It's not like they just chose Palestine by drawing out of a hat.
If you were being persecuted from your homes why not retreat to your holy land?
To your argument that the Jews bought up the land, well who sold it to them?
To your argument that the Holocaust wasn't the Palestinians problem, no one said it was but these people still needed a place to migrate to. The US was expensive to travel to, its not like everyone could afford travel expenses especially after having all of there wealth taken from them. I really think you are brushing off the fact that NO ONE wanted the Jewish Immigrants. They were murdered and unwelcome in there homes after the war was over. I don't think anyone should blame them for trying to find a new home in there holy land, especially when they had the support of the US.
So you're saying that because some Jews had bought property in Palestine that this justified the Zionist race war in Palestine and the dispossession of approx 1,000,000 people from their land and homes?
Also, how do you explain the fact that the Zionists were already attempting to establish an ethnic sovereign state in Palestine prior to the Nazi's coming to power in Germany?
(I won't even mention your comment about travel to America being too expensive).
Michael Neumann: 'The Zionists and their camp followers did not come simply to "find a homeland," certainly not in the sense that Flanders is the homeland of the Flemish, or Lappland of the Lapps. They did not come simply to "make a life in Palestine." They did not come to "redeem a people". All this could have been done elsewhere, as was pointed out at the time, and much of it was being done elsewhere by individual Jewish immigrants to America and other countries. The Zionists, and therefore all who settled under their auspices, came to found a soveriegn Jewish state.'
'Zionism was from the start an ill-considered and menacing experiment in ethnic nationalism. Neither history nor religion could justify it. The Jews had no claim to Palestine and no right to build a state there. Their growing need for refuge may have provided some limited, inadequate, short-term moral sustenance for the Zionist project, but it could not render that project legitimate. The mere fact of later suffering cannot retroactively convert a wrong into a right: my attempt to usurp your land does not become legitimate simply because I am wrongly beaten by someone else, far away, when my project is near completion. Nor did the well founded desperation of the Jews during the Nazi era provide any justification for Zionism; at most it provided an excuse. If someone is murdering my family in Germany, that does not entitle me to your house in Boston, or my "people" to your country. All Jews fleeing Hitler were indeed entitled to some refuge. One might even suppose that it was the obligation of the whole world, including the Palestinians, to do what they could to provide such refuge. But this is not the whole story.
For one thing, those with ample means to provide refuge, and those who are responsible for the need, have by far the greater share of responsibility. The Palestinians fell into neither category. Even more important, there is an enormous difference between providing refuge and providing a sovereign state. No amount of danger or suffering requires this, and indeed it may conflict with the demand for refuge. Simply to control one's own affairs isn't always the safest alternative. Arguably, for instance, the Jews were safer in the United States, where they are not sovereign, than they ever were in Israel. This is not only a fact but was always a reasonable expectation, so the need for refuge is also no basis for Zionism...
If there are any great lessons to be learned from the Nazi era , they are to watch out for fascism, racism, and ethnic nationalism. Supporting Israel hardly embodies these lessons.'
Lastly, I do not doubt some of the details in HRW or AI reports, but I because a report says a specific fact or detail of an order, does not mean you can automatically make a leap to equate that fact to encompass the entire issue - something you are doing. Anyone can post specific facts, stories or details to back their position or belief, and of course you will then say - look they're reiterating my belief or position in the dicussion. But it is you that take these instances and facts and make it into a larger agenda, story or purpose - not the place you're actually getting the facts from. Doing this is merely spinning reality to fit your mold, compared to just viewing reality as it is.
Do you mean specific facts such as the following?:
'Israel is the target of at least 65 UN Resolutions and the Palestinians are the target of none.
Aside from the core issues—refugees, Jerusalem, borders—the major themes reflected in the U.N. resolutions against Israel over the years are its unlawful attacks on its neighbors; its violations of the human rights of the Palestinians, including deportations, demolitions of homes and other collective punishments; its confiscation of Palestinian land; its establishment of illegal settlements; and its refusal to abide by the U.N. Charter and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.'
Your missing and mixing up my main point which I've state previously. I am not supporting occupation nor backing Palestinian reactions - I am saying if a peace is to occur, it will be as a result of non-violent measures. Palestinians controlling or stopping terror groups from attacking Israeli civillians or armies and Israel stopping from attacking Palestinians. You can reflect on the past wrong-doings of each side all you please and try and make your case why your side is just or correct, but in reality, that will not solve a damn thing. At some point in time, if people inside this conflict or those watching from afar, beginning looking ahead compared to looking backward, things can and would change. But if all you do is say, they did x, y and z, so we're just and the victims in this scenario, that doesn't accomplish anything. If you're seriously about a peace process with a two state solution, complaining about Israel isn't the only measure taken. Palestinians who want peace and want to end the terror groups for ruining their hopes need to step to the forefront and become the becon for their agenda. Israel, on the other hand, needs to meet them in the middle by pushing for international talks which will further a long term peace process (amongst many other specific changes to their policies and actions). Both sides are responsible for the future outcome, merely blaming the other half doesn't and won't fix the problem. That's my point. So post all you please about occupation, hrw, ai reports and similar cause none of it matters at alll if both don't make the necessary changes to find a permanent solution.
