Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumIsrael Hate is Anti-Semitism
Israel remains under bombardment from Hamas. Her civilians are forced to flee to stairwells, secure rooms and other areas at a moment's notice because of Hamas' intentional targeting of civilian population centers. It is only in response to this that the Israel Defense Forces have undertaken defensive action to protect Israeli civilians and end this reign of terror.
Unfortunately, there are those that are so blinded by their hate of Israel that they deny Israel the right to self-defense. They claim that the hundreds Hamas rockets that terrorize Israeli civilians are virtually zero. This, of course, while they count, to the very last one, the number of missiles Israel uses against military targets in Gaza. Naturally, the former are completely understandable, and excusable, in their minds, while the latter are worthy of the highest degree of condemnation. This leads to exactly what I said in my title:
Israel hate is anti-Semitism
When one condemns Israel's defensive actions and, simultaneously, has absolutely nothing to say about Hamas' intentional targeting of civilians, that is anti-Semitism. It is to deny the Jewish State, alone amongst the nations of the world, the right to defend herself. It is to single her out for negative treatment. It is to say that every nation, but her, may protect its citizens. It is nothing less than anti-Semitism.
Accordingly, no matter what beliefs someone may hold, if they engage in such behavior they are not of the left. Bigotry, in all its forms, is antithetical to the principles of the left. They are anti-Semites and they have no business considering themselves liberals, progressives, socialists or whatever identifier of the left they prefer. They are, first, and foremost, bigots. They are indistinguishable from those on the right that spew hatred of Jews or Arabs or any other group.
more...
http://www.progressivezionist.com/2012/11/israel-hate-is-anti-semitism.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)railsback
(1,881 posts)These Israel coddling threads get really disturbing.
JoDog
(1,353 posts)that the Hamas-coddling threads get really disturbing.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)it seems there are these drive by charges made by some here but those making the charges never seem to get back with examples why is that?
railsback
(1,881 posts)Links, please. I'd like to read them.
lsewpershad
(2,620 posts)to truly understand the blocade and the total control of Israel of the lives of the people of Gaza.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)That's not bad as a foreign-policy: "Furthermore, we hereby declare our country to be jewish from now on. Anybody who criticizes us is a racist."
(I wanted to post "bullshit" myself, but you beat me to it.)
leveymg
(36,418 posts)fact out no more makes me an antisemite than criticism of my punk cousin makes me someone who hates my own family.
But, Israel is and has been a bad actor for a long time. That is particularly true of the Netanyahu regime, which pursues expansionist policies of Greater Israel that are aggressive, criminal and provoke hatred of Jews everywhere. It's past time for a family intervention.
Shira - Your OP is insulting, provocative, and stupid. I don't use that word a lot. But, it's stupid to brand critics of Israeli policy as antisemites.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)In fact, it is genocidal. Israel is guilty of mass murder. The idea that Israel's violent and oppressive actions are just self defense is dishonest and ahistorical. You cannot reasonably expect the Arab people to do nothing while their people are subjected to an apartheid system and are forced by illegal settlements off their own land. I am disgusted with Israel. And remember the Semitic people include Arabs, so if anyone is being antisemitic, it's the religious right in this country and in Israel.
shira
(30,109 posts)
Actually, that post of yours makes me want to say the following:
Deep13
(39,154 posts)This isn't the 1940s or even the 1960s. Any animosity from Arabs toward Israel now is because of its actions.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You know perfectly well nobody here thinks anything like that about Israelis...or about Jewish people anywhere else.
Get a hold of yourself.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Israel is in Palestine claiming their land.
If another group invaded and set up shop in California I would be duty bound as an American to defend them regardless of how far away I live. So perhaps Gazans are just Gazans to you, but to them they are Palestinians. You can't really hope to believe that they are separate from the West Bank simply because they are not contiguous.
In addition if Greece invaded Tel Aviv and moved in 190k settlers there, while defeating the IDF, Israel would be screaming for their removal to the UN. I say this since you know, or should know, that Israel practices the very same thing right now.
lsewpershad
(2,620 posts)the blockade and the almost absolute control ot he movement of the people?
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Mass murder? Apartheid?
Of all the ongoing armed conflicts currently happening around the world -- over 30 -- the IP conflict is way down the list in terms of both civilian and military casualties -- even though it has been going on longer than most others (only the Communist Insurgency in the Philippines has been going on longer). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_military_conflicts
There has to be a reason why the Jews of Israel continue to be heaped with such hyperbolic vitriol when all other MUCH more brutal and murderous conflicts are going on all around the world and are literally ignored. When was the last time you saw a post demonizing the Turkish-Kurdish conflict -- 75,000 civilian deaths dating back to 1989? Or the conflict between Iran and Pakistan in Balchostan -- 18,000 deaths dating back to 1948 (800 in 2011 alone)? If the reason ISN'T antisemitism then you need to prove that.
I've personally seen openly antisemitic hate message taking centre stage at anti-Israel rallies in the US, Canada and Europe. Not criticism of Israeli policies (all Israelis do that) -- I'm talking about blood libel, accusations of JEWISH perfidy and the comparisons of Jews to Nazis -- this isn't fringe stuff, it's right there coming from the key speakers at these rallies.
Any one who is GENUINELY interested in peace between Israel and the Palestinians isn't going to be screaming your kind of over-the-top accusations at EITHER side in the conflict. They are only interested in seeing Israel destroyed and acting as cheerleader for those groups who actively pursue that goal.
No, a GENUINE peace advocate isn't going to throw accusations -- they're going to tell BOTH sides to put aside the conflict, stop firing rockets and retaliating with missiles and come to the table and hammer out a COMPROMISE. And a compromise means just that -- no one is going to get everything they want.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)Ergo, no screaming either.
Here's a compromise. I call it the one-state solution. Israel declares a secular state and grants full citizenship to Arab Palestinians and returns property to anyone with clear title to it. How's that?
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... Arab Palestinians in Israel are already full legal citizens of Israel -- they have been since the day Israel was founded in 1948.
Who the Palestinians choose to allow to be citizens in their own state -- when they ever decide they want one -- is completely up to them. Here's to hoping they choose wisely.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)He gave a talk a few weeks ago after a fact-finding trip over there.
http://www.ohio.com/editorial/walter-l-hixson-why-israel-must-confront-its-past-1.244453
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... they go to reinforce their own preconceptions.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)He went to see for himself. And to the extent he had preconceptions, they were created by what he was reading in the academic literature before he left.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Michael Ben-Yair - former Attorney General of Israel
The Six-Day War was forced upon us; however, the war's seventh day, which began on June 12, 1967 and has continued to this day, is the product of our choice. We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities. Passionately desiring to keep the occupied territories, we developed two judicial systems: one - progressive, liberal - in Israel; and the other - cruel, injurious - in the occupied territories. In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture. That oppressive regime exists to this day.
This is the background of the difficult testimony we have received about actions of Israel Defense Forces personnel in the occupied territories. No need to repeat the details of the painful phenomena entailed in the occupation regime and in our battle to prolong it. Suffice it to recall the killing of little children fleeing for safety; the executions, without trial, of wanted persons who were not on their way to launch a terrorist act; and the encirclements, closures and roadblocks that have turned the lives of millions into a nightmare. Even if all these actions stem from our need to defend ourselves under an occupation's conditions, the occupation's non-existence would render them unnecessary. Thus, a black flag hovers over these actions.
This is a harsh reality that is causing us to lose the moral base of our existence as a free, just society and to jeopardize Israel's long-range survival. Israel's security cannot be based only on the sword; it must rather be based on our principles of moral justice and on peace with our neighbors - those living next door and those living a little further away. An occupation regime undermines those principles of moral justice and prevents the attainment of peace. Thus, that regime endangers Israel's existence.
I wonder if he considers himself anti-semitic.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)I agree with the author of that quote, and am saddened that hardliners on both sides are "wearing each other's clothing."
But one of the sides has a chance to end this conflict - which resides with Israel. Unfortunately, she and her US backing will have none of it.
Sad all the way around.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)
PDJane
(10,103 posts)A dutch member of Nato pointed that out, as has Pilger.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Which country? Which financiers?
Hixson did not address that question. What is the goal of sneaking weapons to Hamas?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)received their aid from?
Parallels.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Understood
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)I don't condone war or violence, but I also understand that strange alliances arrive because of war.
Perhaps if your worldview was a little less naive we might be able to carry on a conversation about it.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Piling off the bench like a hockey brawler with a purpose
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)right to self govern they were given aid and armaments by France, Spain and the Dutch Republic: all had a bone to pick with imperial England some years earlier.
These kinds of acts have happened throughout history. It's nothing new.
The English viewed the American colonists acts as treason.
If the revolution happened today the English might have called them terrorists.
So my point was missed by you. I'm sorry if I was not clear.
What is clear though is that I have beheld apologies, excuses and ultra patriotism in defense of Israel: regardless of who it hurts. None of the holders of these views actually want to address the problems that Israel has created for itself. As a nation it is not blameless.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)No, it's only a newspaper article, the main point of which is to denounce the "death to Israel" POV while still recognizing that Arabs have legitimate grievances.
Honestly, I suspect the goal of supplying weapons to Hamas is to oppose Euro-American Imperialism, Israel being the most visible part of it.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)integral to US and Western interests in maintaining the balance of power vs Soviet influence the middle east.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)
2naSalit
(86,643 posts)apologetic of the offending state. I come from a jewish background, with family lost in the WWII death camps and this is not much different. I am not only appalled at the state but disgusted beyond words. What you call erroneous accusations are actually the truth and we the American people are funding this tragedy. Better bone up on some history there, sportsfan, because you are living in dreamland... very much like mittens has been. Stop being an apologist for the ethnic cleansing and get some facts into your head. This conflict is the largest reason for the problems our country has with the Arab nations!
Your comments smack of a Victorian approach to mental health with Calvinist remedial tactics.
Maybe you should go take a tour of Gaza and the West Bank... don't forget your helmet or flakjacket and watch out for bulldozers. Might want to bring some water with you too, there isn't much to go around there and it's of rather poor quality.
You can try to silence me by flagging me or calling the ADL but they can't change my opinion on what I know to be true.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)No one in Gaza is subjected to an apartheid system by Israel (maybe by Hamas).
No one in Gaza is being forced by illegal settlements off their own land, as there are no settlements in Gaza.
Anti-semitic has nothing to do with Semitic people - it just is a word that means prejudice against Jews.
There is no genocide taking place.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and go as they please? Can they get to hospitals without being harassed at checkpoints eg? I have read statements by former Israeli Soldiers who have apologized to Palestinians for the way they treated them, humiliating them every day as they tried to go about their business.
I have seen documentaries on the situation there and those people sure do not look like free people to me. I know in the US we never hear the Palestinian POV, why is that btw? But rather than forcing us to take only the views of Israel, it had the opposite effect. Censorship causes people to become curious about what it is they are not being allowed to see. So people felt a need to go do some research after realizing how one-sided our media here in the US is.
What happened to the Palestinian spokespersons we used to see years ago? I noticed that lack of balance and immediately wondered what it was we were being kept from learning.
cire41
(34 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)There are no Israeli soldiers interacting with Palestinians in Gaza. There are no checkpoints in Gaza. There are no settlements in Gaza. The humiliations that you have heard about do not take place in Gaza.
Any statements that you have read about Israeli soldiers apologizing to Palestinians refer to the West Bank and not Gaza.
In spite of the fact that none of the things you describe exist in Gaza (and all of them do in the West Bank), rockets have been launched at civilian areas in Israel from Gaza.
This is primarily because Gaza is ruled by Hamas, an organization that has historically been opposed not simply to the occupation but to the existence of Israel at all.
I do think it's important to understand that the occupation infrastructure you describe (settlements, checkpoints, etc.) does not exist in Gaza. The misconception that it does appears to be fairly common on this board for some reason.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)was 'can they leave Gaza, are they free to go where they please as all free people ought to be?
How come, eg, so much of their land has been occupied? I viewed a map of the diminishing land of the Palestinian people and frankly, any people whose land is occupied like that will and has a right to fight for it.
Something is wrong here. I would like to see some honest, truthful coverage of this situation on our own media, but all I ever see are Israeli spokespeople speaking not just for themselves, but for the Palestinian people. I find that insulting frankly.
Peres, last night on Piers Morgan eg, spoke about the Palestinians as if they were children. I know he probably did not realize it, but that is how it came across. Let them speak for themselves here or let neither side speak on our media. It is disturbing to see the attitude towards an entire people on our media. From the few Palestinians I have heard speak, they have impressed me as extremely intelligent and perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.
Our media is not only doing a disservice to the Palestinians with their very biased coverage, they are doing a disservice to Israel, making it look as though they are silencing the Palestinians because they have something to hide.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Israel does not allow people from Gaza to enter Israel except under very specific circumstances. Similarly, the Palestinian side does not allow Israelis to enter Gaza. In fact, Israelis are banned from enter numerous countries in the region as well.
Egypt controls whether or not people from Gaza can leave Gaza and enter Egypt. There have been serious limitations on that movement, though, in the recent past, this has changed a bit with the new leadership taking over in Egypt.
With respect to the occupation, I would re-iterate that there is no part of Gaza that contains any Israeli settlement. Those concerns are in the West Bank. I do feel that there ought to be a two-state solution whereby a Palestinian state lives side by side at peace with Israel. There are numerous factors preventing this from happening, among them the leadership of Hamas (as well as the demands of Israel of course).
Both sides are quite well represented in the international media. Israeli spokespeople do the rounds, but so do Palestinian ones. If you watch Al-Jazeera or the BBC or other outlets based outside the US, you will see more diversity of voices than in the US. Various media outlets are biased in various ways of course, some towards the Israeli side (primarily in the US), and some towards the Palestinian side (much of the rest of the world).
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to our own media and do not think the obvious bias is helpful to Israel any more than it is to the Palestinians.
