to teach your daughter how the Golan was stolen from the Palestinians during the 1967 war of aggression waged by Israel, and how the settlements there are illegal under international law? Or will you let her 'reach her own conclusions' about that?
What do we do next… More of the same? Rehash history and point fingers.
...Or protect the land and all people from all borders and beyond.
You could begin by ending the illegal occupation and by evacuating the settlements, in accordance with international law, and in accordance with the will of the whole of the international community.
Israel started the war in '67? Ok. Egypt sets up blockade in the sea. Diplomacy fails. War.
Don't know if Israel started it, but they certainly ended it.
"You still haven't answered my question. I've asked it twice already. I'll ask it again a third time: Do you support the Israeli occupation and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians?"
Yes Byrnzie, I support Israel,and for the record Palestinians don't know "ethnic cleansing" so stop that shit.
Egypt sets up blockade in the sea. Diplomacy fails. War.
Don't know if Israel started it, but they certainly ended it.
And round and round we go…
Israel threatens to attack Syria. Egypt sets up blockade in the sea. Diplomacy fails. Why? Here's why:
Norman Finkelstein - 'Knowing Too Much: Why The American Jewish Romance With Israel is Coming To An End'
P.167: Nasser announced that the Straits of Tiran would be closed to Israeli vessels and foreign vessels carrying "strategic" cargo to the Israeli port city of Eilat [....] In reality just five percent of Israel's trade passed through Eilat; the only significant commodity possibly affected by a blockade was oil, which could have been rerouted to the ports of Haifa or Ashdod, and anyhow Israel held in reserve an ample supply of oil carrying it over for many months to come. [Michael] Oren [Israeli Ambassador to the U.S & Israeli historian] reports in profuse detail on the "frightful" news that Egypt had mined the Straits and otherwise forcibly implemented the blockade, only to note in passing that "the waterway remained mine-free." In fact Israel already knew, right as Nasser declared the blockade, that he would allow ships escorted by the U.S to go through, and after a few days vessels using the Straits passed freely without even being searched: Nasser had quietly lifted the blockade.
Notes: Gluska, 'Israeli Military' p.137, 155. Rabin was privy to "top secret" information that "the Egyptians had already decided that ships under American escort would not be stopped," while Eban speculated that Nasser "has not decided to disrupt shipping," but rather "decided to be in a position where he can brandish this sword" at his whim. Oren also contends that in 1957 Israel had won "international recognition of it's right to act in self-defence if the Straits were ever blockaded," and that the U.S "pledged" to "regard any Egyptian attempt to revive the Tiran blockade as an act of war to which Israel could respond in self-defence" ('Six Days' PP.81, 12). Although Israel did obtain from the U.S and other maritime states support for it's right of "free and innocent" passage in the Straits, Washington still stipulated that "any recurrence of hostilities or any violation by any party" be referred back to the United Nations. U.S officials and legal scholars as well as U.N secretaries-general Hammarskjold and U Thant all conceded it was a "complicated" jurisdictional dispute.
P.168: Reaching Cairo right after the blockade was announced, U Thant [U.N Secretary General] elicited a "very significant" (his words) assent from Nasser to a new diplomatic initiative: the appointment of a special U.N representative to mediate the crises, and a two-week moratorium on all provocations in the Straits [of Tiran]. Israel rejected both of U Thant's proposals.
Even 'Middle East Record', a semi-official Israeli compilation, observed after the June war that 'a number of facts seem to indicate Abdel Nasser's belief in the possibility of terminating...the conflict through diplomacy." It pointed in particular to the Egyptian President's "suggestion" that the International Court of Justice arbitrate the Strait's dispute, his purposeful "vagueness" on the blockades enforcement, and his "willingness" to revive EIMAC [Egyptian-Israeli Mixed Armistice Commission]. "Up to the outbreak of the war," [Zeev] Maoz [Israeli strategic analyst] concludes, "Nasser was interested in finding a ladder to climb down from the tall tree he found himself on."
Nasser agreed to send his vice-President to Washington to explore a diplomatic settlement. Just two days before the Egyptian's scheduled arrival, however, Israel attacked.