Actually, this post makes no sense to me. All I can gather from it is that you're criticising me for backing my arguments with facts. Seems like a pretty thin case you have there for supporting the occupation.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
If you're seriously about a peace process with a two state solution, complaining about Israel isn't the only measure taken. Palestinians who want peace and want to end the terror groups for ruining their hopes need to step to the forefront and become the becon for their agenda. Israel, on the other hand, needs to meet them in the middle by pushing for international talks which will further a long term peace process (amongst many other specific changes to their policies and actions).
The Palestinians support the international consensus, which is an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories:
Norman Finkelstein: 'The broad consensus on the "final status" issues of borders, East Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees forms the bedrock of the two-state settlement to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. As understood by the whole of the International community, apart from Israel and the United States (and this or that Pacific atoll), such a settlement calls for full Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territories captured in the June 1967 war, the formation of an independent Palestinian state in these territories in exchange for recognition of Israel's right to live in peace and security with it's neighbours, and a resolution of the refugee question that acknowledges the Palestinian right of return. A December 2005 U.N General Assembly resolution listed these principles and components for a "peaceful settlement" of the conflict: "inadmissability of the aquisition of territory by war"; "illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem"; "right of all states in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders"; "two-State solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders"; "withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967"; "realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination and the right to their independent state"; "resolving the problem of Palestine refugees in conformity with...resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948." The resolution passed 156-6 (Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, United States), with 9 abstentions. According to U.S Ambassador to the U.N John Bolton, the General Assembly's overwhelming approval of this and related resolutions on the Israel-Palestine conflict showed "why many people say the U.N is not really useful in solving actual problems." Truly it is cause for perplexity why the world won't follow the useful lead of the United States and Palau.'
The Palestinians support the international consensus, which is an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories:
Norman Finkelstein: 'The broad consensus on the "final status" issues of borders, East Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees forms the bedrock of the two-state settlement to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. As understood by the whole of the International community, apart from Israel and the United States (and this or that Pacific atoll), such a settlement calls for full Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territories captured in the June 1967 war, the formation of an independent Palestinian state in these territories in exchange for recognition of Israel's right to live in peace and security with it's neighbours, and a resolution of the refugee question that acknowledges the Palestinian right of return. A December 2005 U.N General Assembly resolution listed these principles and components for a "peaceful settlement" of the conflict: "inadmissability of the aquisition of territory by war"; "illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem"; "right of all states in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders"; "two-State solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders"; "withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967"; "realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination and the right to their independent state"; "resolving the problem of Palestine refugees in conformity with...resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948." The resolution passed 156-6 (Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, United States), with 9 abstentions. According to U.S Ambassador to the U.N John Bolton, the General Assembly's overwhelming approval of this and related resolutions on the Israel-Palestine conflict showed "why many people say the U.N is not really useful in solving actual problems." Truly it is cause for perplexity why the world won't follow the useful lead of the United States and Palau.'
Oh no! I'm using facts to support my argument! Shit!
Your missing and mixing up my main point which I've state previously. I am not supporting occupation nor backing Palestinian reactions - I am saying if a peace is to occur, it will be as a result of non-violent measures. Palestinians controlling or stopping terror groups from attacking Israeli civillians or armies and Israel stopping from attacking Palestinians. You can reflect on the past wrong-doings of each side all you please and try and make your case why your side is just or correct, but in reality, that will not solve a damn thing. At some point in time, if people inside this conflict or those watching from afar, beginning looking ahead compared to looking backward, things can and would change. But if all you do is say, they did x, y and z, so we're just and the victims in this scenario, that doesn't accomplish anything. If you're seriously about a peace process with a two state solution, complaining about Israel isn't the only measure taken. Palestinians who want peace and want to end the terror groups for ruining their hopes need to step to the forefront and become the becon for their agenda. Israel, on the other hand, needs to meet them in the middle by pushing for international talks which will further a long term peace process (amongst many other specific changes to their policies and actions). Both sides are responsible for the future outcome, merely blaming the other half doesn't and won't fix the problem. That's my point. So post all you please about occupation, hrw, ai reports and similar cause none of it matters at alll if both don't make the necessary changes to find a permanent solution.
I really don't understand your point here. Your point is to forget the past and move to a better future? And then you talk about being REALISTIC? This is a conflict that goes as far back as 100 years... there is no FORGETTING. the Palestinians LOST THEIR HOMES, 1 million of its people became refugees, so many thousands dead, and you think it's that simple to just forget about "whose fault it is" (as you try to put it).... it's not as simple as that....