I truly wish they would resolve their issues and learn to live in peace with each other. Clearly both sides have failed to come to a sane solution so maybe it's time for an intervention, although no one would accept the US as a neutral player at this point. I can't really think offhand who could play that role. But the US has failed miserably in that situation so it would have to be some other entity.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Were pretty much about Mubarak doing what the Israelis told him to do. It's not as if Egypt had any reasons of its own to keep Gazans penned in...Gazans weren't doing anything to Egyptians.
King_David
(14,851 posts)
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Yes, yes they can -- they are completely free to visit hospitals in Gaza. If they want to go to an Israeli hospital (and more than 100,000 Palestinians a year are treated, for free, in Israeli hospitals) they must pass through a border checkpoint. Just as you would if you chose to go to the hospital in Mexico.
Lack of freedom within the state of Gaza has nothing to do with Israel -- there isn't a single Israeli in Gaza. The entire area is autonomously controlled by Hamas. If you have a problem with the curtailed freedoms of the people of Gaza, I suggest you go to www.hamas.com and use the "Contact Us" link.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Her actions actually do call real cases of antisemitism globally. Paradoxically, repeated cries of "wolf" about antisemitism actually serves to dilute the term.
So, then we are left to deal with the red herring of what actually constitutes antisemitism.
As a Jew, I'm worried about such things.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)How does that work exactly?
teddy51
(3,491 posts)Palestinians vs Israeli settlers. Palestinians being pushed out, and Israeli settlers moving onto their property. Olive trees being uprooted and many other acts of violence.
Like Rev. Sharpton has stated, You fuckers have been caught.
fuckers ( He didn't add that, but I did.)
oberliner
(58,724 posts)The West Bank, of course, does have settlements, and checkpoints, and the other things described in that post.
But everything in that post and in this one of yours does not exist in Gaza. Gaza has no settlements, no checkpoints, nobody moving on to anyone's property, no olive trees being uprooted, etc. None of this has been happening in Gaza.
These facts are not in dispute. You can look them up on any source you like.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)are trying to take piece, by piece of the Palestinian land away from them, and Obama is helping you do that.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I am not sure what you mean by that, but the whole discussion is about Gaza. The rockets are being launched from Gaza and the current fighting is taking place in Gaza.
I do agree that the West Bank settlements are a major problem and ought to be dealt with. Most of them should be completely dismantled and a comprehensive agreement should be reached between Israelis and Palestinians involving permanent borders possibly involving land swaps.
I was just pointing out that Gaza does not have those elements described in the post above.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)belongs to whom. There needs to be a two State deal in the talks that follow. You and I both know that war is not going to go well for either people.
shira
(30,109 posts)...that there's absolutely nothing Israel can do (short of national suicide) that will lead to Hamas recognizing the Zionist entity and renouncing terror. How do I know they REALLY want Israel destroyed and its Jews killed? Because they say so.
And you're right about war. It's not good for either side. Hamas does not care about Palestinian lives. They are all political pawns being used to attack Israel. How do I know? Because Hamas says so.
To deny what they say they're all about and what they want is condescending, paternalistic, and a form of inverse racism. They can't possibly be that different, that bad...
You really have no idea what Israel has to deal with. Imagine Al-Qaeda in Mexico lobbing rockets into Texas. They want Texas back. Okay, now make peace with Al-Qaeda. To use your words, that's all you fuckers have to do, so make peace with them! Negotiate! Meet them half way, dammit! You people.... 
Peregrine
(992 posts)That in 67 and 73 several arab nations as well as palestinians attacked Israel. Have I gotten history wrong? And that Israel prevailed in both wars which resulted in territory coming under their control, which included the West Bank. What do you want? Israel to apologize for defending itself and return territory.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)well that is nice except for the fact that international law does not allow the winners to keep the land, or transfer or allow to transfer it's citizens to that occupied land. As who shot first Israel used a flimsy excuse to start the 1967 war by what if done by anyone else would be called a sneak attack on Egypt now as for Egypt's allies there is all sorts of parsing who started the war but that is IMO like parsing that Nazi Germany started WW2 by invading Poland, but Israel without question fired the first shot. In 1973 Egypt 'started' the war by crossing into its own territory the Sinai which Israel was occupying at the time.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Now defenders say it was justified, historical records, including US records suggest otherwise. You should read the history, and make your own decision.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)over the past decade the Palestinians have been given land by Israel, not had land taken away by Israel.
The facts don't seem to support your statement. Now why is it that Israel can make concessions like dismantling settlements and withdrawing from large swaths of land, yet there is never any difference in the anti-Israel rhetoric we keep hearing, like what you just posted?
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)what were you calling bullshit on?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)The people living in Gaza and the West Bank are Palestinians so why do you try and separate the two as if they are not related? Hamas chooses to fight on while the West bank has been defeated and devoured by Israel.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Anyone who says that there are is in error and should be corrected.
The West Bank, however, is filled with settlements.
As you know, the President and Prime Minister of the governing authority in the West Bank does not recognize the President and Prime Minister of the governing authority in Gaza. And vice versa.
They have two entirely separate governments that do not acknowledge the legitimacy of there.
Surely you must be aware of this.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Or perhaps not strange but just disingenuous.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I answered the question. They are separate governments. That's why they are treated separately. Was that not your question?
Meanwhile your giant graphic (that does not contain Gaza) is still loading....
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)
You answered your own question, and ignored mine.
For the record.
The people living in Gaza and the West Bank are Palestinians so why do you try and separate the two as if they are not related? Hamas chooses to fight on while the West bank has been defeated and devoured by Israel.
Oh, and the giant graphic that was just too painful for you to acknowledge was a map of West Bank Swiss cheese, Israeli style.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)I'm not saying that there's not plenty to be repulsed by regarding Hebron's settlers. They might be the most extreme, vile examples of the whole spectrum of religious-extremist-Zionist-settlers. But I'm curious... what is it about Hebron that you find particularly repulsive?
And what would you do to change it if you were in charge?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)but none of the wealth. It has a beach. But, that's not worth the cost of occupation. It's a Bantustan, a walled-in prison camp, where many of the people who used to live in villages on the occupied West Bank have been crowded into. That's why there are no settlements, and why the Gazans are so angry.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)There obvious is room as there used to be settlements in Gaza. Those settlements were evacuated, all the Israelis were forced by the Israeli government to leave, and the entire settlement apparatus there was dismantled.
Gaza is not a walled-in prison camp - they have a border with Egypt that Israel has nothing to do with.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)the ongoing cost of occupation. Otherwise, there would still be Israelis squatting there, just as the Israelis continue to squat on the best patches across the West Bank. All those displaced people have to live somewhere, and it is not as easy for Palestinians to resettle elsewhere as it once was. So many just pile up in Gaza. No wonder they are enraged.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Gaza for Area C of the West Bank whose Eastern border is the Jordan River and covers a bit more than 60% of the West Bank Israel is currently removing Palestinians living in Area C to Area's A 17% of the West Bank under complete Palestinian control and Area B about 22% of the West Bank under Palestinian civil control and Israeli 'security' control
oberliner
(58,724 posts)There are also few to no displaced people from the West Bank resettling in Gaza.
Again, none of these things are true.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Report: “30% of the Palestinians in the W. Bank, 67% In Gaza, Are Refugees”
author Tuesday June 21, 2011 17:12author by Saed Bannoura - IMEMC & Agencies Report post
The Palestinian Census Bureau reported that nearly half of the Palestinians in the occupied territories are internally displaced refugees, and that, since its creation in Palestine in 1948, Israel forcibly removed two-thirds of the Arab population.
You, too, need to cite your sources, my friend.
I guess the answer depends - when does a refugee stop being a refugee and when does a prison become home? I think the answer is, that's a matter for the individual to decide.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)The report does not claim that Gaza is a refugee camp, which it isn't.
The report does not claim that Gaza is overcrowded, which it isn't.
And the report does claim that Gaza is walled in, which it isn't.
If you wanted to say that Gaza had a large number of internally displaced refugees or that it was densely populated, I wouldn't disagree.
Look, I'm not trying to argue that people of Gaza are not experiencing hardships stemming for Israeli policies and past history. I just don't think some of the more hyperbolic assertions are fair or accurate.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)between a 51 km "separation barrier" and a wall on the entire periphery with Israel (the "anti-smuggling" wall with Egypt was largely torn down a few years ago)? What do you say is "overcrowded" - is Calcutta overcrowded, is Manhattan densely populated - what are the differences, in your view?
A couple Gaza Wall cites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier
Two similar barriers, the Israeli Gaza Strip barrier and the Israeli-built 7-9 meter ... The first section of the wall (as slabs of concrete contiguous for miles) that stood ..... and in a letter dated October 25, 2004, from the Israeli mission to Kofi Annan, ...
Israel's Security Fence and Separation Barrier
http://middleeast.about.com › ... › Arab-Israeli Conflict › Israel and Palestine
The 32-mile (51 km) barrier of wire and barbed wire separating the Gaza Strip from Israel was built in 1993 and upgraded in 1999, and is paralleled on both ...
oberliner
(58,724 posts)A refugee camp is a temporary settlement built to receive refugees. Gaza is not that.
A wall between Israel and Gaza does not mean that Gaza is walled-in, as it has another border with a different country.
With respect to population, I don't want to argue semantics - I think it's fair to call it densely populated, but not overcrowded. But I don't know those terms have legally understood definitions.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)"formaldehyde" in the peace process.
All according to plan.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)
OregonProg
(28 posts)These maps tell the story. You can blow all the smoke you want - ultimately the conflict is about Israel's land grab from day 1.
Imagine if Mexico allowed their citizens to grab Texas farm land and setting up clusters of mobile homes on them. What would Texans do?
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)In 1946 -- the term "Palestinian" applied to ALL inhabitants of the area, not only Arab Palestinians (as it has been redefined today). There were Arab, Jewish, Xtian, Ba'hai, you name it living all through that green area. The actual legal owners of that land were -- for the most part -- not Palestinians, but absentee landlords from the defunct Ottoman Empire. The area shown in white (approximately 8%) was land purchased by Jewish agencies specifically for the building of Jewish townships.
The 1947 Plan was put forward by the British Government to achieve a partition prior to their announced withdrawal. The British (with UN approval) similarly partitioned India which led to the creation of Pakistan and East Pakistan (later to become Bangladesh). The Palestine partition plan, was rejected by the Arab League -- a group made up of representatives from the neighbouring Arab states but included NO Palestinian Arab representatives. So, in fact, the Palestinian Arabs were give no voice to either accept or reject the partition by their neighbours.
The Map from 1949 to 1967 is probably the most misleading because, in fact, after the 1949 Armistice, the Palestinian Arabs were left with precisely ZERO land. Egypt annexed the Gaza Strip and Jordan annexed the West Bank and forced all the Palestinian inhabitants of that area into refugee camps -- where many remain today.
The 2000 Map is also highly misleading because it shows only Area A & B areas as Palestinian lands areas under the direct control of the Palestinian Authority. The purpose here is to IMPLY that the area contains settlements when settlements only make up 1% of the total area of the West Bank. The majority of the area in White, Area C, is administratively controlled by Israel but contains almost no people (only 4% of the total population of the West Bank). Israel makes no claims to Area C and has not annexed the territory so it cannot be shown to be Israeli land. Also, the area showing white on the Gaza side has in fact been under Palestinian control since 2005 and contains absolutely no Jewish settlements.
OregonProg
(28 posts)Settlements in the West Bank are peppered throughout the territory and last I heard, they are still building more. 1% or 50%, it's still theft. the purpose is obvious.
I'm aware of the history and the "they didn't own it anyway" argument is complete crap. You can go anywhere on this planet, take land and get shot at. Families have been displaced by the Israelis before 1947. After the purchase of the initial 8%, how much of the expansion that followed was paid for? Or was that more land grab after conflict?
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... if Israel annexes the settlements. They have not chose to to do that. They may, in the future, if the PA just refused to negotiate. But, the most likely scenario is, they will continue to be there to pressure Fatah to the table and the final agreement will be some border settlements become annexed to Israel in exchange for equal portions of land swapped to the Palestinian State.
No one is arguing that it's Israel because no one owned it anyway -- I'm showing it's a lie to show that as "Palestinian Land" when it never was. You might as well have labeled it "Jewish Land" because there were Jews living on it as well.
It's true, if you go somewhere and take someone's land, you can get shot -- Arab armies tries to invade Israel three times since 1948 and got shot at until they left. There has been a lot of shooting over this land -- eventually, it has to stop. The entire reason the borders are where they are now is that Arabs have been shooting at Israelis since 1948 and every time they do, they lose more land.
Consider this -- if the original Arab response to partition had been agreement instead of shooting -- the map of today would look very much like the map of 1947.
Families have been displaced by Israel, that is true -- and Jewish families (just as many) have been displaced by the Arab countries. Did you believe there were no Jews living in Jerusalem when Jordan annexed it in 1948 and kicked out all the Jews?
It's nonsense to say that Jews should only be allowed to land they actually paid for if Arabs are allowed to claim all of the previous Ottoman Land without paying. The fact is, Jews in Palestine, in the early days, cared enough to legitimize their claims to land to seek out the previous Ottoman owners and pay for it. Arab Palestinians did not. Consider this --we live in a country where 100% of the land belonged to someone else before we started living on it -- how much of that was purchased from the ORIGINAL owners? Do you have the right to live somewhere if the original owner didn't receive payment for it? You merely purchased your home from someone else that stole it -- regardless of how far you go back.
It's a moot argument in any case -- Israel is where it is, it's not going anywhere. Palestinian Arabs have to accept that, negotiate a new border with Israel and forget this idiotic dream of trying to fight for all of it. Precisely what you would say if Mexico started lobbing rockets over the border in an attempt to get back Texas.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)or completely disingenuous; which would lead me to the conclusion that you are entirely unreliable as to source, fact or truth.
Goodnight.
