I'm amazed at all this self-determination talk for the Jews of Israel. I guess the Palestinians ARENT allowed to self-determine ey? God forbid they be allowed to determine their own fate in life. Imagine the concept or see the irony?
I'm not going to argue with you about the legitimacy of Jewish self-determination in Israel/Palestine, except to say that what you dismiss as an "alleged" right was in fact recognized and legitimated in a grant of statehood by the international community. So the Jewish right to self-determination in Israel/Palestine is actually a fact of international law. Be that as it may, I don't think I'm going to convince you on this point so I won't continue to try.
Care to provide some evidence of this? As far as I'm aware Israel was never established under international law as 'a Jewish State'. And I'm not asking for your opinion. I'm asking for evidence. Evidence grounded in international law.
'...self-determination does not necessarily mean statehood and, even if it did, does not mean exclusive - and exclusionary - statehood only for members of one group.
As legal scholar Michael Kearney told me, self-determination is "less understood these days as a right to one's own exclusive state, and more as a right to non-discrimination and to democratic participation in society".
...what the partition resolution did was define "Jewish" and "Arab" states based on prevailing population distribution in the country, at the time (1947). It did not grant Jews and Arabs superior political and civil rights in their own states, nor did it extend the notion to encompass Jews and Arabs who were not already living there (that is, avoiding invoking an abstract right to self-determination of Jews as an extra-territorial group).
...Irish, Greek and Finnish nationalisms are open to all residents of these countries: not only to Catholics, Orthodox and Lutherans. Jews of Irish origins are just as entitled to return to Ireland as Catholics, and if they live there they are entitled to full citizenship without any restrictions. The equivalent is Israeli self-determination, not Jewish, as captured in the notion of Israel as a state for all its citizens, not a Jewish state.
@ Fuck. "Mark Twain I believe said History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. It was the same in other cases, such as Apartheid South Africa, and it will play out similarly in this one."
History does repeat itself all the time, because people are to stubborn to learn from their mistakes, unfortunately, Apartheid may be the most resent example, which regiment was overpowered. But an other late 19th, early 20th century example of course is the second class citizenship of the Jews in Europe, starting 50 to 60 years before the outbreak of World War II. The only reason why the Jews "have" Israel is because of that war and the guild, Europe felt after this tragedy. The British "gave" Israel "back" to the Jews, afterward, as if it was an empty country, except it wasn't...
What I find truly sad about this conflict in particular is that the oppressed became the oppressors... In my opinion both, Jews and Palestinians, have a right of self-determination, and living on the land, which both call home, I don't have a solution for the conflict, I only observe the fear and anger to one another goes deep. It Looks like there is no room for anything else then blaming the guild on the opposite side, but for all the citizens of Israel/Palestine, I hope there may be one soon. Cause everybody gets hurt and grieved at the moment.
This is probably a logistic or logical nightmare - but is there any way you can think of to extend the Law of Return to Palestinians with proof of ancestry? Or is that just opening up a new can of worms? Frankly, I don't care about the title of 'Jewish state', it's complete nonsense and more cases of religious segregation causing nothing but trouble.
As an aside, a friend posted this and I could not believe the sickening level of aggression being proposed. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/15326#.U8ZrRY1dWUt If any Jew, Israeli, or Zionist thinks something like this is the key to PEACE, ACCEPTANCE, or more importantly if any Jew, Israeli, or Zionist thinks something like this is RIGHT, they are deluded. What a horrendous, selfish and disgusting idea.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
As an aside, a friend posted this and I could not believe the sickening level of aggression being proposed. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/15326#.U8ZrRY1dWUt If any Jew, Israeli, or Zionist thinks something like this is the key to PEACE, ACCEPTANCE, or more importantly if any Jew, Israeli, or Zionist thinks something like this is RIGHT, they are deluded. What a horrendous, selfish and disgusting idea.
He sounds just like a Nazi. Murder at will, and ethnically cleanse the area before populating it with your own people.
Read some of the comments that accompany this racist pigs calls for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza:
'Moshe Feiglin: Your proposal is rational, humanitarian and should be implemented post haste. I pray that you will be in a position where this can come to pass. I have faith in you. Also, make sure the electricity STAYS OFF. Turn off the water to make sure Gaza has been sufficiently "softened" before sending in the troops. No electricity until Gaza is populated by Jews. Permanent resident status ONLY to those who wish to stay. Not citizenship.'
'This is how a rational and mature country would conduct itself in time of war were it not for political considerations from supposed allies who would really rather see us go down in defeat. It's almost too good to be true!'
'This plan is not realistic, but it does hit on one point which is up to now taboo - Our enemy in this war is Hamas - but if we kill every last Hamas member, nothing will change. This is becuase the danger to us is not Hamas (whom we can defeat easily), but is rather the culture carried by the "innocent civilians". Eliminating hamas is not a problem, but from within the "innocent civilians" will rise an even greater evil to replace them. This is not by chance, but rather stems from the very evil culture of the Gazan (and other) Arabs. While Feiglin does not say so outright, the attractiveness of his complete disregard for civilians, is that in a round about way, this allows us to fight the actual source of the problem - which is the culture of the common Arab civilian. One more comment - allowing an option for Gazan Arabs to become Israeli citizens = very stupid. I assume Feiglen believes they will not accept the offer, but he could be wrong. Let's not take any chances, and simply not offer citizenship to Arabs at all. I believe that Feiglen feels the need to make this stupid offer out of some sort of political correcness - but it would be better to omit the whole last sentance from the article.'
Ya I just read them byrnzie, unreal. Barbaric, and people claim Israel is a country of peace? Really? Have u read the comments? The ones on YouTube and this are sickening. How can anyone truly feel that way?
Ya I just read them byrnzie, unreal. Barbaric, and people claim Israel is a country of peace? Really? Have u read the comments? The ones on YouTube and this are sickening. How can anyone truly feel that way?
Zionism has taught them that they're superior to the rest of us, and that they have a God-given right to murder their inferiors. There are people on that comments section calling for genocide. This is what happens when you know that you have 100% unconditional support from the U.S, and free reign to do whatever you like with your ideas of racial supremacy and hatred of Arabs.
It's definitely curious to think that American tax dollars may actually end up paying for a huge massacre of men, women and children, and the ethnic cleansing of an entire people.
Palestinian factions reportedly set 10 conditions for 10-year truce with Israel
Reports in Israeli and Palestinian media say that the two Palestinian resistance groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have set forth ten conditions for a ceasefire and ten-year truce with Israel.
...The ten conditions were translated by The Electronic Intifada from an Arabic version published by Ma’an News Agency:
Mutual cessation of the war and withdrawal of tanks to previous locations and the return of farmers to work their land in the agricultural border areas.
Release of all the Palestinians detained since 23 June 2014 and improvement of the conditions of Palestinian prisoners, especially the prisoners from Jerusalem, Gaza and Palestinians of the interior [present-day Israel].
Total lifting of the siege of Gaza and opening the border crossings to goods and people and allowing in all food and industrial supplies and construction of a power plant sufficient to supply all of Gaza.
Construction of an international seaport and an international airport supervised by the UN and non-biased countries.
Expansion of the maritime fishing zone to 10 kms and supplying fishermen with larger fishing and cargo vessels.
Converting the Rafah crossing into an international crossing under supervision of the UN and Arab and friendly countries.
Signing a 10-year truce agreement and deployment of international monitors to the borders.
A commitment by the occupation government not to violate Palestinian airspace and easing of conditions for worshipers in Al-Aqsa Mosque.
The occupation will not interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian government and will not hinder national reconciliation.
Restoration of the border industrial areas and their protection and development.