The Israelis need to be held responsible, many of them should be tried in court (like Olmert will be soon) and they should move back to the pre-67 borders HAPPILY. In my opinion, the fact that Hamas would be willing to talk if Israel moved back to those borders is already a concession the Palestinians are making. Israel stole every bit of land it has now (except for.. 6%?) and they'd be lucky to have a country side-by-side with Palestine in general... the Palestinians have given up enough, it's time for the Israelis to come forward...
'Israel says it has launched an inquiry after an Israeli human rights group released footage that appears to show a soldier shoot a Palestinian detainee.
The video is blurred when the gun fires, but the Palestinian man says a rubber bullet hit his left big toe and he was treated by an army medic.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) called the incident "grave" and in "direct contradiction" of the army's values.
Rights group B'Tselem said the incident occurred on 7 July in the West Bank.
B'Tselem said the video clip showed a soldier firing a rubber-coated steel bullet, from close range, at a handcuffed and blindfolded Palestinian detainee.
It said the shooting took place in the presence of a lieutenant colonel, who was holding the Palestinian man's arm when the shot was fired.
A 14-year-old girl reportedly filmed the incident from the window of her home in the town of Nilin, which has been the scene of violent protests against Israel's West Bank barrier.
B'Tselem said it received the tape on Sunday and forwarded a copy to the Military Police Investigation Unit, demanding an inquiry.
The Palestinian, Ashraf Abu Rahman, was quoted by local media as saying: "During the demonstration the soldiers caught me, arrested me - and after a few moments I heard shots and felt a fire in my body. I was afraid and didn't know what it was."
"I closed my eyes and I don't remember anything. It felt like my leg was gone," the 27-year-old said.
In a statement quoted by the Jerusalem Post, the IDF said: "Military law forbids inflicting harm on detainees and obligates soldiers to show them respect and ensure their safety."
The IDF said that, in accordance with its policy, the footage had been reviewed by a senior official, and an investigation was under way.
The Israeli government says the West Bank barrier is a security measure to stop suicide bombers, but critics say the structure is a calculated effort to annex occupied land.
Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the 1967 war. It has settled hundreds of thousands of Israelis in the West Bank and keeps a large military presence there.'
International Press Center of the PNA
March 29, 2005
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/prisoners-killed.html
'GAZA, Palestine, March 29, 2005 (IPC+WAFA)—Figures released by the Prisoner and Ex-Prisoner Ministry showed that 177 Palestinian detainees were killed inside Israeli jails since 1967.
The Planning and Statistics Department of the Ministry said, in a statistical report, 69 Palestinian prisoners (39%) were killed due to being subjected to severe torture whilst 37 prisoners (20.9%) died due to the lack of medical health care.
The report also revealed that 71 prisoners (40.1%) were willfully killed after the arrest – in cold blooded murder. 57 of these prisoners (32.2%) were from the southern provinces and 120 (67.8%) from the northern provinces and other localities.
Among the killed prisoners, 72 (40.7%) were slain in the period between 1967 until the flare up of the al Aqsa Intifada I on 8 Dec 1987, including 39 who were tortured to death, 17 died due to the lack of necessary medication and 19 were willfully killed after arrest.
Mr. Abed Al Nasser Ferwana, director of the Planning and Statistics Department of the Ministry said that 42 of the killed prisoners were killed within the first Intifada, making up 23.7% of the total number of Palestinian prisoners killed. Among them 23 had been tortured to death, 11 died due to a lack of heath care, and 9 were willfully killed. He added that 18 of those prisoners killed were from the Gaza Strip while the 24 others were from the west bank and other areas.
The report documented that the number of the prisoners killed tangibly decreased during the period between the middle of 1994 until 28 Sep, 2000, as the number of the prisoners killed inside Israeli jails was 8, making up only 4.5% of the total. During this time, 2 died due to the withholding of medical treatment, and 6 were tormented to death. No records of willful killing after arrest were registered.
Following the eruption of the current Intifada, the number of Palestinian prisoners killed inside the Israeli jails soared. Between 29 Sep 2000 and 28 March 2005, the number reached 55, making up 31.1% of the total 177 prisoners killed, including 10 in the Gaza Strip and 45 in the west bank and Jerusalem, among them were 26 Palestinian prisoners killed during the second year of Al Aqsa Intifada, the report revealed.
The report also explained that the prisoners are being killed at a higher rate now than during the first Intifada. It pointed out that the percentage killed in the six-year first Intifada was 23.7% (42 martyrs), while the percentage during nearly four years of Al Aqsa Intifada has already reached 55 (31.1%).
The number of those prisoners that were killed due to severe torture in the first Intifada was larger during the Al Aqsa Intifada. The number of the prisoners killed willfully and liquidated was also rose, reaching 47.
The report explained that the rise in the number of prisoners killed was due mainly to the state-sponsored policy of assassination practiced by Israel throughout Al Aqsa Intifada.'