2naSalit
(86,643 posts)They are perfect examples of pictures speaking thousands of words. They illustrate the argument quite clearly which the apologists (Trolls?) cant even look at let alone address. And I suspect those with whom you are arguing are from the land of the US fungible funding trying to make us think we are as stupid as they wish we were.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)those maps are entirely disingenuous. The narrative they tell employs the clever usage of constantly changing labels to give us a highly warped idea of what actually occurred. It is a perfect example of how intellectually dishonest propaganda can be used to influence people who have a limited understanding of the conflict. You obviously are happy to take those maps at face value without questioning anything about them. Which is a shame because the story it tells is entirely dishonest. If you have any interest I would be happy to show you exactly why.
Every so often they "thin the herd" to get rid of the Palestinians. this would not be happening if
Rabin had not been assassinated by a lunatic israeli who did not want peace.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... at "thinning the herd".
Palestinian population in the West Bank (the only area under Israeli control) has skyrocketed from 600,000 in 1967 to 1.6 million today.
Live births -- according to the UN -- in the West Bank are double from their 1967 number of 60,000 per year to 128,000 per year today.
aquart
(69,014 posts)THEIR OWN LAND? KoolAid is still such a popular drink.
Now tell me how those nasty Jews need to self-deport.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And Palestinians went to Israel and worked and shopped and traded their goods.
Then Palestinian extremists started placing bombs in buses and other public places in Israel, and Israel closed its borders to the Palestinians.
I side with Israel because I know and remember the history of the area and the history of the persecution of the Jewish people everywhere that they tried to live outside Israel.
It saddens me to see so many anti-Jewish people who claim to be liberal. Are you also anti-Armenian?
The basic problem in Palestine is the Palestinian claim to the right to return.
It would be unsafe for Israelis to allow Palestinians to go into Israel at this time. The hatred and anger in general is too great.
By claiming the right to space, to live or work within Israel, the Palestinians foreclose peace. It's kind of a trick. They make this demand that they know very well that Israel cannot every satisfy and then they blame the lack of peace on Israel.
It's very clever, but it is lose/lose rather than win/win.
First comes a peace -- a peace for many years, and then other relationships can develop, perhaps even beyond just coexistence.
But the right of return is just the way that the Palestinians go through the motions of negotiating peace without seriously negotiating.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)How dare you come on DU and make a post like that? Personally, I do not hate Israeli's but I damn sure hate Netanyahu, and his marry band of neocons. Since he has been in power, the Israeli people have lost a huge standing in the world by his policies. He is = to GW Bush/Cheney wrapped in one.
On edit: No, I do not agree with how Hamas is responding to Israel but what does an Oppressed, imprisoned people do to get the rest of the Worlds attention.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)...with Kadima's Olmert and Livni in charge. It was just 4 years ago, remember?
Going back 8 years before that, Intifada 2 was also blamed on Israel by the haters; and that was when Labour/Meretz were in charge. The haters are still pissed that Israel has succeeded in stopping suicide bombers from blowing up pizzerias, discos, and passover seders.
While I'd be thrilled to have a more liberal leadership in control, I don't believe for a second it would change the Israel haters' opinions. They'd just claim Labor or Kadima is just as bad.
Now that you know it's not all about Bibi, I expect you won't be using that argument anymore.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)response. Why do you think the Turkish PM is extremely pissed at Netanyahu? Egypt is not happy and several other countries as well. If Israel truly wanted peace, they would prove it by making serious steps toward it. What does Israel do, in addition to wanting to attack Iran for building a nuke? They move into Gaza and kill innocent people.
shira
(30,109 posts)People were claiming exactly what you just wrote:
"If Israel truly wanted peace, they would prove it by making serious steps toward it".
Been there, done that. There is no longer an occupation in Gaza or settlements. Yet the Gazans have fired >1000 rockets at Israel in the last year alone. Up until that point, Israel had to do SOMETHING....ANYTHING to move towards peace. They did, the Palestinians failed.
You mentioned Turkey and Egypt. In the past year during thousands of rocket launches by Hamas, they were quiet. Not a peep. Now when Israel has finally had enough (over 200 rockets in the week prior to going to war) they're outraged.
Come on.
And Israel hardly "moved into Gaza to kill innocent people". Considering Hamas' couple hundred rockets leading to Israel's decision to attack, and thousands since OCL 4 years ago, that's a monstrous charge.
And Iran is very serious, just as Hamas is, about destroying Israel and killing its Jews. Why some liberals and progressives deny it and blame Israel for taking these ultra rightwing warmongering entities seriously is a mystery.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)From the Devil himself:
"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process," Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser Dov Weisglass has told Haaretz.
"And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."
Weisglass, who was one of the initiators of the disengagement plan, was speaking in an interview with Haaretz for the Friday Magazine.
"The disengagement is actually formaldehyde," he said. "It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians."
More from Ha'aretz
shira
(30,109 posts)...makes you pro-settlements and pro-occupation.
Israel should have stayed there in your view.
I bet you were also against both peace deals in 2000 and 2008 that would have ended occupation/settlements and granted Palestinians their own state.
Ironic you accuse others of holding to your pro-settlement, pro-occupation views.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)... but I have more important things to do.
What do you think about what Dov Weisglass actually said? Hmm?
shira
(30,109 posts)....and do absolutely nothing WRT building a viable state out of Gaza?
Hamas are grown ups.
They made choices after the withdrawal. Unfortunately, they did just what Weisglass predicted.
Where were your heroes at that time? You know, the loudmouths who hate Israel. Where were they to help assist in building an oasis out of Gaza in 2005?
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Still no answer to my question.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)trying to change the subject quickly.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)but taking a single quote from a single person does not in any way negate the policies that were enacted by Israel to Palestine's benefit. People said that Israel needed to make some kind of concession. How often did we/do we hear statements like this:
Well, the fact of the matter is that Israel really DID do exactly that. The fact that there were members of the right wing administration who saw these acts as a path towards freezing the peace movement does not in any way diminish the reality of the concessions that were enacted. Israel spent significant political and economic capital in withdrawing from Gaza. And during the discussions leading up to it there were two main schools of thought.
The peace movement: which postulated that making a large, good faith concession like a unilateral withdrawal would kick-start the peace process by showing the Palestinians that they were serious about giving up settlements and land in return for peaceful co-existence. That Israel, being the stronger player in the conflict, was the one who needed to make the first move, which would be repaid exponentially in the form of greater peace and a reinvigorated peace process.
The right wingers: disagreed, thinking that the withdrawal would be interpreted as a victory by Hamas, sending the message that terrorism and violence would win the Palestinians the demands that peace never would. They predicted that immediately following the withdrawal there would be greatly increased rocket and mortar fire. That Hamas would gain political influence over the PA, sharply quashing any forward movement in the peace process and Gaza would become a more conservative, radical hotbed of anti-Zionism, terrorism and religious authoritarianism.
Seven years later, much to the dismay of leftists like myself, the right wing argument proved to be 100% correct while the peacenik predictions were completely wrong. This result led to the complete breakdown of the leftist peace movement in Israel; their method was actually tried for once, the government followed their recommendations to a T and they failed miserably. Their ideological enemies, the hawkish right, was vindicated in their foresight.
This is what Dov Weisglass meant by his comment. He had the foresight to predict that the withdrawal would prove his party correct, demolishing the (at the time) potent forces of the peace-seeking left wingers. But it is important to understand that everything that happened, occurred because the Gazans chose to play right into his (and his compatriots) hands. This plan would only work if everything the right predicted about Gaza would come to pass. The peace process would only be frozen if the Palestinians chose to use this concession, the newly obtained land, freedom, sovereignty and even the greenhouses as resources they could then use against Israel.
You bring up Weisglass's quote as though it in any way refutes the concessions that Israel did make, in reality, just as they were so often asked to do by those who thought it would benefit the foundering peace movement. I find it amazing that anyone would still be saying the same thing NOW though, after Israel did just what they asked, so recently, to such negative results.
In this conflict I find that people say all kinds of things, which are always used as evidence of the intentions of either side. However if you watch what people say long enough you realize that everyone says EVERYTHING depending on what will benefit them politically at any given moment. In short, talk is very cheap. I look at actions. No matter what anyone says, look to what they actually DO if you want to know what policy they are following. Hamas might say that they desire peace, but if they are firing qassams into Sderot, they don't want peace. Likud might say they are against wildcat settlements, but if they aren't shutting them down and dismantling them, they are really supporting them. And even if some politician says that they are against the peace process, if Israel then shuts down settlements, withdraws from Gaza but leaves behind hundreds of millions of dollars worth of gardening infrastructure, they are making a concession towards peace.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Was largely the children from the Workers' protest of Intifada 1. You know, where Rabin, that blessed peace-maker, ordered protesters' arms and legs broken for throwing stones.
Yeah, stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum.
shira
(30,109 posts)...that would have ended the conflict, given the Palestinians a state, and ended occupation and settlements.
Of course you support that Palestinian position.
No surprise there.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Of course, of course, of course ...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)tactic with intelligent people here on DU. Well said. One thing is for sure, that tactic has the exact opposite effect of what it is intended to have.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Then why does it anger you so much?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)with Israel is the goal, is it? But that's what it does, unless that IS the goal in which case maybe Israel should pay attention to who is representing them in these online forums because all they are accomplishing is to make people, like me, angry at Israel.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... taking daily attacks on its people while turning the other cheek? You forget -- that's the other guys.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Has anyone ever told you that before?
I always wonder why people resort to the same, tired old tactics that never worked even when they were new!
Boggles the mind, it does.
Try rereading, although I imagine you'd rather rewrite!
shira
(30,109 posts)Here we go with Hamas being the poor victims again.
Why did this oppressed people choose to pound Israel with rockets immediately upon Israel leaving Gaza in 2005? What kind of poor, desperate people do this?
You really have no idea what Hamas is all about and what Israel is dealing with.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)Your leadership are barbarians, and you need to change that!
I stated in a post yesterday that the US is totally responsible for the actions of Israel, and I stick by that.
They provided them with conventional weapons, (and holy shit) they gave the nut jobs nukes to top it off.
Your leaders are more scary than anyone else on earth at this time.
shira
(30,109 posts)...with al-Qaeda. They're BFF with Hamas too. 87 US senators called for it to be listed as a terror org.
Did you watch the videos of them preparing for and then attacking the IDF? Even the UN's Palmer Commission admitted what everyone can see for themselves in those videos.
So you're accusing the IDF of attacking innocents, because that's what the barbaric government of Israel does?
teddy51
(3,491 posts)always about Israel.
shira
(30,109 posts)...also weighed in and said he was appalled at the situation as well.
The same Turkey that has killed tens of thousands of Kurds & refuses to take responsibility for the Armenian genocide.
The same Syria that has massacred over 30,000 people in the last year or so.
Seriously?
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Ummm ... were you not watching?
They attacked armed soldiers with knives and iron clubs. Soldiers involved in a lawful (according to the UN) inspection of a ship entering a lawful (again, according to the UN) interdiction area.
Tell you what -- as an experiment -- go to Turkey -- attack any armed group of soldiers with a knife and a steel pipe and let me know the outcome. I promise to complain to the UN about your unwarranted death if that happens.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)This is a great example of how many people make assumptions about this conflict that they make up out of thin air, yet are so convinced of that they go ahead and post them as though they are accepted truths that everyone knows. I have seen people say things about this conflict that were 100% untrue; stuff that isn't even on the list of disputed facts, that they could only have learned about by imagining it, or by listening to someone else who was imagining it.
The US never gave nukes to Israel. France did.
Even if it is based on untrue assumptions?
2naSalit
(86,643 posts)why you are on here fomenting discord so that you can spew more bile laden swill.
Realize that accountability is no joke for us, especially when we the American people are giving Israel a big chunk of our hard earned pay and this is what you do with it. I would be glad to see the umbilical cord severed and see how long Israel lasts without us backing up the BS... then it would necessary to accept the consequences of your actions or perish. The world could do with one less antagonist country that seems bent on keeping up the war monger mindset while it steals from those it oppresses. We are tired of your faux war and it's time for the reckoning, and we certainly aren't willing to throw good money to bad intentions on your part...
You speak with the forked tongue of a demon and we are on to you.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Who would you like to see be successful in their elections?
teddy51
(3,491 posts)peace with the Palestinians?
And someone that doesn't want to make war on Iran, simply because they want weapons that bring them to an equal with Israel.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Which call would you like better? Do you have a sense of the political landscape there? Is there any leader who you would be pleased to see elected PM?
For instance, do you think Livni would have been a better choice?
teddy51
(3,491 posts)Reality, you need to vote in a major Liberal that will stand down on shooting, and get the hell to the bargaining table.
Someone that will release the Gaza prisoners, really talk with the Palestinians. There will no doubt be no trust at first, but this needs to be gotten over. You will need to bring in other mediators to bridge the gap, but it can be done if the desire is there to do it.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 21, 2012, 01:19 AM - Edit history (1)
Citizens of the world have an opinion about whether we elect Obama or Romney. It impacts them even though they aren't American citizens and don't get to vote. They care who wins - and they have every reason to care.
Similarly, the events in the Middle East impact us in the United States, and you are posting on a forum specifically dedicated to Israeli/Palestinian issues, so you obviously have an interest in this topic. You are permitted to have an opinion on who these folks select as their leaders.
Can you give an example of any such "major Liberal" who supports to sorts of policies you are talking about?
Did you Livni fit the bill? Any of the current crop?
teddy51
(3,491 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)http://www.timesofisrael.com/labor-kadima-back-governments-air-assault-on-hamas/
Barbarians and Warmongers?
Or people who absolutely feel they have no other choice?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I am still angry that she was not able to form enough of a coalition last election.