P. 205: [At the] U.N General Assembly Fifth Emergency Special Session after the June war [...] the only country in the World that maintained Israel had acted in self-defense against Egyptian aggression was Israel.
[Regardless], Prior to as well as immediately after the June 1967 war leading authorities in international law rejected the proposition that a state can acquire legal title to territory in a war of self-defence:
Ian Brownlie (1963) - "lawful belligerents should not be permitted to act ultra vires [i.e, beyond their power] by acquiring territory as a result of a lawful war" R.Y Jennings (1963) - "the suggestion that the state that does not resort to force unlawfully, e.g., resorts to war in self-defence, may still acquire a title by conquest...is to be regarded with some suspicion. It seems to be based upon a curious assumption that provided a war is lawful in origin, it goes on being lawful to whatever lengths it may afterwards be pursued...Force used in self-defence...is undoubtedly lawful. But it must be proportionate to the threat of immediate danger, and when the threat has been averted the plea of self-defence can no longer be available...It would be a curious law of self-defence that permitted the defender in the course of his defence to seize and keep the resources and territory of the attacker".
"You still haven't answered my question. I've asked it twice already. I'll ask it again a third time: Do you support the Israeli occupation and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians?"
Yes Byrnzie, I support Israel,and for the record Palestinians don't know "ethnic cleansing" so stop that shit.
Right, so you support the illegal settlements built on land stolen from, and ethnically cleansed of, Palestinians.
Thanks for clearing that up.
And you're asking Pearl Jam to perform in Israel and thereby give tacit support to ethnic cleansing? Pretty despicable if you ask me.
Oh, and by the way, one of Israel's top historians, and a self-professed Zionist, Benny Morris, described in detail the ethnic cleansing that took place in 1948, and which has been continuing ever since. Feel free to continue burying your head in the sand.
"The revised book is a double-edged sword. It is based on many documents that were not available to me when I wrote the original book, most of them from the Israel Defense Forces Archives. What the new material shows is that there were far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought. To my surprise, there were also many cases of rape. In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah [the pre-state defense force that was the precursor of the IDF] were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves."
According to your findings, how many acts of Israeli massacre were perpetrated in 1948?
"Twenty-four. In some cases four or five people were executed, in others the numbers were 70, 80, 100. There was also a great deal of arbitrary killing. Two old men are spotted walking in a field - they are shot. A woman is found in an abandoned village - she is shot. There are cases such as the village of Dawayima [in the Hebron region], in which a column entered the village with all guns blazing and killed anything that moved.
"The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.
"That can't be chance. It's a pattern. Apparently, various officers who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacres."
What you are telling me here, as though by the way, is that in Operation Hiram there was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion order. Is that right?
"Yes. One of the revelations in the book is that on October 31, 1948, the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population. Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the Northern Command in Nazareth. There is no doubt in my mind that this order originated with Ben-Gurion. Just as the expulsion order for the city of Lod, which was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, was issued immediately after Ben-Gurion visited the headquarters of Operation Dani [July 1948]."
Are you saying that Ben-Gurion was personally responsible for a deliberate and systematic policy of mass expulsion?
"From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is created."
Ben-Gurion was a "transferist"?
"Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist."
I don't hear you condemning him.
"Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here."
...A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on."
And here's a book by an Israeli historian that you may want to read (though I doubt you will, seeing as you have no genuine interest in the conflict, and support Israel's racist land-grab):
I don't have time to read all these posts. Sometimes I try not to because I am very sensitive to this issue. But sometimes I can't help but check out what people are saying. I am very passionate about this issue and I have my own opinions about it. Living in Israel for a few years I have seen things first hand. I think that gives a lot of real perspective to the issue. By no means am I implying tat it makes my opinion or ideas more valid than anyone else. But when I read things that, to me at least, are totally off base it really hurts. I have a lot of friends and family living in the country. I have many friends who have been in the IDF, the Israel Defense Forces, or the army. I have seen and heard some real horrific stories from the front lines. So for me it is not something that is political it is personal. That being said I want to thank everyone for expressing their ideas and opinions in a respectful way, on both sides of the debate. I also want to share a story from a show that was very moving and emotional for me. I was at a show in Boston, dint remember the year, but it was the tour when Ed would come out before the encore and sing No More. The song he write about no more wars. Maybe 2010 or so.