Posting articles and backing failed plans doesn't create a peace. Continuing down a failed road won't change a thing. You don't seem to acknowledge that fact. If you have unrealistic expecatations of the other half (something both sides do), you'll get failed results - which is why we see the conflict to continue in the manner it has.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Posting articles and backing failed plans doesn't create a peace. Continuing down a failed road won't change a thing. You don't seem to acknowledge that fact. If you have unrealistic expecatations of the other half (something both sides do), you'll get failed results - which is why we see the conflict to continue in the manner it has.
what's your solution then? Just because the US and Israel disagree with the international consensus that what Israel is doing is illegal, they should be able to do whatever they want?
Posting articles and backing failed plans doesn't create a peace. Continuing down a failed road won't change a thing. You don't seem to acknowledge that fact. If you have unrealistic expecatations of the other half (something both sides do), you'll get failed results - which is why we see the conflict to continue in the manner it has.
Israel doesn't harbour any expectations from the Palestinians because it doesn't expect, or even want, anything from them, other than for them to vacate the only remaining land available to them.
And you keep talking about unrealistic expectations. Please elaborate.
Meanwhile I'll repost this passage from Michael Neumann which sums up the issue quite well in my opinion:
'It is sometimes alleged that complete withdrawal from the occupied territories is "impracticable" because the facts on the ground are too deeply entrenched: Israeli settlements are just too extensive and important to uproot. One can hardly take this seriously. If it was "practicable" for hundreds of thousands of stateless Palestinians to leave their homes, why is this impracticable for half as many Israeli citizens in far more comfortable and peaceful circumstances? Throughout modern history, from the waves of U.S immigration to the peaceful post-World War II population transfers, there have been far greater shifts than this movement of a few miles. In many cases, if the settlers prefer, they can simply return to their homes in the United States. "It's impraticable" seems here a stand-in for "Aw, gee, these towns are too nice to let the Arabs have them".
The significance of the withdrawal alternative is not that it represents a just solution. Arguably, justice would require much more than that - not only the abolition of Jewish sovereignty in Israel, but a full right of return, with compensation, for the Palestinians, and the eviction of Jewish inhabitants occupying Palestinian property. But the existence of the withdrawal alternative effectively completes the case against Israel. It's willful and pointless rejection of that alternative places Israel decisively in the wrong. In the first place, Israel has a right of self defence, but it does not apply in the Occupied Territories. If the U.S invaded Jamaica and dotted it with settlements, neither the settlers nor the armed forces could invoke any right to defend themselves against the Jamaicans, any more than a robber who invaded your house. So it is with the Israeli's in the Occupied Territories. Their right of self-defense is their right to the least violent defensive alternative. Since withdrawal (perhaps followed by fortifying their own 1948 border) is by far their best and least violent defense, that is all they have a right to do.'
And from Chomsky:
'Today there are two options for Palestinians. One is US-Israeli abandonment of their rejectionist stance, and a settlement roughly along the lines of what was being approached at Taba, The other option is continuation of current policies, which lead, inexorably, to incorporation into Israel of what it wants: at least, Greater Jerusalem, the areas within the Separation Wall (now an Annexation Wall), the Jordan Valley, and the salients through Ma'aleh Adumim and Ariel and beyond that effectively trisect what remains, which will be broken up into unviable cantons by huge infrastructure projects, hundreds of check points, and other devices to ensure that Palestinians live like dogs.'
This is a circular arguement and we're repeating ourselves. You feel Palestine has done or is doing everything possible to create peace and Israel is in the wrong in their actions. I feel both sides can do many things as I previously mentioned and merely backing one side over the other at this point in time does not help, back or follow through to a solution.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
This is a circular arguement and we're repeating ourselves. You feel Palestine has done or is doing everything possible to create peace and Israel is in the wrong in their actions. I feel both sides can do many things as I previously mentioned and merely backing one side over the other at this point in time does not help, back or follow through to a solution.
The Palestinians are not in a position to create peace, and nobody should be expecting them to act peacefully under the present circumstances. Just as you and everyone you know wouldn't act peacefully if you were in the same situation.
This is a circular arguement and we're repeating ourselves.
That's because you're simply ignoring facts and going to the "It doesn't matter who's right, we just need PEACE" rhetoric that is just an excuse to not do anything about Israel's crimes.
Posting articles and backing failed plans doesn't create a peace.
Apparently spewing hate does though...at least in some people's mind.
My opnion is, it doesn't even matter who is more wrong, it's time to put aside differences and make peace. It's time for the Palestinians to stop targeting Israeli civilians at the movies...it's time for the Israeli's to stop bulldozing the homes of innocent civilians...it's time for both sides to stop teaching their children to hate...it's time for both sides to stop arming their children...and it's time for people to stop perpetuating the problems.
Apparently spewing hate does though...at least in some people's mind.