She got more votes than Netanyahu.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but he fits your bill?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Is there any progressives running for office as prime minister.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)the current candidates in Israel their is no peace front it is all keep negotiating while building until a solution is reached and that solution it seems is to slowly but surely herd as many of the Palestinians still remaining in areac of the west bank into area's a and b of the West Bank as possible while negotiating why in that manner the borders almost make themselves "facts on the ground'"
I explain it more fully here on this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=22915
so it's not so much ethnic cleansing as it is ethnic herding think of what the US did to surviving Native Americans
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)
deathrind
(1,786 posts)One can be critical of the actions of a country but not be "anti" anything against its citizens or culture. Saying any criticism of Israel is "anti-semantic" is like saying if you were against the war in Iraq you also were against the troops. It is a false equivalency. Israel has every right to defend itself but the people of Palestine also have rights as well. The conditions they live under in Gaza and the West Bank imposed by Israel is something any reasoned person would be critical of the evictions for settlement building by Israel is also something reasoned people would be critical of.
shira
(30,109 posts)And no, they don't believe Israel has any right to self defense when they pretend Israel just up and decided to go into Gaza to kill babies.
That's antisemitism, plain and simple.
Israel's record with civilians in combat is the best in the history of warfare (better than the USA, UK, and NATO). UN records show that Israel's 1:1 ratio of civilians to combatants is significantly better than the 3:1 or 4:1 by the rest of the western world. And let's face it, NONE of those nations would be as harshly condemned for responding to even 1 rocket launched into their country. Only Israel, and after thousands of rockets (which the haters never condemn for some odd reason).
Sorry, but there's only one explanation for it.
There's only one reason people choose to portray the Jewish state as bloodthirsty when that's demonstrably not the case - as it is now.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)... the rockets and agree Israel or any country for that matter has a right to defend itself. If Canada or Mexico ever conducted itself on US soil the way Israel has on Palestinian land the world would condemn them and back any actions the US might take. These rocket attacks do not happen in a vacuum. Israel's allies have repeatedly cautioned Israel against the treatment of the people in Gaza and the West Bank, repeatedly asked Israel to cease its settlement expansions on land International Courts have ruled illegally taken...yet Israel continues with these policies knowing that peace hinges on these policies changing. If Israel truly want peace and security they are going to have to acknowledge the rights of others that they demand for themselves.
shira
(30,109 posts)Unreal.
Do you not know what Hamas is all about? What they want? They're very clear.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)is far more complex than some would have us believe. Key among the many sub-issues is that of security. In the past, Israel withdrawing from land, dismantling settlements and ceding the land to Palestine has resulted in greatly increased violence and terrorism against Israeli civilians. There is no evidence to suggest that should Israel abandon it's west bank settlement that it would benefit the peace movement at all. There is evidence that suggests that doing so could open Israel up to attack and make some of its most critical targets far more vulnerable, like Tel Avid and Ben Gurion airport.
There will always be reasons for extremist groups to attack Israel. Trying to appease these terrorists by granting their demands will never amount to greater peace. That in no way is a comment on whether Israel should continue building settlements. There are many reasons to oppose settlement building. But to say that a cause and effect exists between settlements and rockets is just untrue. When Israel withdrew from Gaza it brought about greatly increased rocket fire, effectively disproving that theory.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)the issue is simple international law says that a conquering country can not transfer its civilian population to conquered territory, Israel is doing just that, with a fair amount of gusto
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)When someone makes a self-assured statement endorsing the simplicity of the I/P conflict, accusing anyone who says otherwise of harboring ulterior motives, only to then reveal their own confusion of the issues by making a factually incorrect statement derived from biased rhetoric and propaganda. If it all happens in a single sentence then I get an even bigger kick out of it. So funny.
Not conquered territory, occupied territory. But you're more or less correct here.
And then you go off the rails. You see, "transfer" would mean the Israeli government is forcing its citizens to relocate to occupied territory. That is not what's been happening in the OPT. The Israelis settling over the green line have done so entirely of their own accord. Israel has provided them with resources and protection, sure. But to transfer civilians is a proactive gesture. Israel is merely allowing its citizens to build settlements and move across the green line; it isn't MAKING them do anything.
Now, aside from that fact, it turns out that this instance of occupation and settlement isn't as straightforward as the issues the geneva conventions originally sought to remedy. You see, it turns out Jewish people have a legal right to settle in the West Bank, granted to them by articles six and eleven of the British Mandate, the validity of which was never terminated.
In addition, many Israeli settlements have been established on sites that were home to Jewish communities before 1948 such as Neve Yaakov, Gush Etzion, Hebron, Kalia, and Kfar Darom. In other words this is not the conquered territory of another state we are talking about but land that was historically Jewish before being ethnically cleansed a few decades earlier.
Not to mention the right to settle that land was determined in the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, signed in January 1919, which agreed conditional terms of borders between the Jewish state and the Arab states, which include the present day territories in dispute.
More recently was the Oslo Accords, agreed to by both the PLO and Israeli authorities. From a legal perspective Oslo II, Article XXXVI made it clear that settlement activity shall not prejudice the outcome of the negotiations on the permanent status. Neither party is deemed, by having entered into the agreement, to have renounced or waived any of its existing rights, claims, or positions. (Those would be the British Mandate and the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, among others.)
Article XXXVI of Oslo II stipulates: “neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.” And since Israeli settlement in the West Bank is legally justifiable under Articles 6 and 11 of the British Mandate, (until final negotiations have been agreed upon between Israel and the Palestinians anyway), the ongoing construction of settlements can't be deemed illegal without forcing a change to the area's status.
You see, the geneva conventions were intended to apply to areas belonging to a state that was then invaded. The west bank is an anomaly in that it does not yet legally belong to any country. It is de facto unclaimed territory until such time as the border situation can be negotiated between Israel and Palestine and an agreement ratified. Since the area has never yet been part of a sovereign state, all of the original treaties and declarations regarding it are still legally in effect. This in no way grants Israel with greater rights to it than Palestine. But neither does it grant Palestine with greater rights either.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)as was Balfour and League of extraordinary nations or what the antique was named
not conquered merely occupied how did it become occupied by being conquered of course it was intended to an Arab state and prior to 1967 it was part of Jordan an which is Arab state and Oslo was intended to be temporary Israels continued colonization of the West Bank would seem to be something permanent not to mention the voluntary indeed Israeli government subsidized transfer of Israeli civilians
now I am sure you may have scored some points in debate class with that spiel but in the real world it does not get you too far
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)we are discussing the LEGALITY of the situation, not the ethics, or what you think is the right thing to do, or any extrapolated or implied right that isn't explicitly defined. If we're talking law then we have to look at the exact words, what their meanings are (via what their actual definitions are, not one you think might be implied.)
That means that the West Bank never belonged to Jordan, which merely occupied it. That means we don't arbitrarily decide that treaties are no longer valid based on some assumptions we have; assumptions that aren't written down anywhere within the treaties themselves. That means we use the meaning of the word "transfer" as it is defined, not as we might use it colloquially.
You have a point there. In the real world we are encouraged to embrace a double standard WRT Israel and to raise no objections against those who bend the meaning of laws or treaties or definitions in the service of demonizing Israel, Zionism or Judaism in general.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and that casse should not be all too long in coming
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Why would these issues ever end up before those courts? Is there an international war criminal hiding out in Israel that's playing a hidden role here or something? Because unless there is I'm not sure what the ICC would get involved for.
That leaves the ICJ, which would only have jurisdiction in the event that Israel and Palestine both engage it with the goal of a definitive ruling on some point of contention. Seeing as how Israel has pretty much abandoned the idea of getting an impartial hearing from any UN affiliated body, I can't imagine that it would be falling over itself to involve the ICJ in the conflict.
That said, no one really disagrees as to whether the WB was ever annexed to Jordan. Except Pakistan I think, who accepted it as a legal annexation. Oslo might have been intended to be temporary, but it articulates the last legal framework to be agreed upon for the region. And since there wasn't a sunset policy built into the accords which would allow them to expire after a certain time, they're still valid barring a new agreement. None of the settlements are permanent until a final treaty is negotiated.
In that same spirit, the rights of Jews to settle in the west bank was granted under the British Mandate, and while the Mandate is no longer in effect, that right afforded to Jews doesn't suddenly end, barring the negotiated settlement of what state the area belongs to first. Simply, the same rights that allow the Palestinians to settle in the WB at will also apply to the Jewish people. At no point was the area set as off limits for Jewish settlement.
Right. Government subsidized, sure. Not "government transferred!" Big dif there. One is illegal, the other is not.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)women and children, added to Israel's past lists of innocent deaths. Any comment from you on the deaths of those innocent human beings?
shira
(30,109 posts)You think that's what Israel does? Kills kids?
What do you make of this?
The UN estimate that there has been an average three-to-one ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in such conflicts worldwide. Three civilians for every combatant killed. That is the estimated ratio in Afghanistan: three to one. In Iraq, and in Kosovo, it was worse: the ratio is believed to be four-to-one. Anecdotal evidence suggests the ratios were very much higher in Chechnya and Serbia. In Gaza, it was less than one-to-one.”[41]
I think it's awful that innocents are dying in this war. I expect Israel to do all it can to stop Hamas while being very careful protecting Palestinian civilians.
Tell me, what should Israel do vs. Hamas' thousands of rockets?
teddy51
(3,491 posts)doing this. I almost think they do it for sport, because they can. Oh and one less Palestinian to deal with.
shira
(30,109 posts)...couldn't be more of a people's army. Everyone's involved. Each and every Israeli has close family members or friends in the IDF. It's not like here in the USA.
You're not just accusing Israel of killing for sport. They can't do that without the IDF.
Again, what do you make of the following:
The UN estimate that there has been an average three-to-one ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in such conflicts worldwide. Three civilians for every combatant killed. That is the estimated ratio in Afghanistan: three to one. In Iraq, and in Kosovo, it was worse: the ratio is believed to be four-to-one. Anecdotal evidence suggests the ratios were very much higher in Chechnya and Serbia. In Gaza, it was less than one-to-one.”[41]
That doesn't quite fit the description of barbaric and bloodthirsty, does it?
Here's a little secret. The IDF (the Israeli people) cannot stomach casualty rates against the enemy like the USA or UK. The IDF is the best in the history of warfare when it comes to safeguarding civilians, but here you are making them out to be one of the worst. Wrap your mind around that one.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)ducking the cameras on this one after your post!
shira
(30,109 posts)...are not innocents. The UN's Palmer commission agreed with all that video evidence showing them pummeling IDF commandos as soon as they got on board the ship.
You're misinformed.
Alamuti Lotus
(3,093 posts)With each "wolf" outburst of vertigo hyperbole, the relevance and credibility of such statements (and their users) will diminish.
shira
(30,109 posts)...when Hamas was pounding Israel with several thousand rockets? You must have known Israel wouldn't tolerate that without a significant response.
Alamuti Lotus
(3,093 posts)much like this present moment, now that I think about it.. which might raise more questions about me than you at this point (chief among them: why do I still reply to you?!--quick answer: it entertains me), but that is neither here nor there.
shira
(30,109 posts)...because you believe every one of those thousands of rockets pounding into Israel over the years is legitimate resistance? The kind of resistance that the PFLP (who you support over Hamas) endorses?
Alamuti Lotus
(3,093 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)image at all? Is that your intent, or do you seriously think these tactics are going to win any friends for your cause whatever it is? Hint, do not think that outside observers of this situation cannot see for themselves what is going on here, and frankly with each new assault on the people of Palestine, or Lebanon, Israel loses more and more support around the world.
Dead children do not make Israel look very rational especially when they repeat the same tired 'it's there fault for being there' or 'the terrorists are to blame for hiding behind them' nonsense. Supposedly the Israelis are adults. IF, and I say that cautiously, IF fighters are hiding in civilian neighborhoods and are that irresponsible, then the responsibility for those innocent lives passes on to those who claim the moral high ground. They do NOT kill innocents and then get to blame anyone else.
shira
(30,109 posts)You really have no idea what Israel is dealing with. Every Israeli knows this. Every IDF soldier must be trained in advance knowing this. Here they are firing rockets from densely populated areas daring Israel to defend...
http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.472642.1352729902!/image/3305904133.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_795_345/3305904133.jpg
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)so enough with your one-sided views of this situation. Posts such as yours which are so biased towards one side are the reason why this situation needs some outside intervention at this point. Clearly both sides have failed miserably to resolve their issues and it's way past time for some neutral entity to take over before the start WW111 and the rest of the world is dragged into this mess.
shira
(30,109 posts)Who are the adults? Who is responsible for civilian deaths? What does this new evidence mean to your POV?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)over there'? Who is responsible for civilian deaths? The people who drop the bombs where they know there are children. Adults restrain themselves when the lives of innocents are at stake.
The US is responsible shamefully, for hundreds of thousands of civilians deaths and are guilty of war crimes. So they are not to be trusted with civilian lives either. Which is why I said some 'neutral' entity needs to take over and end this tragedy.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)The reality of this situation is one of war. A small, slow-burning war, to be sure. But make no mistake, Israel and Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. are at war with one another. And during war, ANY and EVERY war, innocent civilians and children will die. Some on purpose, some by accident. But they will die.
The people who drop the bombs know that there are always children. If your job is to drop bombs, then it does not matter how careful you are or how rigorous your standards are... if you drop enough bombs some land on children. Many land on innocent civilians, probably most in fact. That is just the reality of warfare.
It is easy to say "If there is any doubt then just don't fire the weapon, or just don't drop the bomb." But you don't just have an obligation to the enemy state's civilians. You have an obligation to protect your own civilians too. The extra effort put into trying to avoid collateral damage is a vulnerability to exploit. If you won't kill children then they will launch their rockets and artillery from behind a wall of children... from hospitals and schools. And because no IDF pilot would blow up a school to get one militant, it works.
The lives of innocents are ALWAYS at stake, whether it is theirs' or if it is your's. When you don't drop the bomb then he gets to fire the rockets, some of which will inevitably kill some people.