I was sitting towards the front on mikes side, across the way towards Stone side I saw a young girl draped in an Israeli flag and then holding it up. As Ed sang No more war, no more innocent dying. The girl began to sob uncontrollably and started lifting the flag with the beat of the song as the tears streamed down her face. I have had many amazing moments at the many shows I've seen but this one was special. I felt her pain I felt her passion I began to feel the tears well up in my eyes. My wife knows I'm not a cryer. Not when we git married nit when our children were born. That doesn't mean I'm not emotional but I started to wonder if the emotion would cone out. Would reach the surface and would I cry. As I said I felt her pain I felt her passion I thought if all the struggles that people go through in that region if the world. I thought of the people who died ridding in busses, the bride who went to dinner with her father the night before her wedding and the how the cafe was blown apart, and the kist goes on and on. I felt the hot salty tears begin to flow from my eyes and run down my face. I was crying with her. This post started as a concert for fans. Remember the power if music. Remember how string it can be. And please remember about people not governments ir politics. People need music that has substance and meaning. It was an amazing moment I just wanted to share with you all. And thank you all again for stating your points of view with respect and void of any racial, antisemitic, or mean spirited biased statements. Because we are all people who love life and want peace no more war, no more innocents dying. Thanks Jon
"And thank you all again for stating your points of view with respect and void of any racial, antisemitic, or mean spirited biased statements. Because we are all people who love life and want peace no more war, no more innocents dying. "
Yeeaaahh, it's clear you didn't read the whole thread.
But nice post Jon!
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
A band like Pearl Jam have no business performing in a dangerous racist state like Israel.
The whole World is opposed to Israel's occupation, and continuing land-grab, and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
Canada isn't, Australia isn't, United States isn't. Pearl Jam has played a few of those places recently.
You're right. Canada joined 5 other countries last year in supporting Israel's race war and land-grab. Shame on them. Though Australia abstained from voting, and didn't cast a vote in opposition.
Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine - A/RES/68/15 Vote: 165 Yes, 6 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States) with 6 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, South Sudan, Tonga)
So we have 165 countries on one side calling for a peaceful settlement of the conflict under the terms of U.N Resolution 242, and 6 countries - including Israel - on the other, opposing a peaceful settlement, and lending their support for the ongoing hostilities, and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
I think that pretty much speaks for itself.
So which side are you on?
The position I quoted earlier is from Canada’s government foreign affairs website. Apparently the Harper Cons don’t have the balls to change the official policy. Harper won’t comment on the settlements because he knows the Canadian people do not support them, and a large majority views Israel in a negative light. He refuses to ‘single out Israel’….But yes, aside from that ‘no comment’, our prime minister supports Israel without question - another reason to know which side of the fence to be on in this conversation. He was elected only because of leftist vote splitting and poor leadership in the other parties. Harper supports the Canadian equivalent of Tea Party beliefs, and has done more damage to Canada’s international reputation than any party before them. Canada’s support for Israel is what recently cost us a seat on the UNSC - something we regularly received for 6 decades.. They consider our aboriginals and environmentalists foreign radicals, they have muzzled and shut down much of our government funded scientific community, they consider Greenpeace an extremist group….(ironic considering Harper’s Israel entourage included a leader from a Zionist organization once listed as a terrorist group)….They are patsy’s for Big Oil and repeatedly put business before people on every issue. Analysts in Canada are puzzled by his stance on Israel; there are more muslims than jews here, so it’s not about votes. I’m not so puzzled. The guy is a fundamentalist evangelical - there are twice as many of them here than both jews and muslims combined. His church creed promotes climate skepticism and believes that the free market is divinely ordained. They are also staunch Zionist christians who believe Jews are the chosen people, and the second coming is imminent. He does not represent Canadians public opinion on this issue – he is part of a cult-like religious sect, and lets his personal beliefs influence Canadian policy. Now before someone tries to use this against me in the context of the thread - people, not governments – I will repeat – if any artist chose to boycott Canada due to these policies, I would support them in doing so.