“Should have been met years ago”
Dr. Ramy Abdu, chair of the independent group Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights (euromid.org, told The Electronic Intifada from Gaza City this morning:
"I believe that these requirements should have been met years ago. The core of these requirements are not political but purely humanitarian and legally binding. The international community has called many times for their implementation. Palestinians have the right to move in and out freely like others in the world. They have the right to import and export, to control their borders and airspace. Israel argues that it left Gaza, so it should stop controlling the lives of Palestinians."
Palestinian factions reportedly set 10 conditions for 10-year truce with Israel
Reports in Israeli and Palestinian media say that the two Palestinian resistance groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have set forth ten conditions for a ceasefire and ten-year truce with Israel.
...The ten conditions were translated by The Electronic Intifada from an Arabic version published by Ma’an News Agency:
Mutual cessation of the war and withdrawal of tanks to previous locations and the return of farmers to work their land in the agricultural border areas.
Release of all the Palestinians detained since 23 June 2014 and improvement of the conditions of Palestinian prisoners, especially the prisoners from Jerusalem, Gaza and Palestinians of the interior [present-day Israel].
Total lifting of the siege of Gaza and opening the border crossings to goods and people and allowing in all food and industrial supplies and construction of a power plant sufficient to supply all of Gaza.
Construction of an international seaport and an international airport supervised by the UN and non-biased countries.
Expansion of the maritime fishing zone to 10 kms and supplying fishermen with larger fishing and cargo vessels.
Converting the Rafah crossing into an international crossing under supervision of the UN and Arab and friendly countries.
Signing a 10-year truce agreement and deployment of international monitors to the borders.
A commitment by the occupation government not to violate Palestinian airspace and easing of conditions for worshipers in Al-Aqsa Mosque.
The occupation will not interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian government and will not hinder national reconciliation.
Restoration of the border industrial areas and their protection and development.
“Should have been met years ago”
Dr. Ramy Abdu, chair of the independent group Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights (euromid.org, told The Electronic Intifada from Gaza City this morning:
"I believe that these requirements should have been met years ago. The core of these requirements are not political but purely humanitarian and legally binding. The international community has called many times for their implementation. Palestinians have the right to move in and out freely like others in the world. They have the right to import and export, to control their borders and airspace. Israel argues that it left Gaza, so it should stop controlling the lives of Palestinians."
Any Israel supporters have any issue with these 10 conditions? Seem pretty fucken fair to me.
Palestinian factions reportedly set 10 conditions for 10-year truce with Israel
Reports in Israeli and Palestinian media say that the two Palestinian resistance groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have set forth ten conditions for a ceasefire and ten-year truce with Israel.
...The ten conditions were translated by The Electronic Intifada from an Arabic version published by Ma’an News Agency:
Mutual cessation of the war and withdrawal of tanks to previous locations and the return of farmers to work their land in the agricultural border areas.
Release of all the Palestinians detained since 23 June 2014 and improvement of the conditions of Palestinian prisoners, especially the prisoners from Jerusalem, Gaza and Palestinians of the interior [present-day Israel].
Total lifting of the siege of Gaza and opening the border crossings to goods and people and allowing in all food and industrial supplies and construction of a power plant sufficient to supply all of Gaza.
Construction of an international seaport and an international airport supervised by the UN and non-biased countries.
Expansion of the maritime fishing zone to 10 kms and supplying fishermen with larger fishing and cargo vessels.
Converting the Rafah crossing into an international crossing under supervision of the UN and Arab and friendly countries.
Signing a 10-year truce agreement and deployment of international monitors to the borders.
A commitment by the occupation government not to violate Palestinian airspace and easing of conditions for worshipers in Al-Aqsa Mosque.
The occupation will not interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian government and will not hinder national reconciliation.
Restoration of the border industrial areas and their protection and development.
“Should have been met years ago”
Dr. Ramy Abdu, chair of the independent group Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights (euromid.org, told The Electronic Intifada from Gaza City this morning:
"I believe that these requirements should have been met years ago. The core of these requirements are not political but purely humanitarian and legally binding. The international community has called many times for their implementation. Palestinians have the right to move in and out freely like others in the world. They have the right to import and export, to control their borders and airspace. Israel argues that it left Gaza, so it should stop controlling the lives of Palestinians."
Any Israel supporters have any issue with these 10 conditions? Seem pretty fucken fair to me.
If Israel doesn't agree to this, I honestly don't even know what to say. The request acknowledges and accepts continuing life in an occupied state and asks for basic human rights and impartiality in government assistance in return for peace. In my opinion, they are asking for too little.
Post edited by benjs on
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Palestinian factions reportedly set 10 conditions for 10-year truce with Israel
Reports in Israeli and Palestinian media say that the two Palestinian resistance groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have set forth ten conditions for a ceasefire and ten-year truce with Israel.
...The ten conditions were translated by The Electronic Intifada from an Arabic version published by Ma’an News Agency:
Mutual cessation of the war and withdrawal of tanks to previous locations and the return of farmers to work their land in the agricultural border areas.
Release of all the Palestinians detained since 23 June 2014 and improvement of the conditions of Palestinian prisoners, especially the prisoners from Jerusalem, Gaza and Palestinians of the interior [present-day Israel].
Total lifting of the siege of Gaza and opening the border crossings to goods and people and allowing in all food and industrial supplies and construction of a power plant sufficient to supply all of Gaza.
Construction of an international seaport and an international airport supervised by the UN and non-biased countries.
Expansion of the maritime fishing zone to 10 kms and supplying fishermen with larger fishing and cargo vessels.
Converting the Rafah crossing into an international crossing under supervision of the UN and Arab and friendly countries.
Signing a 10-year truce agreement and deployment of international monitors to the borders.
A commitment by the occupation government not to violate Palestinian airspace and easing of conditions for worshipers in Al-Aqsa Mosque.
The occupation will not interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian government and will not hinder national reconciliation.
Restoration of the border industrial areas and their protection and development.
“Should have been met years ago”
Dr. Ramy Abdu, chair of the independent group Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights (euromid.org, told The Electronic Intifada from Gaza City this morning:
"I believe that these requirements should have been met years ago. The core of these requirements are not political but purely humanitarian and legally binding. The international community has called many times for their implementation. Palestinians have the right to move in and out freely like others in the world. They have the right to import and export, to control their borders and airspace. Israel argues that it left Gaza, so it should stop controlling the lives of Palestinians."
Any Israel supporters have any issue with these 10 conditions? Seem pretty fucken fair to me.
I recently saw a suggestion that was sort of similar to this that I thought was very appealing. Basically it was a Marshall plan for Gaza and the West Bank in exchange for demilitarization. Or, to put it in terms of the above proposal, I have no problem with that, and I would even love to see guaranteed international investment in the Palestinian territories at a much higher level, on the condition that Hamas give up its military armaments.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Palestinian factions reportedly set 10 conditions for 10-year truce with Israel
Reports in Israeli and Palestinian media say that the two Palestinian resistance groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have set forth ten conditions for a ceasefire and ten-year truce with Israel.
...The ten conditions were translated by The Electronic Intifada from an Arabic version published by Ma’an News Agency:
Mutual cessation of the war and withdrawal of tanks to previous locations and the return of farmers to work their land in the agricultural border areas.
Release of all the Palestinians detained since 23 June 2014 and improvement of the conditions of Palestinian prisoners, especially the prisoners from Jerusalem, Gaza and Palestinians of the interior [present-day Israel].
Total lifting of the siege of Gaza and opening the border crossings to goods and people and allowing in all food and industrial supplies and construction of a power plant sufficient to supply all of Gaza.