It isn't a problem of neutrality. That's a pipe dream by the way. Ask around and see who feels like inserting themselves, their country's military and their reputation in between the Palestinians and Israelis? Show me an example where some neutral party came into a similar situation and managed to accomplish anything (anything at all) that was beneficial. All I can think of are examples of UN troops coming in and being totally ineffectual. At best. Other times they would be used as pawn or human shields themselves. (Fire from right next to the UN bunker, no one can retaliate!) The UN spent a boatload of cash to hire a few thousand more French soldiers to put on the border between Lebanon and Israel, tasked with the thankless job of risking their lives to disarm and prevent the rearming of Hezbollah, perhaps the most effective and feared terrorist group in the world today. The soldiers went, to their credit. They're still there today. But do you know what they accomplished as far as disarming Hezbollah goes? Bupkis. Less than nothing. Hezbollah not only rearmed but then spread their rocket launchers throughout towns and villages all over the south, hiding them amongst the homes and gardens of civilians too scared to refuse.
Tell me, who is going to want to send their kid overseas to die defending someone else's country? No one.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)to remove any blame from IDF and spread the word that it is the Palestinians (who will be referred as Hamas) themselves that are to blame
shira
(30,109 posts)You'll continue to do so no matter the evidence showing what Hamas is doing to the Palestinians WRT human shields.
Sick.
kayecy
(1,417 posts)Or what evidence is presented to you of Israel's indifference to suffering....You seem to be ignorant that Israel has killed and injured far more innocents than Hamas could dream of.
Yes Hamas is an organisation that has waged war by terrorist acts and killing civilians, but Israel too has a history of waging war by terrorizing and killing civilians albeit only collaterally.
That distinction is too fine for those suffering Israeli collateral terror....A dead child is a dead child whether killed by a Hamas crude rocker or the collateral damage of an accurate Israeli rocket.
The difference is, that Israel claims to be a liberal western democracy. No other western democracy would dream of subjecting refugees to such a bombardment.......The only instance I can think of is Grozny, but then Russia is hardly a western democracy.
JoDog
(1,353 posts)I think you underestimate the dreams of Hamas. The group's stated aim is the destruction of Israel. Its endgame is the death of ALL Israelis--with no respect to age or lack of uniform.
Hamas will not settle down if given its own state. It will use such a state as a launch pad to continue to wage war. If the people of Gaza rid themselves of Hamas, they will have taken the first step to peace.
kayecy
(1,417 posts)Let us look at what Hamas has actually declared:
In July 2009, Khaled Meshal, Hamas's Damascus-based political bureau chief, said the organization was willing to cooperate with "a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict which included a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders", provided that Palestinian refugees hold the right to return to Israel and that East Jerusalem be the new nation's capital.
After economic blockade, and terrorization through bombing. I am sure many in Hamas would like to the destruction of Israel but shall we stick to their recorded declarations?....There is enough hysteria and Israeli propaganda about Hamas without making unfounded statements.
As to claim that "Hamas will use such a state as a launch pad to continue to wage war" well, I suggest you stick to facts and avoid crystal ball-gazing.
JoDog
(1,353 posts)Hamas has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction. Its members pledge to destroy Israel.
Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. A few days later, Hamas started missile attacks. Now, Hamas is the government of Gaza.
Do you really think they are going to reject their founding principle now?
shira
(30,109 posts)It doesn't even factor into the situation at large.
The point is to keep the focus squarely on Israel. It's all Israel's fault, they deserve rockets, and they don't have any right to attack Hamas in response. Don't play defense by dealing with Hamas' genocidal intent. Go on the offensive; blitz Israel continually.
What's really fucked up here is that not only is Israel working to protect its own citizens from Hamas, but also to protect Gazans from their leadership which deliberately puts them in harm's way, daring Israel to fight back. A win-win for Hamas. If Israel stops itself from attacking due to the human shielding, Hamas gets to bomb Israel freely. When Israel does something, Hamas makes sure there's a price to pay in the media war. And the MSM along with various NGO's are ready, able, and willing to help Hamas pull this off.
Hamas is a threat to both nations' civilians & is trying to get them killed in order to score PR wins with the MSM. Every Israeli (especially IDF) knows this. Hamas cannot continue their strategy without help from the human rights community; including some of our 'friends' here who purport to care so much about Palestinians. They're going out of their way to whitewash what Hamas is doing. Anything to demonize Israel.
This is unprecedented.
We're talking beyond fucked up.
Imagine the hatred involved; the total loathing of Palestinians (and Israel) that is necessary in order to deny, ignore, or deflect from Hamas' actions towards their citizens - all so that Israel can take the blame and be demonized in an all out effort at total war vs. the Jewish state. It's fucking unbelievable.
Our 'friends' here opposing Israel are either completely oblivious to this or actively helping with this sick demonization.
And like 70 years ago, they're on the wrong side of history.
kayecy
(1,417 posts)if you have no evidence to the contrary and you don't accept the Hamas leadership statements there is little pointing in going further.
Israel withdrew from Gaza and began an economic blockade on a refugee community.....A refugee community whose immediate ancestors came from the land now occupied by Israel and who had been subject to years of often brutal military occupation.
What did you expect Hamas to do?.......give up their aim of one day being able to return to the land where many of them were born?
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Israel withdrew and began weathering a storm of rockets beginning a few hours later. Israel's blockade only began after Hamas was elected and violently took over all of Gaza, ousting the PA in 2007. Before the blockade were internationally imposed economic sanctions which began after the 2006 elections bringing Hamas to power.
Israel and the Quartet said that sanctions would be lifted only when the Palestinian government has met the following demands:
Renunciation of violence,
Recognition of Israel by the Hamas government (as the PLO had done), and
Acceptance of previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinian National Authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006-2007_economic_sanctions_against_the_Palestinian_National_Authority
To recap, Israel withdrew from Gaza and rocket and mortar fire began exponentially increasing. Gaza elected Hamas to power, a terrorist organization that did not recognize Israel and refused to abide by the agreements between the PA and Israel that brought about the withdrawal and increased trade. In response, the quartet countries and Israel and Egypt imposed sanctions. Hamas ousted all PA affiliated workers from Gaza in a violent coup in 2007. ONLY THEN did Israel impose the blockade.
What I expected them to do was refrain from committing war crimes by attacking Israeli civilians. Is that really too much?
Well, yeah. I do. Isn't that exactly what so many Israelis were forced to do when they were ethnically cleansed from the surrounding Arab states as well as places like East Jerusalem, Hebron, Gaza and the west bank? Or do you support the continuation of Israeli settlements in those areas? Areas where Jewish people were once born and lived for many hundreds, sometimes thousands of years. Such is the price of peace. The Gazans might have to live a few miles away from where they were born. Is that really such a crime?
kayecy
(1,417 posts)With the weapons they had/have, it was impossible for Hamas to target anything, civilians or IDF. Were Hamas any more committing a war crime than the the British & Americans did when bombing German cities?
Yes, they both suffered and should be allowed to return to the land of their forefathers if they wish.
Yes, why shouldn't Jews be allowed to continue living in those areas?
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)With Grad and Fajar-5 rockets Hamas most certainly can target specific cities, as they have shown by firing upon Ashkelon and even Tel Aviv. Even their primitive Qassam rockets are capable of landing within the borders of nearby towns like Sderot around 50% of the time.
I have no idea. How in the world is that in any way relevant?
No, they should not be allowed to return to whatever land their grandparents came from unless it is fairly certain that doing so would not have a negative effect on regional peace and stability. Oftentimes justice is not to be achieved by trying to put everyone and everything back to the way it once was. The Palestinians were forced to move from one part of Palestine to another part of Palestine. If refugees from outside the nation want to return then I think they should be allowed to. But to Palestine, not to Israel.
For the same reason that the Palestinians should not be granted a right of return to Israel. It is not conducive to furthering the peace process.
kayecy
(1,417 posts)I would imagine that most Israel cities house significant IDF and other legitimate targets thus, Hamas could claim it is targeting the IDF but with weapons that unfortunately cause a lot of collateral damage.
I respect your view but Hamas's view that all Palestinians should be allowed to return to their villages is equally valid.......Conflicts occur because each side is not prepared to see the other guy's viewpoint.
As a matter of interest, if the Palestinians accepted that there would be no right of return for say 50 years but after that, they would have a right to return to their ancestral villages etc providing there had been complete peace between Israelis and Palestinians for the previous 30 years, would that be acceptable to you?
In other words, in your opinion, must Israel never risk the possibility of there being an Arab majority, simply because of the historical persecution of the Jews, which was mainly caused by Europeans?
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Hamas could claim lots of things, it doesn't give any of them credibility though. Weapons like the qassams are not accurate enough to do much beyond aim them at a city and hope it lands within its borders, a 50/50 chance. The sophisticated Iranian rockets would have to actually be aimed at some kind of IDF installation, and hit it, before anyone could reasonably claim that they aimed for a legit target. But why would they bother? Hamas has never been shy about their targeting of civilians or how they consider any and all Israelis to be fair game for attack, no matter how young, old, infirm, sick or wounded they might be.
Were it true that their viewpoint were similar to what you wrote here, there would be some validity worth discussing. However Hamas has always been open about their view that all of Palestine is occupied territory, or their assertion that they will never accept Israel as a legitimate state nor stop fighting to liberate their land from the Zionist entity which stole it. They might demand a right of return for refugees now, but not as an end in itself but rather as part of a phased plan to retake Palestine. (A plan they are quite vocal about in fact.)
No. For one thing I would ask why they would want this? If the goal for the Palestinians is self-determination and control over their own sovereign state then what would the point be in also demanding the right to return to another state? The whole point of Palestine is to exist as a counterpart to Israel... one Arab state and one Jewish state.
The reality is that these "ancestral villages" no longer exist. The refugees forced out of Palestine should be allowed to return to Palestine. But what is the point of insisting on returning to a place that is only a few miles from your current home? To a place that would be unrecognizable, without any of the houses or mosques as you remember them? You can not argue both for a right of return to Israel and also for a sovereign state of Palestine. The latter's existence would be compensation for the former.
I am confused by your use of the word "simply" here, as though it is a dated or irrelevant reason for ensuring that the Jewish state remain so. Your assertion that historical anti-semitism was mostly imposed by europeans is true. But if we are going to consider anything less atrocious than the Holocaust and Russian pogroms to be somehow an acceptable level of oppression then the need for the Jewish State speaks for itself. For the best we can offer regarding Arab anti-semitism is that they refrained from engaging in an industrialized system of genocide employed to wipe out the entire Jewish people. However they were quite thorough in their ethnic cleansing, discrimination and theft of land and possessions.
There are currently over two dozen Arab states and twice as many Islamic states in the world. The Palestinians will be granted their own country eventually and they are probably the majority ethnicity in Jordan as well. So I would ask you, when you look at the Middle East and consider the breakdown of nation-states versus ethnicity as a whole, (either in number of nations or in total area held), do you come away convinced that the Arabs were given a raw deal? That the single Jewish state, existing on a fraction of a percent of the total land, in an area devoid of any natural resources, home to Jewish refugees from all corners of the globe and their offspring, has stolen an unfair amount of land from the Arabs; that it is an injustice to allow this state to exist as opposed to allowing unmitigated Arab emigration, ensuring the creation of another Arab state and the death of the sole Jewish one? That it is not enough to form two Arab states and one Jewish one from the land of the British mandate of Palestine... that the only fair solution would be three Arab states and zero Jewish ones?
kayecy
(1,417 posts)Let me make it clear..... I abhor all killing, whether Jew or Arab....Hamas’s methods of violent resistance are disgusting.... Israel’s military decisions at the political level, also show a horrifc indifference to human suffering and injustice.
In my view, the justice of the Hamas claim to the right of return to the place of their birth is as valid as an Israeli Jew’s claim to a Jewish State in Palestine.
The urge to return to one’s area of birth or what one considers is one’s homeland can be all-consuming.....Zionist immigrant Jews made that clear....Why would you be surprised that Palestinians might want to do the same?.....In most cases, their ancestral roots in Palestine are much more recent than those of Zionists.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)You weren't offering an alternate perspective on the same events. You were attempting to come up with a plausible excuse for Hamas to potentially use in defense of its frequent commission of war crimes.
Really? The key difference as I see it is that Israel's claim to a Jewish state in no way denies the Palestinians of their own right to self-determination or ability to govern their own state. However Hamas' claim to all of Palestine, from the river to the sea requires the denial of Jewish self-determination and dissolution of the state of Israel.
Because it isn't the same at all. Most Israeli Jews lost their original homes and emigrated to Israel as refugees. Homes were lost, property abandoned and possessions stolen... there is no Israeli all-consuming desire to regain these things from their collective past. The Palestinians did not even lose their state, they get to live in the same exact nation that they were always in, unlike most of the Israelis. They are merely living in a different part of the state.
The modern Middle East was born out of the ruins of two world wars and the subsequent cold war. Nations were pushed together, split apart, forced to compromise and sometimes go to war. The current situation in Israel/Palestine is the result of a single civil war, uprisings, ethnic cleansings and several regional international wars. No one is going to get everything they think is owed to them. Nor should they. The question isn't "what does each group deserve?" But rather "what does each group require?" The Palestinians should have their own state and the freedoms that come along with it. But their desire to live on every last inch of their homeland does not trump the Israelis right to their own sovereign state. Yes, that means that some Palestinians will not be able to go live in the same exact house that they once lived in 70 years ago. They will lose that right. I can live with that. They aren't losing anything that other groups (Jews included) have not already lost many times over.
If offered the choice most people would like to go back to live in Eden, in a utopian paradise where there is no hunger or war and everyone gets their own monster truck or unicorn to ride forever because no one gets sick and no one ever dies. But that option isn't on offer, because it's a fantasy, same as your suggestion.
Why did a poor people who asked nothing but to be allowed to continue their way of life, be forced to accept a massive influx of immigrants from an alien culture?
No one did. None of them had to live in Israel. No one was being asked to give up anything that they already owned. The Palestinians were just Arabs living on a bit of land back then. A part of a whole. There was no nation of Palestine or dream of a sovereign state based on arbitrary borders splitting up the region all over the place. They had been occupied for 400 years at that point by an alien culture. You say that England had no right to split up the area? Great. Then they had no right to give Jordan to the Hashemites. Or split up Lebanon from Syria. Or mush a bunch of random tribes together and call it Iraq. Or split bits off of Iraq and call it Kuwait. You see where I am going with this? That's how the whole middle east was built. No one part is less authentic than any other part.