"You still haven't answered my question. I've asked it twice already. I'll ask it again a third time: Do you support the Israeli occupation and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians?"
Yes Byrnzie, I support Israel,and for the record Palestinians don't know "ethnic cleansing" so stop that shit.
Are you maybe confusing the terms ethnic cleansing and genocide? They are not the same thing. Related, but not the same. The difference is ongoing mass murder, even while the target population flees. Just because the holocaust is the most visible of genocides, does not mean we can’t acknowledge others….not so, says the ADL, and other Israeli/Zionist entities who actively fight against recognition of other atrocities as genocide, because they believe it diminishes the holocaust (one can only assume this has to do with the political leverage of sympathy – why else would they care how atrocities are labelled?). If you want to argue against a Palestinian genocide, ok….but there is ZERO doubt that, by definition, the Palestinians have experienced ethnic cleansing – a war crime; a crime against humanity. The settlements are built on Palestinian land and are exclusively Jewish - a war crime; a crime against humanity. How exactly do you think the state of Israel was created without ethnic cleansing? Or are you naïve enough to believe the disgusting lie of ‘a land without a people for a people without a land’? And that the zionists moved into an empty desert and made it bloom?
Looks like the OP and the PJ in Israel campaigners have abandoned this thread. Must not like the negative exposure. Still no response to my question about issuing a statement of peace and solidarity, and denouncing apartheid policy as part of their campaign.
My friend explained something to me the other night that I still can't grasp. Israelis are told from birth, that they are Gods chosen people. They deserve and have a right to everything they set their eyes on. This talk made me uncomfortable. But when you look at Israelis behaviour and view it through the eyes of an Israeli born and (brainwashed?) from birth, how else would you expect them to behave? Makes sense, despite how reprehensible their actions towards Palestine are.
Comments
Add that to the fact that Israel supported Apartheid South Africa,
-
But forget the 'name'...call it whatever makes you happy. The fact remains that Israel is still building more settlements, which we know is a major source of conflict. Israel has the power.
And this is why any artist with a conscience should boycott performing in that country at the present time. Because if you do, then you're lending tacit support to ethnic cleansing, racism, and violence.
https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/ga11460.doc.htm
Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine - A/RES/68/15
Vote: 165 Yes, 6 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States) with 6 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, South Sudan, Tonga)
So we have 165 countries on one side calling for a peaceful settlement of the conflict under the terms of U.N Resolution 242, and 6 countries - including Israel - on the other, opposing a peaceful settlement, and lending their support for the ongoing hostilities, and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
I think that pretty much speaks for itself.
So which side are you on?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_apartheid
The crime of Apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#Support_for_Israeli_apartheid_analogy
By Israelis
By Israelis
According to former Italian Prime Minister Massimo d'Alema, former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had described to him "at length" that he felt the "bantustan model" was the most appropriate solution to the conflict in the West Bank.[212] The term “Bantustan” historically refers to the separate territorial areas designated as homelands under the South African apartheid State. Adam and Moodley argue that Israeli officials such as Sharon and Ehud Barak had used the analogy "self-servingly in their exhortations and rationalizations" and yet that, while they repeatedly deplored the occupation and seeming 'South Africanization', yet "have done everything to entrench it".
Shulamit Aloni, who served as Minister for Education under Yitzhak Rabin, discussed Israeli practices in the West Bank in an article published in the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth. Aloni wrote that "Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what’s right in front of our eyes. It’s simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population. The US Jewish Establishment’s onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies."
Yossi Sarid, who served as environment minister under Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, writing in Haaretz stated that "the white Afrikaners, too, had reasons for their segregation policy; they, too, felt threatened — a great evil was at their door, and they were frightened, out to defend themselves. Unfortunately, however, all good reasons for apartheid are bad reasons; apartheid always has a reason, and it never has a justification. And what acts like apartheid, is run like apartheid and harasses like apartheid, is not a duck - it is apartheid."
Jamal Zahalka, an Israeli-Arab member of the Knesset argued that an apartheid system has already taken shape in that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are separated into "cantons" and Palestinians are required to carry permits to travel between them.[214] Azmi Bishara, a former Knesset member, argued that the Palestinian situation had been caused by "colonialist apartheid."