My opnion is, it doesn't even matter who is more wrong, it's time to put aside differences and make peace. It's time for the Palestinians to stop targeting Israeli civilians at the movies...it's time for the Israeli's to stop bulldozing the homes of innocent civilians...it's time for both sides to stop teaching their children to hate...it's time for both sides to stop arming their children...and it's time for people to stop perpetuating the problems.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Apparently spewing hate does though...at least in some people's mind.
My opnion is, it doesn't even matter who is more wrong, it's time to put aside differences and make peace. It's time for the Palestinians to stop targeting Israeli civilians at the movies...it's time for the Israeli's to stop bulldozing the homes of innocent civilians...it's time for both sides to stop teaching their children to hate...it's time for both sides to stop arming their children...and it's time for people to stop perpetuating the problems.
Would be nice if life was as sweet as that. But it's not.
Put aside differences and make peace? Problem solved I guess.
---
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
As long as these two groups continue to arguement and facilitate violence against one another (whether just or not), the conflict will continue in the same manner. The only way to break the cycle is for both sides to pursue non-violent measures and then begin peace talks. Both sides can make changes. Each action has a reaction and the violence just continues, whether its just or not. Both sides need to stop and get out of this continual pattern, otherwise a peace will never be had.
Would be nice if life was as sweet as that. But it's not.
Put aside differences and make peace? Problem solved I guess.
---
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
As long as these two groups continue to arguement and facilitate violence against one another (whether just or not), the conflict will continue in the same manner. The only way to break the cycle is for both sides to pursue non-violent measures and then begin peace talks. Both sides can make changes. Each action has a reaction and the violence just continues, whether its just or not. Both sides need to stop and get out of this continual pattern, otherwise a peace will never be had.
If that's how you justify everyone standing by and letting Israel get away with its crimes and occupation, then go ahead and do nothing.
If that's how you justify everyone standing by and letting Israel get away with its crimes and occupation, then go ahead and do nothing.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
So you sit here and claim how wrong Israel is, yet it's ok for Palestinian terror groups to attack innocent victims in Israel? Is that crime ok?
If the Palestinians were stealing land that is not theirs and displacing Israeli's by building Arab only settlements.....probably not.
The media would explode if Arabs started doing that...but you know it's all about wink wink nudge nudge for Israel to do exactly that.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
So you sit here and claim how wrong Israel is, yet it's ok for Palestinian terror groups to attack innocent victims in Israel? Is that crime ok?
These Israelis are illegally occupying Palestinian land. Even the ones that are attacked are attacked because they're living in settlements - settlements that they know are ILLEGAL. I'm not saying it's ok for Israeli civilians to be killed, however if the Israelis did not want to be attacked by the Palestinians, then they need to retreat to the internationally recognized 1967 borders.
Hamas said they are willing to negotiate once Israel does that. The ENTIRE world said Israel must do that. The only ones stopping this from happening is Israel (and through Israel, the U.S. who seems to dig their own hole deeper by supporting them).
The only way to have peace is for Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories and negotiate with the Palestinians. All but 6% of the land the Israelis have now is stolen. They would be lucky to have the Palestinians willing to negotiate with the 67 borders.
So your answer that is it ok because it is a reaction?
Let me explain this problem even if going by your logic and rational.
Let's say Palestine is under occupation and Israel is everything you claim about them. With this stated, we both know, any Palestinian violence towards Israeli's in any manner causes bulldozing, killing, etc... ie - violence is recipricated with violence in return. So what is your solution? You claim it is ok for some sort of retaliation by Palestinian groups, but as stated, it only further's violence back towards them, which continues the cycle. Which is exactly why we see this conflict continued in the same exact manner and the closest we've ever seen a peaceful settlement and progress was during the non-violent time during the Oslo accords.
Lastly, just as you claim Israel needs to make adjustments for Palestine to meet them in the middle for a peaceful agreement, Israel claims Palestine needs to make adjustment to meet them in the middle. Both parties need to step to the plate - not just throw around demands and wait for the other half to comply, because that doesn't and hasn't worked.
If the Palestinians were stealing land that is not theirs and displacing Israeli's by building Arab only settlements.....probably not.
The media would explode if Arabs started doing that...but you know it's all about wink wink nudge nudge for Israel to do exactly that.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
So your answer that is it ok because it is a reaction?
Let me explain this problem even if going by your logic and rational.
Let's say Palestine is under occupation and Israel is everything you claim about them. With this stated, we both know, any Palestinian violence towards Israeli's in any manner causes bulldozing, killing, etc... ie - violence is recipricated with violence in return. So what is your solution? You claim it is ok for some sort of retaliation by Palestinian groups, but as stated, it only further's violence back towards them, which continues the cycle. Which is exactly why we see this conflict continued in the same exact manner and the closest we've ever seen a peaceful settlement and progress was during the non-violent time during the Oslo accords.