They had no more right than anyone else to deny anyone the right to purchase and move on to land merely because it was nearby land that they did own. Why should anyone be forced to deal with the influx of a huge group of immigrants from an alien culture? Because the land in question happens to be their homeland too and the state of the world in the early 20th century was one of flux where everyone had to acclimate themselves to enormous changes, whether they liked it or not. The Palestinians lost far less than the Jewish refugees who emigrated there lost, after all. That was not fair either. But no one is guaranteed any specific outcome in this world. There is a strong ethical argument to be made in favor of the Jews settling in Palestine. But they only were able to do it because of their organization, their persistence and their skills in presenting their case to the powers in charge. Being deserving is only a small part of the puzzle. You must also make it happen.
kayecy
(1,417 posts)Israel’s claim to a Jewish state in Palestine prevented Palestinians ever gaining self- determination in the whole of their land......Palestinians are to be allowed part of their land only.....Is there any other instance in the 20th Century where immigrants have taken over part of an already populated land and then made laws to prevent the indigenous people ever returning to the land of their ancestors?
You are playing at semantics.....The Palestinians lost Palestine.......It was hardly their fault that at the time Palestine wasn’t a state......Had Palestine been a sovereign state before Britain conquered it, do you really think that would that have made any difference to the Zionists?
You need to read-up again on your history. At the Third Palestinian Arab Congress convened in Haifa on 13 December 1920 (Muslih 205-7)... Three foundational principles were agreed:
- the establishment of a national government,
- the rejection of the idea of a Jewish National Home,
- the organization of the Palestinian Arab nationalist movement.
And subsequently: “a national government responsible to a representative assembly, whose members would be chosen from the Arabic-speaking people who have been inhabiting Palestine until the outbreak of the War”
Britain’s encouragement of Zionism destroyed that dream.
You are absolutely right, Britain had no right to do any of that and anyone suffering from that injustice has a right to seek restitution......That is exactly what the Palestinians have been trying to do for the last 60 years whilst Israel has been avoiding any idea of restitution.
When Britain & the US had to make a choice between giving away their own territory (Western Australia say or Nevada) or the territory of another people (Palestine), the result was obvious but certainly not ethical......I would very much like to hear your “strong ethical argument” as to why the US should support Britain’s Mandate to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine rather than somewhere in the US.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)This is only because you are choosing to label what is essentially an arbitrarily defined plot of land as "Palestinian land," describing it as though it belonged to Palestine from an earlier time. In reality, there's no reason to consider ALL of the land negotiated by the British to fall under its Mandate then belongs to the Palestinians. Why would you? They did not own most of it. They did not live on most of it. The first thing England did was partition most of it off to become trans Jordan. But no discernible difference exists between Palestine and Jordan aside from what was imposed politically.
Hardly. They didn't lose it, they never had it in the first place.The Palestinians did not merely lack a state. They lacked a national identity. There was no Palestinian state, that's for sure. But there wasn't a Palestinian people at this point either.
It was hardly their fault that at the time Palestine wasn’t a state
It's not about assigning blame. Of course it wasn't their fault. They did not even have the concept of states there at the time. But we can't retroactively expect that the Zionists should have approached Palestine as though it WAS an existing state ruled by an existing nation of people when neither of these things existed at the time.
I can't even imagine how this could have played out if the Middle East were already split into sovereign states before WWI. But you are offering a what-if? question that pre-supposes an entirely different world. For Palestine to be a state then there couldn't have been an Ottoman empire, etc, so on.
You need to read-up again on your history. At the Third Palestinian Arab Congress convened in Haifa on 13 December 1920 (Muslih 205-7)... Three foundational principles were agreed:
- the establishment of a national government,
- the rejection of the idea of a Jewish National Home,
- the organization of the Palestinian Arab nationalist movement.
You left out the part that said the national government they wanted was the one promised to Hussein, originally Syria. As was resolved in the first such congress:
"We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds."
Aside from that being the prevailing attitude, it goes without saying that the congress probably would not have ruled against the idea of a Jewish National Home and officially opposed the Balfour Declaration unless those things already existed. Meaning Zionism's plan of settling in Palestine was already planned, negotiated and implemented before the Palestinian Arabs thought to convene. And even then the "Palestinian Arab nationalist movement" you speak of referred to a PAN-ARAB movement, not a unilateral Palestinian one.
Britain’s encouragement of Zionism destroyed that dream.
Maybe so. But the dream wasn't thought of until well after Israel was pretty much built and preparing to declare independence.
You are absolutely right, Britain had no right to do any of that and anyone suffering from that injustice has a right to seek restitution
But you're wrong, Britain DID have that right. You are assuming a lot of things about the state of Palestine (the state, not the State), that were simply not the case back in 1920. You are making arbitrary decisions about what their rights should have been, about what land belonged to them, about their national ambitions, none of which are true.
That was never an option. Britain and the US were already existing states. There was no office of either government that had the authority to give part of its own nation away.
But no one gave away the territory of Palestine either. They did not give anything away at all in fact. All the Balfour Decl. said was that the Jews had a right to immigrate to the area and make their national home there. Which they did by moving there and purchasing land, developing it into farmland, industrial areas, forests and eventually cities. For the most part this was undesirable land to start with. But the Zionists had the resources to drain swamps and turn it into arable farmland. No one took land that belonged to the Arabs living there and handed it over to a collective of Jewish immigrants. And just because there are Arab people living near any given plot of land does not make that land automatically theirs. The Bedouins lived in the Negev and traveled around it throughout the year. Does that make the entire Negev Bedouin property? In 1920 Jerusalem's population had a solid Jewish majority, and had since the mid 1800s. Does that mean Jerusalem belonged to the Jews? Or did it all belong to the Palestinian Arabs because they had a majority in the state at the time? If you just drew the border a little differently then a different group would be the majority ethnicity. It is not possible to argue that the entirety of any non-sovereign state belongs to any single group by luck of a bunch of them living right there, right then. Nor should it. What the League of Nations accomplished was a way of splitting up the huge area of the middle east via discussion and negotiation instead of the classic method employed there for thousands of years... tribal warfare.
Well, you already seem to agree that a Jewish state was necessary, so we're ahead already with that out of the way. Now, there was never any movement to establish a foreign entity within the US's territory because it's illegal, no one had the right to just give away an entire state and no one wanted to build their nation there, or for the Zionists to move there. The issue isn't "why not in the US?" but "why in Palestine" and then "why is the inherent right of a Jewish national home's existence in Palestine of greater ethical importance than establishing another Arab state (or part of one) over the entirety of Palestine?"
Palestine is the Jewish people's historical, cultural and religious homeland, which has had an unbroken population of Jews living there for thousands of years. All of the religion's key religious sites exist there. Wherever a Jewish state is created, Jews from the diaspora would have to move there. The difference for those immigrants moving to Palestine versus somewhere else? They would see themselves moving BACK to Palestine.
And because of those things, there have been ongoing and frequent attempts by Jews at re-colonizing the region; most recently back then by the Russians and before that by Napoleon. Conversely there's nothing that marks Palestine as being uniquely Palestinian at all. Arab, sure. But the whole region is Arab. One of the problems for your argument here to overcome is the fact that we are comparing the need for a nation by the entirety of an ethno-religious group, the Jews, in all of its forms, sects, races, etc., with the right to the same state by a small sliver of a subset of a different ethnic group. A subset that some would argue is especially indistinguishable from many others around it. What is it that sets the Palestinians apart from other Arabs? Most importantly, what about Palestinian nationality makes their possession of ALL of Palestine more important than that of the entire Jewish world to live on just SOME of it?
Why is the Palestinians' getting EVERYthing more important than the Jews' getting ANYthing?
kayecy
(1,417 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:17 PM - Edit history (1)
I am not saying that....I am saying that sovereign or non-sovereign, the land belonged to the indigenous people, the Palestinian Jews (15%?), the Palestinian Arabs and the Bedouin. It most certainly did not belong to the Zionist Jews and Britain had no MORAL right to allow Zionist immigrants to pile into Palestine with the avowed intention of creating a Jewish State there.
Now to your “strong ethical argument”
So giving away a US state was illegal, but giving away another peoples’ land was not!.......What sort of ethical argument is that?
The US had a Jewish population of about 3.5 million in 1920.......Did these Jews not want a state or what?.......Either way, Palestine was home to only about 80,000 Jews......How on earth can you claim there is a “strong ethical argument” for Britain & the US to force the indigenous folk of Palestine to accept a massive influx of immigrants ( 350,000 immigrants on 600,000 indigenous by 1940) when there were already 3.5million Jews in the US and 350,000 more would hardly have been noticed?
The immigrants might see it that way but “BACK to Palestine” was a nonsense. Virtually none of the Zionist immigrants had any proof that their ancestors had ever lived in Palestine.....You can’t go “BACK” to somewhere where you and your ancestors have never lived. In fact, most of the immigrants would have chosen to go to the US had it been open to them after 1922.....Certainly the 3.5million Jews in the US didn’t seem to be falling over themselves to go “BACK" to Palestine.
No we are not....I have agreed the Jews deserved a state of their own....It is just that there was no ethical argument for Britain and the US to impose that state on a poor people with no power to defend themselves.
That is no ethical argument either...What about the US was so important that it could not sacrifice just a small fraction of its empty land to make a state for the Jews?........When South Vietnam was over-run by the Communists and many South Vietnamese became refugees, the US provided a haven for them.......It didn’t force them on the Philippians or some other defenseless people, it took care of them itself.......That was the ethical thing to do and the same should have applied to the 1920s refugee Jews.
.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)You're not opposing a Jewish state. You're opposing the right to install it on land you see as belonging to Palestine.
I'm not saying it belonged to the Zionists by any implied right, any more than it belonged to anyone based on their ethnicity or place of birth. I do see the attractiveness of your solution. It is simple and at least at first glance, it appears to be fair to everyone involved. After all, that's more or less how ethnic nation-states in Europe were formed, right? Various ethnic majorities ruled over their various homelands from the time of their inception, guiding their evolution from warring tribal lands all the way up to the modern nation-state.
Here's the problem... no one really saw it that way at the time. The Middle East back then had been under the occupation of the Ottoman Empire for the past few hundred years. The concept of modern nations did not exist for them. The Palestinian Arabs had a far closer affinity towards the Arab Muslims living in Syria, Lebanon or Jordan than they did for the Bedouins, Druze or Jews who lived a few miles away. This is why the Arab Congresses sought the formation of a single nation between all of the Arab majority lands in the region. (And in fact they had been promised this in exchange for their support in WWI, a promise England and France later reneged on.) It's also probably why that same Arab Congress made sure that one of their very first resolutions was to make sure that only other Arab speakers were eligible to participate.
The violence perpetrated by the Arabs against the Jews in Palestine was undeniably sparked by the sudden influx of Jewish immigrants. But it had little to do with the fear that foreigners would pour in and prevent the indigenous Arabs from establishing their own rightful state. There was still very little support for an individual Palestinian state among Arabs living there; they still hoped for the larger Pan-Arab state they were promised. No, their fear centered around being politically disenfranchised as Arabs, (not Palestinians), by the hordes of Jews arriving all the time. They had no issues with immigration in general, just as long as the immigrants were Arabs and Muslims just like they were. And a lot of Arabs from other nearby states DID move there around this time. Even Arafat was not an indigenous Palestinian. He did have Palestinian family but he was born, educated and grew to adulthood in Egypt. He fought for the Egyptian Army. He identified as a Palestinian and fought fiercely for its liberation from Israel, but I always wondered... how can anyone who isn't from Palestine spend their life trying to oust Jewish immigrants when he lacks any specially granted right to live there himself? How can one immigrant say "Get off this land and give it back to its rightful owners, people like me, who is also an immigrant, just like you."
Well, what is the ethical argument behind giving the land over to the random assortment of people who happened to be living there at the time of the Ottoman's defeat? What about that random moment makes it the "right" one to determine WHO should govern WHAT land? Why not instead look at splitting the different nations and ethnic groups into respective states? Why not consider what decisions would best benefit the world at large and best fulfill the ideals of the most indigenous people?
What we ended up doing there, for the most part, was use your method. How did that work out? The modern middle east is strikingly similar across all states. Morocco for example, has a majority Arab Muslim population, from which the king and government was drawn, as well as most of the economic and political leaders of the nation. But there is also a large minority population of Berbers, the ORIGINAL indigenous inhabitants of the land. And this is what most of the mideast looks like. States have a ruling Arab majority that controls everything important. And the ethnic minority who were the original inhabitants end up politically and economically marginalized to varying degrees. So THIS is your idea of the most ethical solution?
Well, for one thing it wasn't the historical homeland of the Jews. They had no desire to go there. Besides that it had the same problem as Palestine did. In most cases the Jews immigrating there weren't moving into land that Arabs had already built on. They weren't evicting Arabs and stealing their houses. They were mostly buying empty, unwanted land and altering it to fit their needs. There would be no difference between that empty land in Palestine and the empty land in Nevada. No matter how empty it might be, the established local population would still consider it "their" land. Except in Nevada's case, they would be right.
In Palestine though, it wasn't just that no official Palestinian state existed there yet. Forget the state. There wasn't even a plan for a Palestinian state at the time immigration rights for Jews were being drafted. The Arab Palestinians didn't get it together and begin describing themselves as a distinctly independent nation until decades later. They didn't begin demanding sovereign national rights over Palestine until Israel was all but built and ready to declare independence.
The Vietnamese example holds no water. The Jews did not need temporary refugee relief. They needed control over their own state to ensure a future free from persecution. Leaving the task of protecting the world's Jewish population to some other, random state with no real invested interest in the job offered them a guarantee only of such a plan's eventual failure.