Michael Ben-Yair, attorney-general of Israel from 1993 to 1996 referred to Israel establishing "an apartheid regime in the occupied territories" in an essay published in Haaretz.[216]
Some Israelis have compared the separation plan to apartheid, such as political scientist, Meron Benvenisti,[143] and journalist, Amira Hass.[217] Ami Ayalon, a former admiral, claiming it "ha[d] some apartheid characteristics."
A major 2002 study of Israeli settlement practices by the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem concluded: "Israel has created in the Occupied Territories a regime of separation based on discrimination, applying two separate systems of law in the same area and basing the rights of individuals on their nationality. This regime is the only one of its kind in the world, and is reminiscent of distasteful regimes from the past, such as the apartheid regime in South Africa." A more recent B'Tselem publication on the road system Israel has established in the West Bank concluded that it "bears striking similarities to the racist Apartheid regime," and even "entails a greater degree of arbitrariness than was the case with the regime that existed in South Africa."
Are you referring to the fact that the Israeli's withdrew the illegal settlers from Gaza, whilst the crippling economic arrangements imposed on Gaza remained in place, along with it's maintaining absolute control over Gaza’s land borders, coastline and airspace?
Are you referring to the fact that Ariel Sharon's senior adviser, Dov Weisglass, who was one of the initiators of the disengagement plan, said that "The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians...what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did." http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/top-pm-aide-gaza-plan-aims-to-freeze-the-peace-process-1.136686
The disengagement of a handful of settlers from Gaza was merely a smokescreen allowing the Israeli's to strengthen their control of the West Bank, and increase the settlements there; which is exactly what happened.
And just what happened to most of the settlers who were pulled out of Gaza? They relocated to illegal settlements in the West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem. As soon as the evacuation of the illegal settlers from Gaza was completed, Ariel Sharon began expanding settlement construction in the West Bank and elsewhere.
'Despite the pullout from Gaza, there will still be more Zionist settlers at the end of 2005 than there were at the start of the year, according to the Peace Now organisation. Annually, some 10,000 Israelis join the approximately 200,000 settlers already living in East Jerusalem and 250,000 in the West Bank.'
1948 Arab–Israeli War (November 1947 - July 1949) [Including Plan Dalet, a systematic plan of ethnic cleansing]
Reprisal operations (1950s - 1960s)
Suez Crisis (October 1956)
Six-Day War (June 1967) [In which Israeli forces attacked Egyptian and Jordanian forces and seized a large part of the West bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights].
1982 Lebanon War (1982) [Including the Sabra and Shatila massacre overseen by Aerial Sharon, in which approximately 3000 civilians were killed].
2006 Lebanon War (summer 2006) - [in which over 1000 Lebanese civilians were killed by Israeli forces, who attacked ambulances, and refugee convoys, and saturated South Lebanon with approximately 4.6 million cluster sub-munitions on south Lebanon during the war - described by Human Rights Watch and others as a war crime]
Gaza War (December 2008 - January 2009) [In which Israel attacked the Gaza Strip killing over 1600 civilians, including over 400 children. Israel was found to have dropped white phosphorous shells on residential areas, deliberately targeted unarmed civilians, including women waving white flags, and bombed U.N safe-houses and hospitals].
Operation Pillar of Defense (November 2012) - Military offensive on the Gaza Strip [In which approximately 150 Palestinian civilians were killed, including 10 members of the Al-Dalu family in an Israeli airstrike. Human Rights groups, and the U.N, accused Israel of war crimes, including the deliberate targeting of civilians].
Sorry to burst your little bubble.
"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever."
-- Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine.
"The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the River Jordan for future generations, for the mass aliya (=Jewish immigration), and for the Jewish people, all of whom will be gathered into this country."
-- Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declares at a Tel Aviv memorial service for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem Domestic Radio Service.
And if you can ever manage to explain what 'real history' you're referring to, pop back in and let me know all about it.
Bye bye.
Your media must be doing a real job on you all over there.
If Israel ever goes the way of Apartheid South Africa and ends up being pressured into accepting peace, and ending it's racist, expansionist policies, then I wonder how many of you will answer when your children or Grandchildren ask you where you stood on this issue, and/or what contribution you made?