Construction of an international seaport and an international airport supervised by the UN and non-biased countries.
Expansion of the maritime fishing zone to 10 kms and supplying fishermen with larger fishing and cargo vessels.
Converting the Rafah crossing into an international crossing under supervision of the UN and Arab and friendly countries.
Signing a 10-year truce agreement and deployment of international monitors to the borders.
A commitment by the occupation government not to violate Palestinian airspace and easing of conditions for worshipers in Al-Aqsa Mosque.
The occupation will not interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian government and will not hinder national reconciliation.
Restoration of the border industrial areas and their protection and development.
“Should have been met years ago”
Dr. Ramy Abdu, chair of the independent group Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights (euromid.org, told The Electronic Intifada from Gaza City this morning:
"I believe that these requirements should have been met years ago. The core of these requirements are not political but purely humanitarian and legally binding. The international community has called many times for their implementation. Palestinians have the right to move in and out freely like others in the world. They have the right to import and export, to control their borders and airspace. Israel argues that it left Gaza, so it should stop controlling the lives of Palestinians."
Any Israel supporters have any issue with these 10 conditions? Seem pretty fucken fair to me.
I recently saw a suggestion that was sort of similar to this that I thought was very appealing. Basically it was a Marshall plan for Gaza and the West Bank in exchange for demilitarization. Or, to put it in terms of the above proposal, I have no problem with that, and I would even love to see guaranteed international investment in the Palestinian territories at a much higher level, on the condition that Hamas give up its military armaments.
Yosi - do you think the Israeli government would even potentially release the prisoners since June 23rd? That seems pretty unlikely to me...
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Palestinian factions reportedly set 10 conditions for 10-year truce with Israel
Reports in Israeli and Palestinian media say that the two Palestinian resistance groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have set forth ten conditions for a ceasefire and ten-year truce with Israel.
...The ten conditions were translated by The Electronic Intifada from an Arabic version published by Ma’an News Agency:
Mutual cessation of the war and withdrawal of tanks to previous locations and the return of farmers to work their land in the agricultural border areas.
Release of all the Palestinians detained since 23 June 2014 and improvement of the conditions of Palestinian prisoners, especially the prisoners from Jerusalem, Gaza and Palestinians of the interior [present-day Israel].
Total lifting of the siege of Gaza and opening the border crossings to goods and people and allowing in all food and industrial supplies and construction of a power plant sufficient to supply all of Gaza.
Construction of an international seaport and an international airport supervised by the UN and non-biased countries.
Expansion of the maritime fishing zone to 10 kms and supplying fishermen with larger fishing and cargo vessels.
Converting the Rafah crossing into an international crossing under supervision of the UN and Arab and friendly countries.
Signing a 10-year truce agreement and deployment of international monitors to the borders.
A commitment by the occupation government not to violate Palestinian airspace and easing of conditions for worshipers in Al-Aqsa Mosque.
The occupation will not interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian government and will not hinder national reconciliation.
Restoration of the border industrial areas and their protection and development.
“Should have been met years ago”
Dr. Ramy Abdu, chair of the independent group Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights (euromid.org, told The Electronic Intifada from Gaza City this morning:
"I believe that these requirements should have been met years ago. The core of these requirements are not political but purely humanitarian and legally binding. The international community has called many times for their implementation. Palestinians have the right to move in and out freely like others in the world. They have the right to import and export, to control their borders and airspace. Israel argues that it left Gaza, so it should stop controlling the lives of Palestinians."
Any Israel supporters have any issue with these 10 conditions? Seem pretty fucken fair to me.
I recently saw a suggestion that was sort of similar to this that I thought was very appealing. Basically it was a Marshall plan for Gaza and the West Bank in exchange for demilitarization. Or, to put it in terms of the above proposal, I have no problem with that, and I would even love to see guaranteed international investment in the Palestinian territories at a much higher level, on the condition that Hamas give up its military armaments.
Great idea - and when will Israel give up its F-16s and nuclear weapons?
Let's not act as if this conflict began with Hamas. Israel was pursuing its aggressive settler colonial project decades before they, or any formal armed Palestinian resistance, even existed.
Palestinian factions reportedly set 10 conditions for 10-year truce with Israel
Reports in Israeli and Palestinian media say that the two Palestinian resistance groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have set forth ten conditions for a ceasefire and ten-year truce with Israel.
...The ten conditions were translated by The Electronic Intifada from an Arabic version published by Ma’an News Agency:
Mutual cessation of the war and withdrawal of tanks to previous locations and the return of farmers to work their land in the agricultural border areas.
Release of all the Palestinians detained since 23 June 2014 and improvement of the conditions of Palestinian prisoners, especially the prisoners from Jerusalem, Gaza and Palestinians of the interior [present-day Israel].
Total lifting of the siege of Gaza and opening the border crossings to goods and people and allowing in all food and industrial supplies and construction of a power plant sufficient to supply all of Gaza.
Construction of an international seaport and an international airport supervised by the UN and non-biased countries.
Expansion of the maritime fishing zone to 10 kms and supplying fishermen with larger fishing and cargo vessels.
Converting the Rafah crossing into an international crossing under supervision of the UN and Arab and friendly countries.
Signing a 10-year truce agreement and deployment of international monitors to the borders.
A commitment by the occupation government not to violate Palestinian airspace and easing of conditions for worshipers in Al-Aqsa Mosque.
The occupation will not interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian government and will not hinder national reconciliation.
Restoration of the border industrial areas and their protection and development.
“Should have been met years ago”
Dr. Ramy Abdu, chair of the independent group Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights (euromid.org, told The Electronic Intifada from Gaza City this morning:
"I believe that these requirements should have been met years ago. The core of these requirements are not political but purely humanitarian and legally binding. The international community has called many times for their implementation. Palestinians have the right to move in and out freely like others in the world. They have the right to import and export, to control their borders and airspace. Israel argues that it left Gaza, so it should stop controlling the lives of Palestinians."
Any Israel supporters have any issue with these 10 conditions? Seem pretty fucken fair to me.
I recently saw a suggestion that was sort of similar to this that I thought was very appealing. Basically it was a Marshall plan for Gaza and the West Bank in exchange for demilitarization. Or, to put it in terms of the above proposal, I have no problem with that, and I would even love to see guaranteed international investment in the Palestinian territories at a much higher level, on the condition that Hamas give up its military armaments.
Great idea - and when will Israel give up its F-16s and nuclear weapons?
You do know that you're able to give a contrary opinion in a civil way, right? And that Yosi would probably be more responsive if you were delivering it that way?
For the record, I agree with you, and don't think that having the Palestinian zones surrender their weapon stockpile would be realistic or fair when the odds of Israel surrendering its weapons as slim to none.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Palestinian factions reportedly set 10 conditions for 10-year truce with Israel
Reports in Israeli and Palestinian media say that the two Palestinian resistance groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have set forth ten conditions for a ceasefire and ten-year truce with Israel.
...The ten conditions were translated by The Electronic Intifada from an Arabic version published by Ma’an News Agency:
Mutual cessation of the war and withdrawal of tanks to previous locations and the return of farmers to work their land in the agricultural border areas.
Release of all the Palestinians detained since 23 June 2014 and improvement of the conditions of Palestinian prisoners, especially the prisoners from Jerusalem, Gaza and Palestinians of the interior [present-day Israel].
Total lifting of the siege of Gaza and opening the border crossings to goods and people and allowing in all food and industrial supplies and construction of a power plant sufficient to supply all of Gaza.
Construction of an international seaport and an international airport supervised by the UN and non-biased countries.