When South Vietnam was over-run by the Communists and many South Vietnamese became refugees, the US provided a haven for them.......It didn’t force them on the Philippians or some other defenseless people, it took care of them itself
It took care of 90,000 refugees itself. It left countless more behind, waiting on rooftops for helicopters that never came. Up to 155,000 refugees fleeing the NVA were killed or abducted on the road to Tuy Hoa in 1975. Sources have estimated that between 100,000 and 200,000 South Vietnamese died in the re-education camps. Slave labor in the "New Economic Zones" caused 50,000 estimated deaths. And the number of boat people who died fleeing Vietnam in rickety boats is estimated between 100,000 and 500,000.
And those are the numbers for a refugee rescue and resettlement that's considered a success. I think we can forgive the Jews for being leery of such a plan.
Defend themselves? From what? How would the Jewish influx of people to Palestine negatively impact the indigenous inhabitants in any way, had they shared the land peacefully as a bi-national state or freely partitioned it into two states instead of resorting to war? What do you suppose that region would look like today?
The key issue we differ on is your belief that the whole of Palestine belonged solely to its inhabitants, the people living there at the fall of the Ottoman Empire. I see no reason to consider them the de facto rulers and owners of Palestine merely because they lived on a small part of it. The Jews who moved in built on the land no one was using yet. The UN Partition Plan that sought to split the area into two states featured a Jewish majority in the Jewish state and an Arab one for the Arab state.
kayecy
(1,417 posts)Thank you for considering each of my points in detail. Unfortunately your explanation makes little attempt to justify your claim that there is a “strong ethical argument” for deciding on Palestine.
If you are talking pre WW1 you are correct, but WW1 saw a huge upsurge in nationalism and an international awareness of the rights of ex-colonial people.
In 1918, President Wilson declared that, along with Austria, Hungary and the Balkans, the old Turkish Empire peoples should govern themselves. In other words they should have a right to self-determination without outside interference. Even Article 22 LoN stated: Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized........ Britain and France chose to ignore this of course.
Look at some of the evidence of Palestinan nationalist feeling:
During 1918 and 1919, the Jerusalem, Nablus and Haifa Muslim-Christian Associations presented “protest notes” to the British authorities. The principle subject of petition was their absolute opposition to Zionism. Among the arguments presented to the British was the historical continuity of Arab settlement in Palestine.... The Palestinian Arabs pertained to their perceived right to self-rule based on the statements of world leaders......
One Palestinian spokesman, presented data to Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill showing that the Palestinians deserved the status to which the LoN Article 22 bestowed.
The Palestinian Arabs demanded a national government at the Third Palestinian Arab Congress in December 1920
How can you possibly claim that the concept of modern nations did not exist for Palestinians? Quite clearly, by the early 1920s, the concept of the modern nation was a major debating point for the Palestinians.
I agree with you.........Whether they were afraid of being disenfranchised as Arabs or as Palestinians is immaterial.......What is the point you are trying to make?
But it wasn’t a random moment....It was a moment when the world had been turned upside down by WW1 and peoples previously part of the Hungarian and Turkish empires were yearning for independence and seeking self-determination. Never before or since have so many people been released from their colonial shackles in such a short time.
Do you disagree with the principle of self-determination for ex-colonial peoples after WW1 or is it just that you think the indigenous people living in the area covered by the Palestine Mandate were somehow different from all the other peoples and did not deserve self-determination?
That proposal is rather idealistic but I have no objection to it......Shall we start with making a list of the most indigenous people?.......Do you consider all Jews to be indigenous to Palestine?...Including those with no ancestral ties to Palestine?....Including Jewish converts?
Wait a minute, what are you referring to?.......When did Arab arrivals in Morocco take over control from the indigenous Berbers.......My history books say about the 1600s......Your example of ethics as applied to indigenous peoples is rather far back in time isn’t it?........The end of WW1 forced people to think hard about the ethics of colonialism and self-determination and had President Wilson lived longer things might have been different.
No desire to go to the US?.......How come that by 1920 there were already 3.5 million Jews in the US?.....Almost 25% of world Jewry were living in the US......Were they there against their will?....Less than 0.5% of world Jewry lived in Palestine.
So the fact that Zionists were pushing Britain to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine whilst Palestinians themselves “hadn’t got it together” is ethically relevant to Britain’s decision?
Look back at what you stated earlier:"...their fear centered around being politically disenfranchised as Arabs, (not Palestinians), by the hordes of Jews arriving all the time".......Does that answer your above question?
That is exactly my belief.......You stated earlier: “I'm not saying it belonged to the Zionists by any implied right...”
If Palestine did not belong to the Zionists by right, what was the ”strong ethical argument” Britain and the US had for issuing the Balfour Declaration?
I suggest the letter to Lord Curzon from Balfour in 1919 provides the answer:
‘For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country …the Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires or prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land …'
An argument this may have been......A strong ethical argument it most certainly was not.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)mostly focuses on the importance of establishing a Jewish state, not that it must happen in Palestine. The main reason I never rejected he legitimacy of Palestine being the site chosen for this endeavor hinges on there not being any argument against choosing it that outweighed those in favor. After all, it IS the site of the Jews' historical homeland and their religion did focus on their eventual return as a pre-ordained goal. And there was already a sizable Jewish population there... around one sixth or one seventh of the whole. So we know why they wanted it. Barring a solidly more compelling reason to reject it, why would anyone want to deny the Zionists their first choice?
Ignore it regarding Palestine and Syria, sure. Why, do you really think that Palestine had "reached a stage of development where its existence as independent nation could be provisionally recognized" in a similar respect as states like Turkey, (whose population had just effectively ruled over Palestine and Syria's for 400 years?)
It was by 1920, sure. As a less-desirable option in the event their pan-Arab merge with Syria failed. But Article 22 required that it be more than just an often-disagreed upon talking point before agreeing to recognize their state as an independent nation.
The Palestinian Arabs were not fighting for the independence of the same Palestine that you describe here when you insist that Palestine's population have the right to self-determination over the entirety of Palestine. They were fighting for the right of self-determination over the whole of Palestine, true... but saw it as an exclusively Arab state, existing ONLY for the Arab members of Palestine. Those members being that same population you earlier waxed on idealistically about when describing the poetically integrated ideal state they would doubtlessly have created, had the Zionists not ensured it would be stillborn.
In reality, the Palestinian Arab Congress sought self-determination for themselves only, opposing any policies or actions that would benefit the Jews or their nationalist designs on the state the congress considered to be exclusively Arab in its entirety.
I do not think that all ex-colonial people deserve equal consideration for self-determination, if that's what you mean. For instance, I don't judge the right of Palestinian Arabs to SD as being equal to the Jewish claim to it. Why would the rights of a JUST formed, small sub-sect of the Arab people be equivalent to the rights of the whole of the Jewish people, regardless of race, geography, etc.? And I certainly do not think that anyone has the RIGHT to express self-determination over the entirety of a shared region to the exclusion of all other national groups living there. Self determination may be a right. But it does not come with a guarantee of a specific amount of land to then rule over.
My point is that any system that ended up guaranteeing the rights of the Arab people two dozen times over and the rights of any of the non-Arab minority groups ZERO times could probably use some tinkering. Especially if you desire an outcome rooted in ethical ideals.
I was not aware that the US ever did promote Palestine as the homeland for the Jews at all, let alone instead of Nevada. I would say that ethically speaking, the US should have no say in determining where the Jewish people decide for their homeland.
You don't see any logical problem to demanding that Britain throw its support behind a movement at a time that was many years prior to the creation of said movement? I'd also like to point out that no one ever denied the Palestinian Arabs the right to self-determination in Palestine. Just to the exclusive right to self-determination over ALL of it.
Yes, that their movement drew a lot of its ideology from xenophobic and racist platitudes. ie: "These foreigners coming here might grow politically strong enough to challenge our right to unilateral Arab rule. We should kill them and all of the indigenous people from their group before the possibility of that scenario becomes remotely possible."
Oh, I disagree. Why is the right to rule over ALL of Palestine, granted to the 700,000 Arabs who lived there MORE ethical than for those people to rule over just SOME of that land in order to ensure that safe, self-determination be granted to an existing group that's currently stateless... one of history's most persecuted people, in their original homeland, no less. How is any system that ensures one group gets EVERYTHING, while all other groups get NOTHING in any way an ethical system?
kayecy
(1,417 posts)For the same reason that the US, Argentina or Australia would have rejected it if their lands had been the Jewish first choice......Do you think that only ‘states’ should have the right to reject immigrants?
As I am sure you are aware, the Mandates were classified as A, B or C. Class A territories were those that : “"... have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.".
Palestine was an ‘A Class’ territory along with Mesopotamia and Syria.
All people deserved the right to self-determination and a state, irrespective of whether they are a sub-sect or the whole race......Palestinian residents should have that right in Palestine where they were living and the Jews, should have the same right, either where they were living (Don’t forget 25% were in the US) or some other suitable area.......Imposing mass foreign immigration on an indigenous people was unethical and bound to cause conflict.....Had the Great Powers had a grain of humanity they would have offered their own wide-open spaces for a Jewish homeland.
The Jews had a right to state of their own...But did they have the right to decide for themselves which land should form their state?
Lets start with President Wilson 3-3-1919:
"The allied nations with the fullest concurrence of our government and people are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth."
Then we have US Congress Resolution No 23 of 21 Sept 1922:
“That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which will prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.”
I am not suggesting Britain should have thrown its weight behind any movement.....It should merely have looked after the development of the indigenous residents of Palestine until they were in a position to achieve self-determination........What is your argument for justifying Britain throwing its weight behind the Zionists?
Why are you not objecting to the white US majority virtually banning all Jewish immigration to the US from 1922?
Why are you not objecting to white Australia refusng to accept Jewish refugees?
Why are you not objecting to the 32 states attending the 1938 Evian Conference (Including the US, Canada, Argentina and Australia) who refused to offer any refuge to threatened Jews?.......Instead of criticizing the conference participants for refusing to accept any Jewish refugees, you choose to castigate a poor indigenous people simply because, like the rest of the world, they didn’t want Jewish immigration.
You are attempting to provide reasons why the indigenous folk of Palestine should have no right to resist Zionism, but you raise no objection to the Great Powers doing the same....Why?
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)human rights groups ect but there simply are none are there can not admit that can you?
it seems for some the definition of human shield has become anyone in Gaza who is not can not be claimed to probably be a militant meaning a male under 13 or is it 15 and over 50 years of age, women, and girls ect who gets killed or wounded by IDF
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 21, 2012, 03:18 PM - Edit history (1)
"As an Israeli organization, B'Tselem focuses on Israel's human rights obligations. However, the organization states that Hamas committed grave breaches of international humanitarian law. Hamas’ method of combat and treatment of the Palestinian civilian population affects the legality of Israeli attacks and the injury they caused to civilians."
Those are charges from a human rights group that you were looking for.
You even ignored the Haaretz photo. I mean really, how much clearer can it get than this:
How about THIS much clearer? Hamas' own video boasting of their actions towards the Zionist entity:
Still want to deny it?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)here is B'tselem http://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20021114
note they all seem to concern IDF's use of human shields which has been amply documented now I did not go through all the pages but feel free maybe you'll find something but without a link it's hearsay
but congrats on taking opportunity to promote IDF's youtube channel what an unbiased source
and now I am done I've helped build your post count more than enough so flame away and make any dubious claims you wishyou already know your talking to the wall
shira
(30,109 posts)http://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20090208
Now feel free to ignore and deny that too.
You think you're doing Palestinians a favor giving carte blanche to Hamas to keep using them as shields? I marvel at this intentional blindness in order to continue the effort to demonize Israel. You're doing the Palestinians no favor at all. You're just ensuring Hamas keeps this going.
You're an apologist for their warcrimes against Gazans.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)When Israelis have done this it directly violated Israel's rules of engagement and those soldiers were prosecuted. IOW, Israel does not allow such behavior and criminalizes it. Hamas OTOH, uses civilians as shields as a matter of policy. It is an accepted tactic on their side and one that they regularly employ.
To assume that the two groups use human shields to the same extent is simply wrong. One side has individuals that occasionally break their laws and do it. The other side makes a point of doing it whenever possible.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)did you think that because I stopped playing "lets build shira's post count" that you'd actually silenced me with overwhelming evidence? nope
MEMRI is at best questionable and biased in it's translation, and your other screen shot from Ha'aretz proves nothing at all and in fact appears more incoming than outgoing to me
shira
(30,109 posts)That video has never once been questioned by any source WRT the translation being dubious.
And what's there to say about the Haaretz photo other than you see what you wish to see?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)so please think you'll make 220 again?
shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)dead Palestinians palatable to the public outside of Israel
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)support of the Israeli people and her government's policies?
Was the Left's opposition to South Africa's apartheid regime anti-white?
shira
(30,109 posts)Over 90% of Israel's Jews agree with the operation to attack Hamas.
Opposition to Israel's right to defend against thousands of rockets is in no way comparable to S.Africa and apartheid. As the OP shows, the same people (far left and far right) who are howling at Israel now were silent over the past decade when over 10,000 rockets landed in Israel. They have no moral standing.
They're as hypocritical as Syria's Bashar Assad, who also condemns Israel's response to Hamas. And FTR, the same haters don't have much of a problem with Assad either.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and Nothing to do (or at best, only tangentially related to) the operation to attack Hamas.
But as you, evidently, are a Zionist, I don't suspect you can/will acknowledge my question.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)If I wished to spend the time to figure it out, I would Alert on this thread as unnecessarily confrontational. Disagreeing with a nation-state's policy, with respect to its neighbors, is not in and of itself, bigotry ... the GOVERNMENT is NOT its PEOPLE.
shira
(30,109 posts)So what were you saying again?
TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)TYY
shira
(30,109 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)horrific assaults on Gaza assuming only their far right wing wacko government was to blame. I will have to check that out, as I saw some demonstrations in Israel this week AGAINST the Netanyahu war mongering regime. I would like to think this is not true.
shira
(30,109 posts)They're interested in stopping Hamas and their rocket attacks.