I hope you can look them in the eyes and answer truthfully.
So as you sit there in your Anonymity and continue your keyboard heroics, I am planning my 14 year old daughter's trip to that "dangerous" place called Israel. There, she will learn, 1ST HAND, about the conflicts surrounding the state of Israel from all borders in all its complexity and beauty. Not from a textbook. Not through Google. She will honor her ancestors at Yad Vashem and Mount Herzel. She will sit atop the Golan. She will see the demilitarized zone along the boarder of Lebanon. She will stand in Sderot, 1/2 a mile away from Gaza City. It is a slanted view from a specific perspective. But hopefully, she will reach her own conclusions in time with her own experiences.
Peace is a two way street. Netanyahu will someday be gone… Abbas too. And hopefully, Hammas will be reduced. What do we do next… More of the same? Rehash history and point fingers.
...Or protect the land and all people from all borders and beyond.
2013- Brooklyn2, Philly1, Philly2, NOLA
Are you going to teach your daughter how the Golan was stolen from the Palestinians during the 1967 war of aggression waged by Israel, and how the settlements there are illegal under international law? Or will you let her 'reach her own conclusions' about that? You could begin by ending the illegal occupation and by evacuating the settlements, in accordance with international law, and in accordance with the will of the whole of the international community.
Don't know if Israel started it, but they certainly ended it.
And round and round we go…
2013- Brooklyn2, Philly1, Philly2, NOLA
"You still haven't answered my question. I've asked it twice already. I'll ask it again a third time: Do you support the Israeli occupation and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians?"
Yes Byrnzie, I support Israel,and for the record Palestinians don't know "ethnic cleansing" so stop that shit.
Norman Finkelstein - 'Knowing Too Much: Why The American Jewish Romance With Israel is Coming To An End'
P.167: Nasser announced that the Straits of Tiran would be closed to Israeli vessels and foreign vessels carrying "strategic" cargo to the Israeli port city of Eilat [....] In reality just five percent of Israel's trade passed through Eilat; the only significant commodity possibly affected by a blockade was oil, which could have been rerouted to the ports of Haifa or Ashdod, and anyhow Israel held in reserve an ample supply of oil carrying it over for many months to come.
[Michael] Oren [Israeli Ambassador to the U.S & Israeli historian] reports in profuse detail on the "frightful" news that Egypt had mined the Straits and otherwise forcibly implemented the blockade, only to note in passing that "the waterway remained mine-free." In fact Israel already knew, right as Nasser declared the blockade, that he would allow ships escorted by the U.S to go through, and after a few days vessels using the Straits passed freely without even being searched: Nasser had quietly lifted the blockade.
Notes: Gluska, 'Israeli Military' p.137, 155. Rabin was privy to "top secret" information that "the Egyptians had already decided that ships under American escort would not be stopped," while Eban speculated that Nasser "has not decided to disrupt shipping," but rather "decided to be in a position where he can brandish this sword" at his whim.
Oren also contends that in 1957 Israel had won "international recognition of it's right to act in self-defence if the Straits were ever blockaded," and that the U.S "pledged" to "regard any Egyptian attempt to revive the Tiran blockade as an act of war to which Israel could respond in self-defence" ('Six Days' PP.81, 12). Although Israel did obtain from the U.S and other maritime states support for it's right of "free and innocent" passage in the Straits, Washington still stipulated that "any recurrence of hostilities or any violation by any party" be referred back to the United Nations. U.S officials and legal scholars as well as U.N secretaries-general Hammarskjold and U Thant all conceded it was a "complicated" jurisdictional dispute.
P.168: Reaching Cairo right after the blockade was announced, U Thant [U.N Secretary General] elicited a "very significant" (his words) assent from Nasser to a new diplomatic initiative: the appointment of a special U.N representative to mediate the crises, and a two-week moratorium on all provocations in the Straits [of Tiran]. Israel rejected both of U Thant's proposals.