Expansion of the maritime fishing zone to 10 kms and supplying fishermen with larger fishing and cargo vessels.
Converting the Rafah crossing into an international crossing under supervision of the UN and Arab and friendly countries.
Signing a 10-year truce agreement and deployment of international monitors to the borders.
A commitment by the occupation government not to violate Palestinian airspace and easing of conditions for worshipers in Al-Aqsa Mosque.
The occupation will not interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian government and will not hinder national reconciliation.
Restoration of the border industrial areas and their protection and development.
“Should have been met years ago”
Dr. Ramy Abdu, chair of the independent group Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights (euromid.org, told The Electronic Intifada from Gaza City this morning:
"I believe that these requirements should have been met years ago. The core of these requirements are not political but purely humanitarian and legally binding. The international community has called many times for their implementation. Palestinians have the right to move in and out freely like others in the world. They have the right to import and export, to control their borders and airspace. Israel argues that it left Gaza, so it should stop controlling the lives of Palestinians."
Any Israel supporters have any issue with these 10 conditions? Seem pretty fucken fair to me.
I recently saw a suggestion that was sort of similar to this that I thought was very appealing. Basically it was a Marshall plan for Gaza and the West Bank in exchange for demilitarization. Or, to put it in terms of the above proposal, I have no problem with that, and I would even love to see guaranteed international investment in the Palestinian territories at a much higher level, on the condition that Hamas give up its military armaments.
Great idea - and when will Israel give up its F-16s and nuclear weapons?
You do know that you're able to give a contrary opinion in a civil way, right? And that Yosi would probably be more responsive if you were delivering it that way?
For the record, I agree with you, and don't think that having the Palestinian zones surrender their weapon stockpile would be realistic or fair when the odds of Israel surrendering its weapons as slim to none.
Lol, seriously dude? How was I being uncivil? Relax.
Palestinian factions reportedly set 10 conditions for 10-year truce with Israel
Reports in Israeli and Palestinian media say that the two Palestinian resistance groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have set forth ten conditions for a ceasefire and ten-year truce with Israel.
...The ten conditions were translated by The Electronic Intifada from an Arabic version published by Ma’an News Agency:
Mutual cessation of the war and withdrawal of tanks to previous locations and the return of farmers to work their land in the agricultural border areas.
Release of all the Palestinians detained since 23 June 2014 and improvement of the conditions of Palestinian prisoners, especially the prisoners from Jerusalem, Gaza and Palestinians of the interior [present-day Israel].
Total lifting of the siege of Gaza and opening the border crossings to goods and people and allowing in all food and industrial supplies and construction of a power plant sufficient to supply all of Gaza.
Construction of an international seaport and an international airport supervised by the UN and non-biased countries.
Expansion of the maritime fishing zone to 10 kms and supplying fishermen with larger fishing and cargo vessels.
Converting the Rafah crossing into an international crossing under supervision of the UN and Arab and friendly countries.
Signing a 10-year truce agreement and deployment of international monitors to the borders.
A commitment by the occupation government not to violate Palestinian airspace and easing of conditions for worshipers in Al-Aqsa Mosque.
The occupation will not interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian government and will not hinder national reconciliation.
Restoration of the border industrial areas and their protection and development.
“Should have been met years ago”
Dr. Ramy Abdu, chair of the independent group Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights (euromid.org, told The Electronic Intifada from Gaza City this morning:
"I believe that these requirements should have been met years ago. The core of these requirements are not political but purely humanitarian and legally binding. The international community has called many times for their implementation. Palestinians have the right to move in and out freely like others in the world. They have the right to import and export, to control their borders and airspace. Israel argues that it left Gaza, so it should stop controlling the lives of Palestinians."
Any Israel supporters have any issue with these 10 conditions? Seem pretty fucken fair to me.
I recently saw a suggestion that was sort of similar to this that I thought was very appealing. Basically it was a Marshall plan for Gaza and the West Bank in exchange for demilitarization. Or, to put it in terms of the above proposal, I have no problem with that, and I would even love to see guaranteed international investment in the Palestinian territories at a much higher level, on the condition that Hamas give up its military armaments.
Yosi - do you think the Israeli government would even potentially release the prisoners since June 23rd? That seems pretty unlikely to me...
I don't know. I agree that that would likely be a contentious issue. My guess is yes, for the right concession in return. I should add that this particular issue might be particularly thorny at the moment -- there were reports recently about prisoners who were released as part of the swap for Gilad Shalit being involved in subsequent violence. Many Israelis opposed that swap arguing that a lot of the prisoners involved "had blood on their hands" and would immediately return to attacking Israel. I don't mean to imply that this type of charge is true of most or even many of those arrested in the last month. I really have no info in that regard. I'm just saying that there is likely to be a vocal segment of the Israeli public that wouldn't be very receptive to the idea of prisoner releases at the moment.
Post edited by yosi on
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Palestinian factions reportedly set 10 conditions for 10-year truce with Israel
Reports in Israeli and Palestinian media say that the two Palestinian resistance groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have set forth ten conditions for a ceasefire and ten-year truce with Israel.
...The ten conditions were translated by The Electronic Intifada from an Arabic version published by Ma’an News Agency:
Mutual cessation of the war and withdrawal of tanks to previous locations and the return of farmers to work their land in the agricultural border areas.
Release of all the Palestinians detained since 23 June 2014 and improvement of the conditions of Palestinian prisoners, especially the prisoners from Jerusalem, Gaza and Palestinians of the interior [present-day Israel].
Total lifting of the siege of Gaza and opening the border crossings to goods and people and allowing in all food and industrial supplies and construction of a power plant sufficient to supply all of Gaza.
Construction of an international seaport and an international airport supervised by the UN and non-biased countries.
Expansion of the maritime fishing zone to 10 kms and supplying fishermen with larger fishing and cargo vessels.
Converting the Rafah crossing into an international crossing under supervision of the UN and Arab and friendly countries.
Signing a 10-year truce agreement and deployment of international monitors to the borders.
A commitment by the occupation government not to violate Palestinian airspace and easing of conditions for worshipers in Al-Aqsa Mosque.
The occupation will not interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian government and will not hinder national reconciliation.
Restoration of the border industrial areas and their protection and development.
“Should have been met years ago”
Dr. Ramy Abdu, chair of the independent group Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights (euromid.org, told The Electronic Intifada from Gaza City this morning:
"I believe that these requirements should have been met years ago. The core of these requirements are not political but purely humanitarian and legally binding. The international community has called many times for their implementation. Palestinians have the right to move in and out freely like others in the world. They have the right to import and export, to control their borders and airspace. Israel argues that it left Gaza, so it should stop controlling the lives of Palestinians."
Any Israel supporters have any issue with these 10 conditions? Seem pretty fucken fair to me.
I recently saw a suggestion that was sort of similar to this that I thought was very appealing. Basically it was a Marshall plan for Gaza and the West Bank in exchange for demilitarization. Or, to put it in terms of the above proposal, I have no problem with that, and I would even love to see guaranteed international investment in the Palestinian territories at a much higher level, on the condition that Hamas give up its military armaments.
Great idea - and when will Israel give up its F-16s and nuclear weapons?
Let's not act as if this conflict began with Hamas. Israel was pursuing its aggressive settler colonial project decades before they, or any formal armed Palestinian resistance, even existed.