Pretty simple. Stop stealing land...
action..reaction. all throughout history....more land....and killing to take it.
hmm
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
So you're saying that because some Jews had bought property in Palestine that this justified the Zionist race war in Palestine and the dispossession of approx 1,000,000 people from their land and homes?
Also, how do you explain the fact that the Zionists were already attempting to establish an ethnic sovereign state in Palestine prior to the Nazi's coming to power in Germany?
(I won't even mention your comment about travel to America being too expensive).
Michael Neumann:
'The Zionists and their camp followers did not come simply to "find a homeland," certainly not in the sense that Flanders is the homeland of the Flemish, or Lappland of the Lapps. They did not come simply to "make a life in Palestine." They did not come to "redeem a people". All this could have been done elsewhere, as was pointed out at the time, and much of it was being done elsewhere by individual Jewish immigrants to America and other countries. The Zionists, and therefore all who settled under their auspices, came to found a soveriegn Jewish state.'
'Zionism was from the start an ill-considered and menacing experiment in ethnic nationalism. Neither history nor religion could justify it. The Jews had no claim to Palestine and no right to build a state there. Their growing need for refuge may have provided some limited, inadequate, short-term moral sustenance for the Zionist project, but it could not render that project legitimate. The mere fact of later suffering cannot retroactively convert a wrong into a right: my attempt to usurp your land does not become legitimate simply because I am wrongly beaten by someone else, far away, when my project is near completion. Nor did the well founded desperation of the Jews during the Nazi era provide any justification for Zionism; at most it provided an excuse. If someone is murdering my family in Germany, that does not entitle me to your house in Boston, or my "people" to your country. All Jews fleeing Hitler were indeed entitled to some refuge. One might even suppose that it was the obligation of the whole world, including the Palestinians, to do what they could to provide such refuge. But this is not the whole story.
For one thing, those with ample means to provide refuge, and those who are responsible for the need, have by far the greater share of responsibility. The Palestinians fell into neither category. Even more important, there is an enormous difference between providing refuge and providing a sovereign state. No amount of danger or suffering requires this, and indeed it may conflict with the demand for refuge. Simply to control one's own affairs isn't always the safest alternative. Arguably, for instance, the Jews were safer in the United States, where they are not sovereign, than they ever were in Israel. This is not only a fact but was always a reasonable expectation, so the need for refuge is also no basis for Zionism...
If there are any great lessons to be learned from the Nazi era , they are to watch out for fascism, racism, and ethnic nationalism. Supporting Israel hardly embodies these lessons.'
Do you mean specific facts such as the following?:
'Israel is the target of at least 65 UN Resolutions and the Palestinians are the target of none.
Aside from the core issues—refugees, Jerusalem, borders—the major themes reflected in the U.N. resolutions against Israel over the years are its unlawful attacks on its neighbors; its violations of the human rights of the Palestinians, including deportations, demolitions of homes and other collective punishments; its confiscation of Palestinian land; its establishment of illegal settlements; and its refusal to abide by the U.N. Charter and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.'
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
The Palestinians support the international consensus, which is an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories:
Norman Finkelstein:
'The broad consensus on the "final status" issues of borders, East Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees forms the bedrock of the two-state settlement to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. As understood by the whole of the International community, apart from Israel and the United States (and this or that Pacific atoll), such a settlement calls for full Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territories captured in the June 1967 war, the formation of an independent Palestinian state in these territories in exchange for recognition of Israel's right to live in peace and security with it's neighbours, and a resolution of the refugee question that acknowledges the Palestinian right of return. A December 2005 U.N General Assembly resolution listed these principles and components for a "peaceful settlement" of the conflict: "inadmissability of the aquisition of territory by war"; "illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem"; "right of all states in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders"; "two-State solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders"; "withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967"; "realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination and the right to their independent state"; "resolving the problem of Palestine refugees in conformity with...resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948." The resolution passed 156-6 (Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, United States), with 9 abstentions. According to U.S Ambassador to the U.N John Bolton, the General Assembly's overwhelming approval of this and related resolutions on the Israel-Palestine conflict showed "why many people say the U.N is not really useful in solving actual problems." Truly it is cause for perplexity why the world won't follow the useful lead of the United States and Palau.'
Oh no! I'm using facts to support my argument! Shit!
I really don't understand your point here. Your point is to forget the past and move to a better future? And then you talk about being REALISTIC? This is a conflict that goes as far back as 100 years... there is no FORGETTING. the Palestinians LOST THEIR HOMES, 1 million of its people became refugees, so many thousands dead, and you think it's that simple to just forget about "whose fault it is" (as you try to put it).... it's not as simple as that....
The Israelis need to be held responsible, many of them should be tried in court (like Olmert will be soon) and they should move back to the pre-67 borders HAPPILY. In my opinion, the fact that Hamas would be willing to talk if Israel moved back to those borders is already a concession the Palestinians are making. Israel stole every bit of land it has now (except for.. 6%?) and they'd be lucky to have a country side-by-side with Palestine in general... the Palestinians have given up enough, it's time for the Israelis to come forward...