Even 'Middle East Record', a semi-official Israeli compilation, observed after the June war that 'a number of facts seem to indicate Abdel Nasser's belief in the possibility of terminating...the conflict through diplomacy." It pointed in particular to the Egyptian President's "suggestion" that the International Court of Justice arbitrate the Strait's dispute, his purposeful "vagueness" on the blockades enforcement, and his "willingness" to revive EIMAC [Egyptian-Israeli Mixed Armistice Commission]. "Up to the outbreak of the war," [Zeev] Maoz [Israeli strategic analyst] concludes, "Nasser was interested in finding a ladder to climb down from the tall tree he found himself on."
Nasser agreed to send his vice-President to Washington to explore a diplomatic settlement. Just two days before the Egyptian's scheduled arrival, however, Israel attacked.
P. 205: [At the] U.N General Assembly Fifth Emergency Special Session after the June war [...] the only country in the World that maintained Israel had acted in self-defense against Egyptian aggression was Israel.
[Regardless], Prior to as well as immediately after the June 1967 war leading authorities in international law rejected the proposition that a state can acquire legal title to territory in a war of self-defence:
Ian Brownlie (1963) - "lawful belligerents should not be permitted to act ultra vires [i.e, beyond their power] by acquiring territory as a result of a lawful war"
R.Y Jennings (1963) - "the suggestion that the state that does not resort to force unlawfully, e.g., resorts to war in self-defence, may still acquire a title by conquest...is to be regarded with some suspicion. It seems to be based upon a curious assumption that provided a war is lawful in origin, it goes on being lawful to whatever lengths it may afterwards be pursued...Force used in self-defence...is undoubtedly lawful. But it must be proportionate to the threat of immediate danger, and when the threat has been averted the plea of self-defence can no longer be available...It would be a curious law of self-defence that permitted the defender in the course of his defence to seize and keep the resources and territory of the attacker".
Thanks for clearing that up.
And you're asking Pearl Jam to perform in Israel and thereby give tacit support to ethnic cleansing? Pretty despicable if you ask me.
Oh, and by the way, one of Israel's top historians, and a self-professed Zionist, Benny Morris, described in detail the ethnic cleansing that took place in 1948, and which has been continuing ever since. Feel free to continue burying your head in the sand.
http://www.haaretz.com/survival-of-the-fittest-1.61345
"The revised book is a double-edged sword. It is based on many documents that were not available to me when I wrote the original book, most of them from the Israel Defense Forces Archives. What the new material shows is that there were far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought. To my surprise, there were also many cases of rape. In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah [the pre-state defense force that was the precursor of the IDF] were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves."
According to your findings, how many acts of Israeli massacre were perpetrated in 1948?
"Twenty-four. In some cases four or five people were executed, in others the numbers were 70, 80, 100. There was also a great deal of arbitrary killing. Two old men are spotted walking in a field - they are shot. A woman is found in an abandoned village - she is shot. There are cases such as the village of Dawayima [in the Hebron region], in which a column entered the village with all guns blazing and killed anything that moved.
"The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.
"That can't be chance. It's a pattern. Apparently, various officers who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacres."
What you are telling me here, as though by the way, is that in Operation Hiram there was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion order. Is that right?
"Yes. One of the revelations in the book is that on October 31, 1948, the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population. Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the Northern Command in Nazareth. There is no doubt in my mind that this order originated with Ben-Gurion. Just as the expulsion order for the city of Lod, which was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, was issued immediately after Ben-Gurion visited the headquarters of Operation Dani [July 1948]."
Are you saying that Ben-Gurion was personally responsible for a deliberate and systematic policy of mass expulsion?
"From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is created."
Ben-Gurion was a "transferist"?
"Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist."
I don't hear you condemning him.
"Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here."
...A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on."
And here's a book by an Israeli historian that you may want to read (though I doubt you will, seeing as you have no genuine interest in the conflict, and support Israel's racist land-grab):
Ilan Pappe - The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Pappe_Ilan/EthnCleansPales_bookreview.html
I also want to share a story from a show that was very moving and emotional for me. I was at a show in Boston, dint remember the year, but it was the tour when Ed would come out before the encore and sing No More. The song he write about no more wars. Maybe 2010 or so.