It didn't begin with Hamas. But Hamas is an impediment to its resolution so long as they insist on violence as a paramount virtue. I don't think that Israelis are ever going to trust Hamas (at least not in the foreseeable future) nor do they have any reason to given the organization's behavior. In lieu of trust in the organization's peaceful intentions, disarmament would allow Israelis to feel secure, in exchange for which the Palestinians get reciprocal security and a Marshall plan . That doesn't seem like a bad bargain to me.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Palestinian factions reportedly set 10 conditions for 10-year truce with Israel
Reports in Israeli and Palestinian media say that the two Palestinian resistance groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have set forth ten conditions for a ceasefire and ten-year truce with Israel.
...The ten conditions were translated by The Electronic Intifada from an Arabic version published by Ma’an News Agency:
Mutual cessation of the war and withdrawal of tanks to previous locations and the return of farmers to work their land in the agricultural border areas.
Release of all the Palestinians detained since 23 June 2014 and improvement of the conditions of Palestinian prisoners, especially the prisoners from Jerusalem, Gaza and Palestinians of the interior [present-day Israel].
Total lifting of the siege of Gaza and opening the border crossings to goods and people and allowing in all food and industrial supplies and construction of a power plant sufficient to supply all of Gaza.
Construction of an international seaport and an international airport supervised by the UN and non-biased countries.
Expansion of the maritime fishing zone to 10 kms and supplying fishermen with larger fishing and cargo vessels.
Converting the Rafah crossing into an international crossing under supervision of the UN and Arab and friendly countries.
Signing a 10-year truce agreement and deployment of international monitors to the borders.
A commitment by the occupation government not to violate Palestinian airspace and easing of conditions for worshipers in Al-Aqsa Mosque.
The occupation will not interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian government and will not hinder national reconciliation.
Restoration of the border industrial areas and their protection and development.
“Should have been met years ago”
Dr. Ramy Abdu, chair of the independent group Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights (euromid.org, told The Electronic Intifada from Gaza City this morning:
"I believe that these requirements should have been met years ago. The core of these requirements are not political but purely humanitarian and legally binding. The international community has called many times for their implementation. Palestinians have the right to move in and out freely like others in the world. They have the right to import and export, to control their borders and airspace. Israel argues that it left Gaza, so it should stop controlling the lives of Palestinians."
Any Israel supporters have any issue with these 10 conditions? Seem pretty fucken fair to me.
I recently saw a suggestion that was sort of similar to this that I thought was very appealing. Basically it was a Marshall plan for Gaza and the West Bank in exchange for demilitarization. Or, to put it in terms of the above proposal, I have no problem with that, and I would even love to see guaranteed international investment in the Palestinian territories at a much higher level, on the condition that Hamas give up its military armaments.
Great idea - and when will Israel give up its F-16s and nuclear weapons?
Let's not act as if this conflict began with Hamas. Israel was pursuing its aggressive settler colonial project decades before they, or any formal armed Palestinian resistance, even existed.
Have you looked around Israel's neighborhood recently? Unlike Israel, a disarmed Gaza and West Bank could rely on the fact that neighboring Arab states are not inherently hostile to them. Beyond that they could rely on international forces that could be stipulated as part of the agreement. Beyond that, as far out there as this sounds, they could rely on the IDF to a certain extent. Here I'm thinking about threats from groups like ISIS, which Israel certainly wouldn't want right on its border.
Beyond that, to be blunt, Israel is the far more powerful party. Any agreement is likely to favor Israel in some respect. That's just what happens when there is a power imbalance in negotiations. While I get that it sucks, I would think a much more constructive approach would be to think about how the Palestinians can get as much as possible out of a deal, rather than approaching the issue thinking that the two sides will ever come out even. That's a pipe dream.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Palestinian factions reportedly set 10 conditions for 10-year truce with Israel
Reports in Israeli and Palestinian media say that the two Palestinian resistance groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have set forth ten conditions for a ceasefire and ten-year truce with Israel.
...The ten conditions were translated by The Electronic Intifada from an Arabic version published by Ma’an News Agency:
Mutual cessation of the war and withdrawal of tanks to previous locations and the return of farmers to work their land in the agricultural border areas.
Release of all the Palestinians detained since 23 June 2014 and improvement of the conditions of Palestinian prisoners, especially the prisoners from Jerusalem, Gaza and Palestinians of the interior [present-day Israel].
Total lifting of the siege of Gaza and opening the border crossings to goods and people and allowing in all food and industrial supplies and construction of a power plant sufficient to supply all of Gaza.
Construction of an international seaport and an international airport supervised by the UN and non-biased countries.
Expansion of the maritime fishing zone to 10 kms and supplying fishermen with larger fishing and cargo vessels.
Converting the Rafah crossing into an international crossing under supervision of the UN and Arab and friendly countries.
Signing a 10-year truce agreement and deployment of international monitors to the borders.
A commitment by the occupation government not to violate Palestinian airspace and easing of conditions for worshipers in Al-Aqsa Mosque.
The occupation will not interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian government and will not hinder national reconciliation.
Restoration of the border industrial areas and their protection and development.
“Should have been met years ago”
Dr. Ramy Abdu, chair of the independent group Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights (euromid.org, told The Electronic Intifada from Gaza City this morning:
"I believe that these requirements should have been met years ago. The core of these requirements are not political but purely humanitarian and legally binding. The international community has called many times for their implementation. Palestinians have the right to move in and out freely like others in the world. They have the right to import and export, to control their borders and airspace. Israel argues that it left Gaza, so it should stop controlling the lives of Palestinians."
Any Israel supporters have any issue with these 10 conditions? Seem pretty fucken fair to me.
I recently saw a suggestion that was sort of similar to this that I thought was very appealing. Basically it was a Marshall plan for Gaza and the West Bank in exchange for demilitarization. Or, to put it in terms of the above proposal, I have no problem with that, and I would even love to see guaranteed international investment in the Palestinian territories at a much higher level, on the condition that Hamas give up its military armaments.
Great idea - and when will Israel give up its F-16s and nuclear weapons?
Let's not act as if this conflict began with Hamas. Israel was pursuing its aggressive settler colonial project decades before they, or any formal armed Palestinian resistance, even existed.
It didn't begin with Hamas. But Hamas is an impediment to its resolution so long as they insist on violence as a paramount virtue. I don't think that Israelis are ever going to trust Hamas (at least not in the foreseeable future) nor do they have any reason to given the organization's behavior. In lieu of trust in the organization's peaceful intentions, disarmament would allow Israelis to feel secure, in exchange for which the Palestinians get reciprocal security and a Marshall plan . That doesn't seem like a bad bargain to me.
Honestly, as a people who largely believe themselves living an oppressed existence (and I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with this, just stating what I would imagine is the case within the Palestinian zones) - I can't follow the logic that people who feel oppressed should just drop their weapons because they're told that their former oppressors will take care of them now.
Another question - do Hamas acknowledge the acts of terrorism Israel claim the prisoners are responsible for? If so, would a jointly-run (again, with impartial UN-provided presence) prison with standards agreed upon by both parties do anything to assuage the desires of both sides?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Palestinian factions reportedly set 10 conditions for 10-year truce with Israel
Reports in Israeli and Palestinian media say that the two Palestinian resistance groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have set forth ten conditions for a ceasefire and ten-year truce with Israel.
...The ten conditions were translated by The Electronic Intifada from an Arabic version published by Ma’an News Agency:
Mutual cessation of the war and withdrawal of tanks to previous locations and the return of farmers to work their land in the agricultural border areas.
Release of all the Palestinians detained since 23 June 2014 and improvement of the conditions of Palestinian prisoners, especially the prisoners from Jerusalem, Gaza and Palestinians of the interior [present-day Israel].
Total lifting of the siege of Gaza and opening the border crossings to goods and people and allowing in all food and industrial supplies and construction of a power plant sufficient to supply all of Gaza.
