On Eddie Vedder and Israel/Palestine

yosi

benjs said:

yosi said:

fuck said:

yosi said:

badbrains said:

Byrnzie said:

Interesting. No doubt it will be dismissed by the Israeli's.

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."

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).

Last-12-Exit

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?

yosi

Last-12-Exit said:

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.

Byrnzie

yosi said:

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.

Byrnzie

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.

...you get my drift?

Anyway...

Byrnzie

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.

SkeeterB

Just wondering if people here consider Hamas a terrorist organization.

yosi

SkeeterB said:

Just wondering if people here consider Hamas a terrorist organization.

Yes, but I'm guessing your question isn't really addressed to me.

Byrnzie

SkeeterB said:

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.

e.t.c, e.t.c.

Byrnzie

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.

Funny that.

SkeeterB

Byrnzie said:

SkeeterB said:

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.

e.t.c, e.t.c.

It's a yes/no question. No need to add your opinion. i just want to know if you think that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

Byrnzie

SkeeterB said:

It's a yes/no question. No need to add your opinion. i just want to know if you think that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

Depends what you mean by 'terrorist organization'. Do you believe Israel is a terrorist state?

And I didn't add my opinion. I presented some facts.

yosi

Byrnzie said:

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.

Oh, o.k., so some random comments from a bunch of trolls is suddenly representative of supporters of Israel in general. And of course, we're all Nazis looking to commit genocide. That's not at all divorced from reality or just a plain shitty thing to say. Would you compare a black person to a plantation owner? But of course you never engage in name calling...

Byrnzie said:

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.

"Never in the history of the human race..." So supporters of Israel are the most racist and bloodthirsty people in the history of humanity. And you wonder why some might think that your comments have a tendency to veer into bigotry.

Byrnzie

yosi said:

Oh, o.k., so some random comments from a bunch of trolls is suddenly representative of supporters of Israel in general. And of course, we're all Nazis looking to commit genocide. That's not at all divorced from reality or just a plain shitty thing to say. Would you compare a black person to a plantation owner? But of course you never engage in name calling...

Did you even read the article? It was written by Moshe Feiglin. He's the 'head of the Manhigut Yehudit [Jewish Leadership] faction in the Likud party and a new member of the Knesset.'

But you pretend that the calls for ethnic cleansing, and possible genocide of the Palestinians, are simply the work of 'a bunch of trolls'?

Byrnzie

yosi said:

"Never in the history of the human race..." So supporters of Israel are the most racist and bloodthirsty people in the history of humanity. And you wonder why some might think that your comments have a tendency to veer into bigotry.

Once again, twisting my words. You have a habit of doing that.


Here's what I said: "Never in the history of the human race has so much effort gone into trying to excuse and justify racism and murder."

I didn't say that supporters of Israel are the most racist and bloodthirsty people in the history of humanity. I didn't say that Israel's supporters can be compared to the Mongol Hordes, or to the Waffen SS marching through Europe. I said that "Never in the history of the human race has so much effort gone into trying to excuse and justify racism and murder."

yosi

Byrnzie said:

yosi said:

"Never in the history of the human race..." So supporters of Israel are the most racist and bloodthirsty people in the history of humanity. And you wonder why some might think that your comments have a tendency to veer into bigotry.

Once again, twisting my words. You have a habit of doing that.


Here's what I said: "Never in the history of the human race has so much effort gone into trying to excuse and justify racism and murder."

I didn't say that supporters of Israel are the most racist and bloodthirsty people in the history of humanity. I didn't say that Israel's supporters can be compared to the Mongol Hordes, or to the Waffen SS marching through Europe. I said that "Never in the history of the human race has so much effort gone into trying to excuse and justify racism and murder."

Yes. Exactly. You are saying that supporters of Israel are more accepting of racism and murder than any other group of people...ever. Which would logically seem to imply that they are more racist and bloodthirsty than any other group of people ever. Which seems to be a comment that would be very easy to consider kind of bigoted since it implies that Jews (i.e., "supporters of Israel") are a uniquely evil sort of people.

Byrnzie

SkeeterB said:

It's a yes/no question. No need to add your opinion. i just want to know if you think that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

Is Hamas is a terrorist organization - an organization who's sole aim and purpose is to commit acts of terrorism? No. Hamas was elected in a free and fair election in 2006, and has carried out extensive social work for the population under it's remit. It has also stated clearly on numerous occasions that it agrees with the international consensus on a peaceful settlement of the conflict under the terms laid out in international law. Has Hamas ever been responsible for acts of terrorism? Yes, just as the ANC were.

Either way, let's say for arguments sake that they are a terrorist organization - an organization who's sole aim and purpose is to commit acts of terrorism. Does that excuse and justify Israel's illegal occupation and encroaching land grab? Does that justify all of the war crimes committed by Israel over the past 47 years of the occupation?
Hamas was only founded in 1987. What was Israel's excuse before that? You pretend that Hamas is the problem, and that they're the reason for the occupation and the expansion of illegal Jewish-only settlements? Really? Or are you just parroting the opinion of the glossy-lipped news reporters you hear on mainstream U.S television?

"Palestinian moderates will never prevail over those considered extremists, since what defines moderation for [the Israeli leadership] is Palestinian acquiescence in Israel’s dismemberment of Palestinian territory." - Henry Siegman

yosi

I would love to know what South Africans think of the Hamas-ANC comparison. I'm sure they'd be quite flattered...

fuck

yosi said:

fuck said:

yosi said:

badbrains said:

Byrnzie said:

Interesting. No doubt it will be dismissed by the Israeli's.

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."

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.

The notion that this entire conflict is based on Israelis feeling "secure" is simply a fallacy. This is a settler colonial project, and Israel will not be satisfied until there is an end to any resistance to the pursuit of more Palestinian land, and further expulsion of Palestinians, along with the creation and continuing of a discriminatory system that treats Palestinians as second class citizens (within Israel itself) or even worse (since those in Gaza and the West Bank are not even given the "luxury" of citizenship and are forced to live stateless under occupation). Let's stick to what the reality on the ground is in this conversation, please.

fuck

Last-12-Exit said:

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?

The Palestinian citizens of Israel are always looked down upon, not just during times of war, and are forced to deal with several laws that discriminates against them and treats them as second class citizens. For more information on this, you can check out Ben White's book on the subject.