I was sitting towards the front on mikes side, across the way towards Stone side I saw a young girl draped in an Israeli flag and then holding it up. As Ed sang No more war, no more innocent dying. The girl began to sob uncontrollably and started lifting the flag with the beat of the song as the tears streamed down her face. I have had many amazing moments at the many shows I've seen but this one was special. I felt her pain I felt her passion I began to feel the tears well up in my eyes. My wife knows I'm not a cryer. Not when we git married nit when our children were born. That doesn't mean I'm not emotional but I started to wonder if the emotion would cone out. Would reach the surface and would I cry. As I said I felt her pain I felt her passion I thought if all the struggles that people go through in that region if the world. I thought of the people who died ridding in busses, the bride who went to dinner with her father the night before her wedding and the how the cafe was blown apart, and the kist goes on and on. I felt the hot salty tears begin to flow from my eyes and run down my face. I was crying with her.
This post started as a concert for fans. Remember the power if music. Remember how string it can be. And please remember about people not governments ir politics. People need music that has substance and meaning.
It was an amazing moment I just wanted to share with you all.
And thank you all again for stating your points of view with respect and void of any racial, antisemitic, or mean spirited biased statements. Because we are all people who love life and want peace no more war, no more innocents dying.
Thanks
Jon
Yeeaaahh, it's clear you didn't read the whole thread.
But nice post Jon!
The position I quoted earlier is from Canada’s government foreign affairs website. Apparently the Harper Cons don’t have the balls to change the official policy. Harper won’t comment on the settlements because he knows the Canadian people do not support them, and a large majority views Israel in a negative light. He refuses to ‘single out Israel’….But yes, aside from that ‘no comment’, our prime minister supports Israel without question - another reason to know which side of the fence to be on in this conversation. He was elected only because of leftist vote splitting and poor leadership in the other parties. Harper supports the Canadian equivalent of Tea Party beliefs, and has done more damage to Canada’s international reputation than any party before them. Canada’s support for Israel is what recently cost us a seat on the UNSC - something we regularly received for 6 decades.. They consider our aboriginals and environmentalists foreign radicals, they have muzzled and shut down much of our government funded scientific community, they consider Greenpeace an extremist group….(ironic considering Harper’s Israel entourage included a leader from a Zionist organization once listed as a terrorist group)….They are patsy’s for Big Oil and repeatedly put business before people on every issue. Analysts in Canada are puzzled by his stance on Israel; there are more muslims than jews here, so it’s not about votes. I’m not so puzzled. The guy is a fundamentalist evangelical - there are twice as many of them here than both jews and muslims combined. His church creed promotes climate skepticism and believes that the free market is divinely ordained. They are also staunch Zionist christians who believe Jews are the chosen people, and the second coming is imminent. He does not represent Canadians public opinion on this issue – he is part of a cult-like religious sect, and lets his personal beliefs influence Canadian policy. Now before someone tries to use this against me in the context of the thread - people, not governments – I will repeat – if any artist chose to boycott Canada due to these policies, I would support them in doing so.
Are you maybe confusing the terms ethnic cleansing and genocide? They are not the same thing. Related, but not the same. The difference is ongoing mass murder, even while the target population flees. Just because the holocaust is the most visible of genocides, does not mean we can’t acknowledge others….not so, says the ADL, and other Israeli/Zionist entities who actively fight against recognition of other atrocities as genocide, because they believe it diminishes the holocaust (one can only assume this has to do with the political leverage of sympathy – why else would they care how atrocities are labelled?). If you want to argue against a Palestinian genocide, ok….but there is ZERO doubt that, by definition, the Palestinians have experienced ethnic cleansing – a war crime; a crime against humanity. The settlements are built on Palestinian land and are exclusively Jewish - a war crime; a crime against humanity. How exactly do you think the state of Israel was created without ethnic cleansing? Or are you naïve enough to believe the disgusting lie of ‘a land without a people for a people without a land’? And that the zionists moved into an empty desert and made it bloom?
This talk made me uncomfortable. But when you look at Israelis behaviour and view it through the eyes of an Israeli born and (brainwashed?) from birth, how else would you expect them to behave? Makes sense, despite how reprehensible their actions towards Palestine are.