Construction of an international seaport and an international airport supervised by the UN and non-biased countries.
Expansion of the maritime fishing zone to 10 kms and supplying fishermen with larger fishing and cargo vessels.
Converting the Rafah crossing into an international crossing under supervision of the UN and Arab and friendly countries.
Signing a 10-year truce agreement and deployment of international monitors to the borders.
A commitment by the occupation government not to violate Palestinian airspace and easing of conditions for worshipers in Al-Aqsa Mosque.
The occupation will not interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian government and will not hinder national reconciliation.
Restoration of the border industrial areas and their protection and development.
“Should have been met years ago”
Dr. Ramy Abdu, chair of the independent group Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights (euromid.org, told The Electronic Intifada from Gaza City this morning:
"I believe that these requirements should have been met years ago. The core of these requirements are not political but purely humanitarian and legally binding. The international community has called many times for their implementation. Palestinians have the right to move in and out freely like others in the world. They have the right to import and export, to control their borders and airspace. Israel argues that it left Gaza, so it should stop controlling the lives of Palestinians."
Any Israel supporters have any issue with these 10 conditions? Seem pretty fucken fair to me.
I recently saw a suggestion that was sort of similar to this that I thought was very appealing. Basically it was a Marshall plan for Gaza and the West Bank in exchange for demilitarization. Or, to put it in terms of the above proposal, I have no problem with that, and I would even love to see guaranteed international investment in the Palestinian territories at a much higher level, on the condition that Hamas give up its military armaments.
Great idea - and when will Israel give up its F-16s and nuclear weapons?
Let's not act as if this conflict began with Hamas. Israel was pursuing its aggressive settler colonial project decades before they, or any formal armed Palestinian resistance, even existed.
It didn't begin with Hamas. But Hamas is an impediment to its resolution so long as they insist on violence as a paramount virtue. I don't think that Israelis are ever going to trust Hamas (at least not in the foreseeable future) nor do they have any reason to given the organization's behavior. In lieu of trust in the organization's peaceful intentions, disarmament would allow Israelis to feel secure, in exchange for which the Palestinians get reciprocal security and a Marshall plan . That doesn't seem like a bad bargain to me.
Honestly, as a people who largely believe themselves living an oppressed existence (and I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with this, just stating what I would imagine is the case within the Palestinian zones) - I can't follow the logic that people who feel oppressed should just drop their weapons because they're told that their former oppressors will take care of them now.
Another question - do Hamas acknowledge the acts of terrorism Israel claim the prisoners are responsible for? If so, would a jointly-run (again, with impartial UN-provided presence) prison with standards agreed upon by both parties do anything to assuage the desires of both sides?
I don't think they should drop their weapons because they're told that their former oppressors will take care of them. I think that they should drop their weapons if doing so is in their best interests. Everyone agrees that Israel is so far superior in military strength that the Palestinians are essentially incapable of presenting a military challenge. What they are capable of doing is terrorizing Israel's civilian population. Objectively what this says to me is that disarmament really wouldn't affect their ability to defend themselves against Israel, because they don't really have that capacity as it is. What it would do is eliminate (or greatly reduce) the threat of terrorism faced by Israeli civilians. In exchange for the right incentives (Marshall plan level international investment, end of hostilities, and peacekeepers to provide security against both Israel and other neighbors) it doesn't seem unreasonable to give up weapons that effectively afford you no defense but that are regularly used for terrorism.
As for the prisoners, again, I'm not so current on who they actually are. My understanding is that Israel went after members of both the military and political wings of Hamas. I'd imagine that among the military wing especially there are those who have been involved in attacks that Hamas has acknowledged responsibility for (although I'm sure they wouldn't call such attacks "terrorism" - the preferred term is "resistance"). I have no idea what Hamas' position would be on a neutrally run prison, although my gut instinct is that they consider all their actions to be inherently legitimate, so they'd object to imprisonment regardless of who the wardens are. As for Israel, I don't know. Maybe. They've agreed in the past to allow wanted terrorists to essentially be banished to countries abroad -- the example that comes to mind is during the Second Intifada when terrorists took over the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. There was a standoff with the IDF, which really wanted to catch these guys but didn't want to storm the church. On the other hand, Israel doesn't put a lot of faith in the UN. The issue of the UN's not entirely even-handed treatment of Israel (which is really a function of voting blocks) is too involved to get into here, but suffice it to say that the UN doesn't get a lot of love or trust from Israelis (their peacekeepers have also been notoriously bad at preventing attacks on Israel when deployed on Israel's borders -- Sinai and South Lebanon in particular).
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
During these times of imminent war, do the Arabs that live in Israel live safely? Are they looked down upon by Israelis? Will they be rounded up and placed in a camp until wars end?
During these times of imminent war, do the Arabs that live in Israel live safely? Are they looked down upon by Israelis? Will they be rounded up and placed in a camp until wars end?
They certainly won't be rounded up and placed in camps. But yes, war brings out tensions (which in this case are present pretty much all the time as it is). The Israeli police tend to respond to protests/riots by Arab Israelis more harshly than to protest/riots by Jewish Israelis. And there is a rising incidence of Jewish Israelis from the fringes of society targeting Arabs for criminal violence. With that said, I don't think that Israeli Arabs are in any danger of systematic state violence against them. There are certainly those on the Israeli extreme right who advocate for such actions, but I don't think there is any chance in the near future of them actually being able to convert such talk into state policy.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I would even love to see guaranteed international investment in the Palestinian territories at a much higher level, on the condition that Hamas give up its military armaments.
Why should they? Will the Israeli's be giving up their military armaments?
What needs to happen is that international law is imposed on Israel. That's all. But clearly this is something Israel dreads. And luckily they have the U.S on their side to prevent that happening.
More from the comments section of the above article:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/15326#.U8ZrRY1dWUt 'Steve - No, not calling for genocide or killing even one non-combatant. But the point is that Feiglin's plan resonates with Jews not because we don't care about Arab life (quite the contrary), but rather from a sense that we are not hitting the right target in the way we are fighting now. It is a fact - killing 100% of Hamas members will not solve this problem. Feiglins suggestion includes elements whose outcome is to kill Hamas much less selectively, taking a lot of civilians with them. The unspoken point - which I think some of the readers clearly understand - is that this will bring some sort of solution, as the common Arab will thus be directly exposed to the violence his culture breeds, and this IS the beginning of a solution.'
This kind of bile is unfortunately all too common amongst supporters of Israel. They pretend to be rational, reasonable people, yet all of their self-serving, convoluted legalese, is essentially no different to that expressed by the Nazis when deciding the fate of the Jews during WWII. They pretend to be civilized, erudite, and well-intentioned, whilst attempting to rationalize and justify the rightness of their desire to commit mass murder, and the ethnic cleansing of their neighbours.
This is why this issue is so fascinating and absorbing to me. If it was simply a case of two opposing forces fighting a long-drawn-out conflict, then I probably wouldn't pay it so much attention. But what really interests me re: Israel-Palestine is the enormous amount of it's attendant bullshit and outright lies. Never in the history of the human race has so much effort gone into trying to excuse and justify racism and murder.