The Palestinians were pushed into a corner. they are still being pushed.
Israel probes 'detainee shooting'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7516477.stm
'Israel says it has launched an inquiry after an Israeli human rights group released footage that appears to show a soldier shoot a Palestinian detainee.
The video is blurred when the gun fires, but the Palestinian man says a rubber bullet hit his left big toe and he was treated by an army medic.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) called the incident "grave" and in "direct contradiction" of the army's values.
Rights group B'Tselem said the incident occurred on 7 July in the West Bank.
B'Tselem said the video clip showed a soldier firing a rubber-coated steel bullet, from close range, at a handcuffed and blindfolded Palestinian detainee.
It said the shooting took place in the presence of a lieutenant colonel, who was holding the Palestinian man's arm when the shot was fired.
A 14-year-old girl reportedly filmed the incident from the window of her home in the town of Nilin, which has been the scene of violent protests against Israel's West Bank barrier.
B'Tselem said it received the tape on Sunday and forwarded a copy to the Military Police Investigation Unit, demanding an inquiry.
The Palestinian, Ashraf Abu Rahman, was quoted by local media as saying: "During the demonstration the soldiers caught me, arrested me - and after a few moments I heard shots and felt a fire in my body. I was afraid and didn't know what it was."
"I closed my eyes and I don't remember anything. It felt like my leg was gone," the 27-year-old said.
In a statement quoted by the Jerusalem Post, the IDF said: "Military law forbids inflicting harm on detainees and obligates soldiers to show them respect and ensure their safety."
The IDF said that, in accordance with its policy, the footage had been reviewed by a senior official, and an investigation was under way.
The Israeli government says the West Bank barrier is a security measure to stop suicide bombers, but critics say the structure is a calculated effort to annex occupied land.
Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the 1967 war. It has settled hundreds of thousands of Israelis in the West Bank and keeps a large military presence there.'
International Press Center of the PNA
March 29, 2005
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/prisoners-killed.html
'GAZA, Palestine, March 29, 2005 (IPC+WAFA)—Figures released by the Prisoner and Ex-Prisoner Ministry showed that 177 Palestinian detainees were killed inside Israeli jails since 1967.
The Planning and Statistics Department of the Ministry said, in a statistical report, 69 Palestinian prisoners (39%) were killed due to being subjected to severe torture whilst 37 prisoners (20.9%) died due to the lack of medical health care.
The report also revealed that 71 prisoners (40.1%) were willfully killed after the arrest – in cold blooded murder. 57 of these prisoners (32.2%) were from the southern provinces and 120 (67.8%) from the northern provinces and other localities.
Among the killed prisoners, 72 (40.7%) were slain in the period between 1967 until the flare up of the al Aqsa Intifada I on 8 Dec 1987, including 39 who were tortured to death, 17 died due to the lack of necessary medication and 19 were willfully killed after arrest.
Mr. Abed Al Nasser Ferwana, director of the Planning and Statistics Department of the Ministry said that 42 of the killed prisoners were killed within the first Intifada, making up 23.7% of the total number of Palestinian prisoners killed. Among them 23 had been tortured to death, 11 died due to a lack of heath care, and 9 were willfully killed. He added that 18 of those prisoners killed were from the Gaza Strip while the 24 others were from the west bank and other areas.
The report documented that the number of the prisoners killed tangibly decreased during the period between the middle of 1994 until 28 Sep, 2000, as the number of the prisoners killed inside Israeli jails was 8, making up only 4.5% of the total. During this time, 2 died due to the withholding of medical treatment, and 6 were tormented to death. No records of willful killing after arrest were registered.
Following the eruption of the current Intifada, the number of Palestinian prisoners killed inside the Israeli jails soared. Between 29 Sep 2000 and 28 March 2005, the number reached 55, making up 31.1% of the total 177 prisoners killed, including 10 in the Gaza Strip and 45 in the west bank and Jerusalem, among them were 26 Palestinian prisoners killed during the second year of Al Aqsa Intifada, the report revealed.
The report also explained that the prisoners are being killed at a higher rate now than during the first Intifada. It pointed out that the percentage killed in the six-year first Intifada was 23.7% (42 martyrs), while the percentage during nearly four years of Al Aqsa Intifada has already reached 55 (31.1%).
The number of those prisoners that were killed due to severe torture in the first Intifada was larger during the Al Aqsa Intifada. The number of the prisoners killed willfully and liquidated was also rose, reaching 47.
The report explained that the rise in the number of prisoners killed was due mainly to the state-sponsored policy of assassination practiced by Israel throughout Al Aqsa Intifada.'
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Israel doesn't harbour any expectations from the Palestinians because it doesn't expect, or even want, anything from them, other than for them to vacate the only remaining land available to them.