This is why I've been debating this issue now for over ten years, in case anybody was wondering. Not only is it fascinating in it's own right as a lesson in how propaganda works, but it also reveals something about how human beings are capable of deluding themselves to an almost unimaginable degree. If you ever thought that people are basically honest by nature, then try debating with some apologists of Israel for a year or two, and you'll be surprised what you find. Not only that, but even right here on this message board I've learned some valuable lessons, such as the fact that you can present the factual truth to somebody - something based on the documentary record, a 'fact', and yet the next day they'll reappear spouting the exact same lies. How does that work? It's kind of amazing to me. And I'm not some lame pseudo-psychologist looking down his nose at humanity and pretending that he has an angle on things - I actually think 90% of psychologists are somewhat ridiculous, and most of what constitutes psychology is essentially the art of stating the obvious. But really, this Israel-Palestine thing is instructive/interesting on so many levels. I'd even go so far as to say that it can be seen as a microcosm for people in general (psuedo-psychology? Or sociology? Or philosophy? I should know better. Anyway, it's early in the morning here, so forgive me). I.e, are you on the side of those who cling to the word of authority and lack independent critical thinking, or do you question everything and read between the lines? Are you someone who respects the lives of all people, black, brown, yellow, or do you think that some people have the right to lord it over others? Are you someone that respects the facts when presented, or will you cling desperately to the official narrative - to orthodox, mainstream opinion? Are you someone who's susceptible to fear and suggestion - 'Arabs are terrorists!' They want to murder your children!' - including the crap they try to sell you in t.v advertisements, or does that shit wash over your head like water off a....e.t.c, e.t.c, ad infinitum.
Sacrifice, suffering and struggle: MLK’s message resonates in Palestine The Electronic Intifada 16 July 2014
'...Although the Western media have reported these events as an escalation in conflict after a period of calm, Palestinians are forced to navigate a racist system and its corresponding violence on a daily basis. Home demolitions, arrests, siege, checkpoints, identity card systems that determine access to regions of the country, imprisonment and violent attacks have been part of daily life in Palestine since before 1948.
“Calm” is something Palestinians never fully experience. Rather, they experience varying degrees and tactics of oppression.
If anyone referred to the era of the civil rights movement in the United States as a conflict of “balanced” and “equal” fighting parties, he or she would be called racist at best. Yet despite the similarities of struggle that Palestinians face, western media paint the situation in Palestine as a conflict.
What is happening Palestine is not a conflict but rather a colonizing force coming face to face with a liberation movement led by Palestinians and supported by some Israeli and international activists.
At the peak of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King said the goal of justice requires “sacrifice, suffering and struggle.”
The Palestinian liberation movement embodies all three through its determined work for dignity and freedom despite the violent attempts by Israel to suppress it. The liberation movement is calling for international support for their pursuit of justice through boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel, with the vision that someday colonization, race riots and lynchings will cease to exist.
Just wondering if people here consider Hamas a terrorist organization.
As far as terrorism is concerned, Hamas have a long way to go before they can reach Israel's level. 47 years of illegal occupation = a crime against humanity under article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The deliberate targeting of unarmed civilians - a war crime. Dropping white phosphorous bombs on densely populated residential areas - a war crime. The deliberate shooting of medical personnel = a war crime. The destruction of civilian homes as a form of collective punishment = a war crime.
By the way, the ANC were also considered a terrorist organization. And the ANC were considered to be a terrorist organization when the U.S and Israel gave their full support to the Apartheid regime. Yet last year Mandela was widely fêted around the World as a hero.
Comments
And I'm not asking for your opinion. I'm asking for evidence. Evidence grounded in international law.
Israel's definition as a 'Jewish state'
'...self-determination does not necessarily mean statehood and, even if it did, does not mean exclusive - and exclusionary - statehood only for members of one group.
As legal scholar Michael Kearney told me, self-determination is "less understood these days as a right to one's own exclusive state, and more as a right to non-discrimination and to democratic participation in society".
...what the partition resolution did was define "Jewish" and "Arab" states based on prevailing population distribution in the country, at the time (1947). It did not grant Jews and Arabs superior political and civil rights in their own states, nor did it extend the notion to encompass Jews and Arabs who were not already living there (that is, avoiding invoking an abstract right to self-determination of Jews as an extra-territorial group).
...Irish, Greek and Finnish nationalisms are open to all residents of these countries: not only to Catholics, Orthodox and Lutherans. Jews of Irish origins are just as entitled to return to Ireland as Catholics, and if they live there they are entitled to full citizenship without any restrictions. The equivalent is Israeli self-determination, not Jewish, as captured in the notion of Israel as a state for all its citizens, not a Jewish state.
As an aside, a friend posted this and I could not believe the sickening level of aggression being proposed. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/15326#.U8ZrRY1dWUt
If any Jew, Israeli, or Zionist thinks something like this is the key to PEACE, ACCEPTANCE, or more importantly if any Jew, Israeli, or Zionist thinks something like this is RIGHT, they are deluded. What a horrendous, selfish and disgusting idea.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Read some of the comments that accompany this racist pigs calls for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza:
'Moshe Feiglin: Your proposal is rational, humanitarian and should be implemented post haste. I pray that you will be in a position where this can come to pass. I have faith in you. Also, make sure the electricity STAYS OFF. Turn off the water to make sure Gaza has been sufficiently "softened" before sending in the troops. No electricity until Gaza is populated by Jews. Permanent resident status ONLY to those who wish to stay. Not citizenship.'
'This is how a rational and mature country would conduct itself in time of war were it not for political considerations from supposed allies who would really rather see us go down in defeat. It's almost too good to be true!'
'This plan is not realistic, but it does hit on one point which is up to now taboo - Our enemy in this war is Hamas - but if we kill every last Hamas member, nothing will change. This is becuase the danger to us is not Hamas (whom we can defeat easily), but is rather the culture carried by the "innocent civilians". Eliminating hamas is not a problem, but from within the "innocent civilians" will rise an even greater evil to replace them. This is not by chance, but rather stems from the very evil culture of the Gazan (and other) Arabs. While Feiglin does not say so outright, the attractiveness of his complete disregard for civilians, is that in a round about way, this allows us to fight the actual source of the problem - which is the culture of the common Arab civilian.
One more comment - allowing an option for Gazan Arabs to become Israeli citizens = very stupid. I assume Feiglen believes they will not accept the offer, but he could be wrong. Let's not take any chances, and simply not offer citizenship to Arabs at all. I believe that Feiglen feels the need to make this stupid offer out of some sort of political correcness - but it would be better to omit the whole last sentance from the article.'
There are people on that comments section calling for genocide. This is what happens when you know that you have 100% unconditional support from the U.S, and free reign to do whatever you like with your ideas of racial supremacy and hatred of Arabs.
It's definitely curious to think that American tax dollars may actually end up paying for a huge massacre of men, women and children, and the ethnic cleansing of an entire people.
Never again! Yeah, righteo, you evil scumbags.
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/palestinian-factions-reportedly-set-10-conditions-10-year-truce-israel
Palestinian factions reportedly set 10 conditions for 10-year truce with Israel
Reports in Israeli and Palestinian media say that the two Palestinian resistance groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have set forth ten conditions for a ceasefire and ten-year truce with Israel.
...The ten conditions were translated by The Electronic Intifada from an Arabic version published by Ma’an News Agency:
Mutual cessation of the war and withdrawal of tanks to previous locations and the return of farmers to work their land in the agricultural border areas.
Release of all the Palestinians detained since 23 June 2014 and improvement of the conditions of Palestinian prisoners, especially the prisoners from Jerusalem, Gaza and Palestinians of the interior [present-day Israel].
Total lifting of the siege of Gaza and opening the border crossings to goods and people and allowing in all food and industrial supplies and construction of a power plant sufficient to supply all of Gaza.
Construction of an international seaport and an international airport supervised by the UN and non-biased countries.
Expansion of the maritime fishing zone to 10 kms and supplying fishermen with larger fishing and cargo vessels.
Converting the Rafah crossing into an international crossing under supervision of the UN and Arab and friendly countries.
Signing a 10-year truce agreement and deployment of international monitors to the borders.
A commitment by the occupation government not to violate Palestinian airspace and easing of conditions for worshipers in Al-Aqsa Mosque.
The occupation will not interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian government and will not hinder national reconciliation.
Restoration of the border industrial areas and their protection and development.
“Should have been met years ago”
Dr. Ramy Abdu, chair of the independent group Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights (euromid.org, told The Electronic Intifada from Gaza City this morning:
"I believe that these requirements should have been met years ago. The core of these requirements are not political but purely humanitarian and legally binding. The international community has called many times for their implementation. Palestinians have the right to move in and out freely like others in the world. They have the right to import and export, to control their borders and airspace. Israel argues that it left Gaza, so it should stop controlling the lives of Palestinians."
Construction of an international seaport and an international airport supervised by the UN and non-biased countries
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Let's not act as if this conflict began with Hamas. Israel was pursuing its aggressive settler colonial project decades before they, or any formal armed Palestinian resistance, even existed.
For the record, I agree with you, and don't think that having the Palestinian zones surrender their weapon stockpile would be realistic or fair when the odds of Israel surrendering its weapons as slim to none.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Beyond that, to be blunt, Israel is the far more powerful party. Any agreement is likely to favor Israel in some respect. That's just what happens when there is a power imbalance in negotiations. While I get that it sucks, I would think a much more constructive approach would be to think about how the Palestinians can get as much as possible out of a deal, rather than approaching the issue thinking that the two sides will ever come out even. That's a pipe dream.
Another question - do Hamas acknowledge the acts of terrorism Israel claim the prisoners are responsible for? If so, would a jointly-run (again, with impartial UN-provided presence) prison with standards agreed upon by both parties do anything to assuage the desires of both sides?
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
As for the prisoners, again, I'm not so current on who they actually are. My understanding is that Israel went after members of both the military and political wings of Hamas. I'd imagine that among the military wing especially there are those who have been involved in attacks that Hamas has acknowledged responsibility for (although I'm sure they wouldn't call such attacks "terrorism" - the preferred term is "resistance"). I have no idea what Hamas' position would be on a neutrally run prison, although my gut instinct is that they consider all their actions to be inherently legitimate, so they'd object to imprisonment regardless of who the wardens are. As for Israel, I don't know. Maybe. They've agreed in the past to allow wanted terrorists to essentially be banished to countries abroad -- the example that comes to mind is during the Second Intifada when terrorists took over the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. There was a standoff with the IDF, which really wanted to catch these guys but didn't want to storm the church. On the other hand, Israel doesn't put a lot of faith in the UN. The issue of the UN's not entirely even-handed treatment of Israel (which is really a function of voting blocks) is too involved to get into here, but suffice it to say that the UN doesn't get a lot of love or trust from Israelis (their peacekeepers have also been notoriously bad at preventing attacks on Israel when deployed on Israel's borders -- Sinai and South Lebanon in particular).
What needs to happen is that international law is imposed on Israel. That's all. But clearly this is something Israel dreads. And luckily they have the U.S on their side to prevent that happening.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/15326#.U8ZrRY1dWUt
'Steve - No, not calling for genocide or killing even one non-combatant. But the point is that Feiglin's plan resonates with Jews not because we don't care about Arab life (quite the contrary), but rather from a sense that we are not hitting the right target in the way we are fighting now. It is a fact - killing 100% of Hamas members will not solve this problem. Feiglins suggestion includes elements whose outcome is to kill Hamas much less selectively, taking a lot of civilians with them. The unspoken point - which I think some of the readers clearly understand - is that this will bring some sort of solution, as the common Arab will thus be directly exposed to the violence his culture breeds, and this IS the beginning of a solution.'
This kind of bile is unfortunately all too common amongst supporters of Israel. They pretend to be rational, reasonable people, yet all of their self-serving, convoluted legalese, is essentially no different to that expressed by the Nazis when deciding the fate of the Jews during WWII. They pretend to be civilized, erudite, and well-intentioned, whilst attempting to rationalize and justify the rightness of their desire to commit mass murder, and the ethnic cleansing of their neighbours.
This is why this issue is so fascinating and absorbing to me. If it was simply a case of two opposing forces fighting a long-drawn-out conflict, then I probably wouldn't pay it so much attention. But what really interests me re: Israel-Palestine is the enormous amount of it's attendant bullshit and outright lies. Never in the history of the human race has so much effort gone into trying to excuse and justify racism and murder.
This is why I've been debating this issue now for over ten years, in case anybody was wondering. Not only is it fascinating in it's own right as a lesson in how propaganda works, but it also reveals something about how human beings are capable of deluding themselves to an almost unimaginable degree. If you ever thought that people are basically honest by nature, then try debating with some apologists of Israel for a year or two, and you'll be surprised what you find.
Not only that, but even right here on this message board I've learned some valuable lessons, such as the fact that you can present the factual truth to somebody - something based on the documentary record, a 'fact', and yet the next day they'll reappear spouting the exact same lies. How does that work? It's kind of amazing to me. And I'm not some lame pseudo-psychologist looking down his nose at humanity and pretending that he has an angle on things - I actually think 90% of psychologists are somewhat ridiculous, and most of what constitutes psychology is essentially the art of stating the obvious. But really, this Israel-Palestine thing is instructive/interesting on so many levels. I'd even go so far as to say that it can be seen as a microcosm for people in general (psuedo-psychology? Or sociology? Or philosophy? I should know better. Anyway, it's early in the morning here, so forgive me). I.e, are you on the side of those who cling to the word of authority and lack independent critical thinking, or do you question everything and read between the lines? Are you someone who respects the lives of all people, black, brown, yellow, or do you think that some people have the right to lord it over others? Are you someone that respects the facts when presented, or will you cling desperately to the official narrative - to orthodox, mainstream opinion? Are you someone who's susceptible to fear and suggestion - 'Arabs are terrorists!' They want to murder your children!' - including the crap they try to sell you in t.v advertisements, or does that shit wash over your head like water off a....e.t.c, e.t.c, ad infinitum.
...you get my drift?
Anyway...
http://electronicintifada.net/content/sacrifice-suffering-and-struggle-mlks-message-resonates-palestine/13566
Sacrifice, suffering and struggle: MLK’s message resonates in Palestine
The Electronic Intifada
16 July 2014
'...Although the Western media have reported these events as an escalation in conflict after a period of calm, Palestinians are forced to navigate a racist system and its corresponding violence on a daily basis. Home demolitions, arrests, siege, checkpoints, identity card systems that determine access to regions of the country, imprisonment and violent attacks have been part of daily life in Palestine since before 1948.
“Calm” is something Palestinians never fully experience. Rather, they experience varying degrees and tactics of oppression.
If anyone referred to the era of the civil rights movement in the United States as a conflict of “balanced” and “equal” fighting parties, he or she would be called racist at best. Yet despite the similarities of struggle that Palestinians face, western media paint the situation in Palestine as a conflict.
What is happening Palestine is not a conflict but rather a colonizing force coming face to face with a liberation movement led by Palestinians and supported by some Israeli and international activists.
At the peak of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King said the goal of justice requires “sacrifice, suffering and struggle.”
The Palestinian liberation movement embodies all three through its determined work for dignity and freedom despite the violent attempts by Israel to suppress it. The liberation movement is calling for international support for their pursuit of justice through boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel, with the vision that someday colonization, race riots and lynchings will cease to exist.
www.amazingathletes.com/northchi
e.t.c, e.t.c.
Yet last year Mandela was widely fêted around the World as a hero.
Funny that.