And you keep talking about unrealistic expectations. Please elaborate.
Meanwhile I'll repost this passage from Michael Neumann which sums up the issue quite well in my opinion:
'It is sometimes alleged that complete withdrawal from the occupied territories is "impracticable" because the facts on the ground are too deeply entrenched: Israeli settlements are just too extensive and important to uproot. One can hardly take this seriously. If it was "practicable" for hundreds of thousands of stateless Palestinians to leave their homes, why is this impracticable for half as many Israeli citizens in far more comfortable and peaceful circumstances? Throughout modern history, from the waves of U.S immigration to the peaceful post-World War II population transfers, there have been far greater shifts than this movement of a few miles. In many cases, if the settlers prefer, they can simply return to their homes in the United States. "It's impraticable" seems here a stand-in for "Aw, gee, these towns are too nice to let the Arabs have them".
The significance of the withdrawal alternative is not that it represents a just solution. Arguably, justice would require much more than that - not only the abolition of Jewish sovereignty in Israel, but a full right of return, with compensation, for the Palestinians, and the eviction of Jewish inhabitants occupying Palestinian property. But the existence of the withdrawal alternative effectively completes the case against Israel. It's willful and pointless rejection of that alternative places Israel decisively in the wrong. In the first place, Israel has a right of self defence, but it does not apply in the Occupied Territories. If the U.S invaded Jamaica and dotted it with settlements, neither the settlers nor the armed forces could invoke any right to defend themselves against the Jamaicans, any more than a robber who invaded your house. So it is with the Israeli's in the Occupied Territories. Their right of self-defense is their right to the least violent defensive alternative. Since withdrawal (perhaps followed by fortifying their own 1948 border) is by far their best and least violent defense, that is all they have a right to do.'
And from Chomsky:
'Today there are two options for Palestinians. One is US-Israeli abandonment of their rejectionist stance, and a settlement roughly along the lines of what was being approached at Taba, The other option is continuation of current policies, which lead, inexorably, to incorporation into Israel of what it wants: at least, Greater Jerusalem, the areas within the Separation Wall (now an Annexation Wall), the Jordan Valley, and the salients through Ma'aleh Adumim and Ariel and beyond that effectively trisect what remains, which will be broken up into unviable cantons by huge infrastructure projects, hundreds of check points, and other devices to ensure that Palestinians live like dogs.'
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
The Palestinians are not in a position to create peace, and nobody should be expecting them to act peacefully under the present circumstances. Just as you and everyone you know wouldn't act peacefully if you were in the same situation.
Apparently spewing hate does though...at least in some people's mind.
My opnion is, it doesn't even matter who is more wrong, it's time to put aside differences and make peace. It's time for the Palestinians to stop targeting Israeli civilians at the movies...it's time for the Israeli's to stop bulldozing the homes of innocent civilians...it's time for both sides to stop teaching their children to hate...it's time for both sides to stop arming their children...and it's time for people to stop perpetuating the problems.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Is that Said?
Would be nice if life was as sweet as that. But it's not.
Put aside differences and make peace? Problem solved I guess.
---
http://www.jackbernstein.org/
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/ziorats/
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Hmmmm, I wonder....maybe America supplied these Rats for Israel and perhaps America may even of bought them cheap from China.
I think that's how it works.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
If the Palestinians were stealing land that is not theirs and displacing Israeli's by building Arab only settlements.....probably not.
The media would explode if Arabs started doing that...but you know it's all about wink wink nudge nudge for Israel to do exactly that.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Hamas said they are willing to negotiate once Israel does that. The ENTIRE world said Israel must do that. The only ones stopping this from happening is Israel (and through Israel, the U.S. who seems to dig their own hole deeper by supporting them).
The only way to have peace is for Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories and negotiate with the Palestinians. All but 6% of the land the Israelis have now is stolen. They would be lucky to have the Palestinians willing to negotiate with the 67 borders.
Let me explain this problem even if going by your logic and rational.
Let's say Palestine is under occupation and Israel is everything you claim about them. With this stated, we both know, any Palestinian violence towards Israeli's in any manner causes bulldozing, killing, etc... ie - violence is recipricated with violence in return. So what is your solution? You claim it is ok for some sort of retaliation by Palestinian groups, but as stated, it only further's violence back towards them, which continues the cycle. Which is exactly why we see this conflict continued in the same exact manner and the closest we've ever seen a peaceful settlement and progress was during the non-violent time during the Oslo accords.
Lastly, just as you claim Israel needs to make adjustments for Palestine to meet them in the middle for a peaceful agreement, Israel claims Palestine needs to make adjustment to meet them in the middle. Both parties need to step to the plate - not just throw around demands and wait for the other half to comply, because that doesn't and hasn't worked.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Pretty simple. Stop stealing land...
action..reaction. all throughout history....more land....and killing to take it.
hmm
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")