Over 800 rockets have pounded Israel in the last week or so. If you have a better way to end those rockets, come out with it! All viewpoints are welcome.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)you do not oppose it. Sorry, these convoluted arguments are probably supposed to be clever or something, but they don't work for you. People look at crime scenes and when they see bodies, they ask 'who killed them'. The guilty parties do not get to say 'we did not want to do it, they forced us to kill them' because simply put, that is bullshit.
See we don't accept this garbage from our own government, or the Right Wingers who supported them. They made the same claims when they supported Bush's illegal wars. 'We don't want to kill all those people, so what should we doooooo? We consider our own government to be war criminals who so far have gotten away with their crimes. What on earth makes you think we would accept the same nonsense about another government and the people who support them?
If Israel cannot figure out how to handle the situation then they are not fit to be in charge of it. Someone else will have to take this over. You have convinced me. This helplessness, this total incompetence regarding the situation, then the insane decision to make things even worse by killing even more innocents, creating even more hatred? This is plain stupidity. On the level of Bush/Cheney and their right wing Fox educated supporters, stupidity.
shira
(30,109 posts)Live in fear, in shelters, not go to work or school, watch as their country is destroyed, because they all deserve it....
They should do that while waiting for an adult (the UN?) to do something.
Who is that adult?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)On Tuesday, Hamas shot a rocket towards Jerusalem. Much to their chagrin, it only got as far the Gush Etzion area. Apparently, it also fell close to a Palestinian village.
As Voice of Israel (part of the official Israel Broadcasting Authority) reported the events, their veteran correspondent in the South, Nissim Kenan, had some, how should I say, “reassuring” words for listeners and for the anchor, Esti Perez (listen in Hebrew here):
Perez: Yes, but people live in Gush Etzion, too, you know.
Kenan: Yes, but it fell in an Arab village, so, we can relax.
http://972mag.com/relax-the-rocket-fell-on-an-arab-village/60561/
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)A majority of Americans supported the war in Iraq. Nearly 70% thought Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. A majority doesn't make anything right. I guess those who were against the Iraq war were anti-American?
Stop calling people anti-Semites and I wont call you an anti Arab racist.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)Just sayin.
OneMoreDemocrat
(913 posts)Poor little dear.
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)claiming the last 5% of Palestinian land is definitely anti Semitic. 
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)Cynicus Emeritus
(172 posts)I'd not want to be odd man out and without having adequate compensatory self defense in the Middle East. Sometimes we need to look at the world through the eyes of others instead of through the smoke screen of propaganda. Power balance results in peace between peoples. Power imbalance results in land stolen, children and families being wiped out at the whim of armies led by corrupt evil politicians, as it has throughout history.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)wouldn't Iran want to be armed to the hilt.
They (Iran) hasn't invaded or attacked any other country in recent history that hadn't attacked them first (Iraq).
still_one
(92,212 posts)That invasion which was based on a lie. One of the main reasons for that invasion was control of iraq's oil resources
As far as your assertion that Iran had not attacked any other country except in defense is not quite accurate. They attacked the Kurds in Iraq, and this was not during the Iran/Iraq war
In general your assertion though is correct that they have not directly invaded another country in modern times, however, it can be argued that they support other groups who do. Of corse that can also be said of many countries
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday.
Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, said Sharon aide Ranaan Gissin.
"Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose," Gissin said. "It will only give him (Saddam) more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction."
The United States has been considering a military campaign against Iraq to remove Saddam from power, listing him as one of the world's main terrorist regimes. However, there is considerable world opposition to a U.S. strike.
MORE...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/18/world/main519037.shtml
still_one
(92,212 posts)was NOT because of Israel that we invaded Iraq, bush and the neocons were doing it regardless
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)still_one
(92,212 posts)because they wanted to control the oil in that region. Even before the invasion they were mapping out which oil companies would control which oil fields.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)still_one
(92,212 posts)abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
At Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:56 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Israel Hate is Anti-Semitism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113422762
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
Accusing people of condemning Israel as Anti -Semitic is just plain over the top.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Nov 20, 2012, 11:17 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I generally support Israel, but disagree with the piece quoted in the OP. Nevertheless, it is a position worth discussing. Perhaps the alerter should explain why it is not true instead of attempting to hide it.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This kind of discussion is what the I/P Group is for.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It's like clockwork...when Israel is attacked, it's always Israel's fault. Anyone who dares to support Israel's right to exist and defend itself is attacked. It's people talking past not to one another...why this issue continues to burn on...
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: This is the first time for me at jury duty that i voted to exclude a post. There are people who are anti -Israel and anti -Semitic. There are others who do not support all of Israel's actions. Included in this group is Jimmy Carter.
The problem with the post is that it stops thought and legitimate criticism.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)ann---
(1,933 posts)Saying the zionist government of israel is wrong is NOT hate. It is fact and a lot of jews feel the same way - even in Israel.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)Is that antisemitism?
roody
(10,849 posts)I believe that its occupation of Palestine is wrong.
leftlibdem420
(256 posts)In propping up Hosni Mubarrak for 30 years, Israel condemned millions of Egyptians to life under a government that had nothing to offer them but poverty, stagnation, and ignorance. Until the Israeli government apologizes to the Egyptian people, I will not condemn any attacks on Israel.
still_one
(92,212 posts)Not blame them on all the worlds problems
LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)Israel did NOT prop up the Mubarak regime. It had no power to do so. All Israel and Egypt did was refrain from actually going to war with each other. That hardly constitutes 'propping up' a regime.
Possibly the USA helped to prop up the Mubarak regime, but Israel most certainly did not. They are hardly the rulers of the entire Middle East.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 21, 2012, 03:05 AM - Edit history (1)
I can disagree with THE WAY in which Israel defends itself without being a hater or anti-semetic. I LOVE EVERYONE! I wish people would stop using bullets and grenades to solve their problems. That does not make me anti semetic.
These kinds of posts ADD to the problem over there. They do not solve them.
A UN report on Israel's last NON-proportional response in Gaza:
http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/1ce874ab1832a53e852570bb006dfaf6/a51d0bfda2ba835585257a680049b333?OpenDocument
Money Quote:
During Israel’s Operation ‘Cast Lead’ in the Gaza Strip in December 2008 to January 2009, 6,268 homes were destroyed or severely damaged;21 186 greenhouses were destroyed; 931 impact craters in roads and fields were counted;22 universities faced US$ 25 million in damages;23 35,750 cattle, sheep and goats, and more than one million chicken and other birds were killed;24 and 17% of the cultivated area was destroyed.25 ‘Cast Lead’ caused a total of US$ 181 million in direct and US$ 88 million in longer-term costs for Gaza’s agriculture;26 generated
about 600,000 tonnes of rubble and US$ 44 million in environmental costs;27 and water and sanitation infrastructure suffered almost US$ 6 million in damages.28
Israel does not proportionally respond to attacks on its people. Neither does it engage other Arab nations to help diplomatically solve issues with Palestine. They pay lip service to diplomacy but won't cut the deal. Hamass and Israel are both COLOSSALLY STUPID!
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. Zionists claim they represent all Jews. They do not, they never have done.
These are the same people who claim all Jews who oppose Zionist actions in Israel are "Self hating,"
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Conflating opposition to Isreals policy with anti-semitism.
Simply priceless, in how ingenious it is. Also, pretty shameless. Also, pretty fuckin' worn out as an argument in this discussion.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Shout your opponent down with denunciations of failing to pledge sufficient fealty to the standing order, and when one peeps up, you have your justification.
It is ingenious ... and transparent.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)So when Israelis illegally grab Palestinian lands and force off the inhabitants there I guess that they too are practicing Anti-Semitism.
Go figure.
Here's that map of the UN that you call propaganda.
Now that's practicing Anti-Semitism.
Oh, BTW: Hamas sucks for killing Israelis just as Much as Israelis do for killing Palestinians, but keep up with your love of the "defense killing" strategy.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)If only she didn't have to occupy a whole people.
If she didn't wear that dress, I wouldn't have had to rape her.
Edited for clarity.
PuppyBismark
(594 posts)Now, what would you expect the public reaction in the USA to be? Do you think we would let this behavior to continue? I think not.
As far as Gaza is concerned, it is exactly that case and there would be little doubt as to what we would do and I expect we would not be as good as Israel at minimizing civilian deaths.
In the mean time, we would not be attacking Canada or Mexico, as Israel is not attacking their other neighbors.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)First, we aren't effectively caging in Mexicans in your analogy. In real life, things appear to be a bit different.
Your premise, and subsequently your analogy falls flat on its face.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)I have no problem with Israel's defensive actions in the face of prolonged and continued terrorist attacks. However I am not so naive as to presume those terrorist attacks are occurring in a vacuum; the state of Israel must bear some responsibility for their continuance due to the policy of successive governments of expanding settlements in the green zone, the continued policy of resettlement of Palestinians, confiscation of Palestinian-owned land, and destruction of Palestinian homes to build settlements. All of these things are occurring and have been occurring; one cannot reasonably pretend that this background has nothing whatever to do with the continued militarisation of the Palestinians. Quite frankly it's absurd to suggest otherwise; the closest parallel one can think of is that of the Native Americans. The US government continued to violate treaties and agreements, and settlers continued to spread into lands guaranteed to the native tribes, with the result that they were met with armed and violent resistance. So it's kind of disingenuous to say "But but...THEY STARTED IT" when in point of fact the reaction and resistance is not only explicable but inevitable.
Is Hamas' targeting of Israeli civilians despicable? Yes. But so too are the Israeli government and the IDF's targeting of Palestinians, policies of forced resettlement, and expansion of settlements, all while claiming loudly to be the injured party.
aquart
(69,014 posts)The Arabs got the lion's share of the Palestine Mandate but now they're entitled to whatever they want of the tiny, miserable piece allotted to the Jews.
Meanwhile, Jews have been born on that postage stamp since the 1880s, but two generations of Arabs, descendants of the Palestinians who chose to flee, have NOT been born on the land. They are Arabs claiming a right of return to Israel, a country they never knew, and not Arabia, home of their ancestors, their language, and their religion.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)however the idea that there is some Zionist Manifest Destiny that gives the Jewish people the right to a "greater Israel" on the basis of historical claims far more distant than those of the displaced Palestinians is frankly absurd as well. And which UN partition? The 1947 partition? The 1949 armistice line more or less ratified by the UN in UN Resolution 242? And NB that the Palestinians may be *culturally* Arab but the home of their ancestors is in most cases in the territory that is now Israel and was previously the British Mandate of Palestine and before that various sanjaks of the Ottoman Empire. (And there are nearly four million Palestinians in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza.)
LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)Both sides are contributing to an escalating situation.
There is a difference between criticizing Israel - or Palestine or any other country- and 'hating' it. Some people deliberately conflate criticism with hatred for their own political purposes: 'You criticize Israel? That means that you hate it and are an antisemite'; 'You criticize America? That means you're with the terrorists.' 'You criticize Iran? That means that you want to bomb it.' Etc.
On the other hand, some forms of attack really are hatred. I think this occurs when Israel (or Palestine) is treated as uniquely evil. I have seen articles posted that imply that there is no country or group 'on the planet' that is as bad as Israel/ Palestine, and it is difficult not to regard such allegations as hopelessly ignorant at best; and antisemitic/Islamophobic much of the time.
aquart
(69,014 posts)
OregonBlue
(7,754 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)edited to take out snip from article as I am told it was offensive
http://www.progressivezionist.com/2012/11/hamas-takes-aim-at-tel-aviv-kapos-swear.html
Response to azurnoir (Reply #189)
Post removed
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)that questions the use of the most militarist or repressive action possible is a "kapo"...as if dissenting from the policy of a government is the same thing as betraying your own kind to the Third Reich. Disgusting.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)At some point, shira, you're going to have to accept that fact that people can dissent from the hawkish wing of Israeli politics WITHOUT being bigots.
You can't keep turning EVERYTHING into "if they disagree, they hate the Jews".
Most ISRAELIS wouldn't even agree with the idea that anybody who disagrees with what their government is doing hates them as a nation and as people.
You post twenty different versions of this same screed every month.
It's childish.
It's wrong.
It's beneath you.
Just stop already.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Are the Palestinian people Semites or Semitic?
King_David
(14,851 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:45 PM - Edit history (1)
Definition of ANTI-SEMITISM
: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-semitism
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)organizations that advocate for Palestinian rights in Palestine?
Do you call them anti-semitic?
If not, why the exception?
King_David
(14,851 posts)an·ti-Sem·ite (nt-smt, nt-)
n.
One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anti-Semitic
King_David
(14,851 posts)is antisemitic.
An example would be Betselem
An example of one that recently was exposed to be antisemitic would be Greta Berlin of The Free Gaza Movement.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)for Palestinian rights, whether in Palestine or elsewhere, is antisemitic.
Certainly it appears that Palestinians are Semites.
Since you relied upon Merriam-Webster for your extract, you should be willing to accept Merriam-Webster for the following:
"1a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs
"b : a descendant of these peoples
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semite
I wonder if any Palestinians ever engage in name-calling and call Americans anti-Semitic. If so, I've never heard that.
King_David
(14,851 posts)And Jews only. It does not apply to any other People,Ethnic Group etc .
'Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is suspicion of, hatred toward, or discrimination against Jews for reasons connected to their Jewish heritage'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism
Mosby
(16,317 posts)Should Anti-Semitism Be Hyphenated?
http://forward.com/articles/166092/should-anti-semitism-be-hyphenated/?p=all
John Marschall, a retired professor of history at the University of Nevada, writes:
“Throughout my book “Jews in Nevada: A History,” and in other articles on Jewry and Judaism, I have chosen to use the spelling ‘antisemitism’ rather than ‘anti-Semitism.’ I agree with authors [of books on the subject], like James Parkes, A. Roy Eckardt, Leonard Dinnerstein and James Carroll, that the latter implies a hostility toward some imagined ‘Semitism,’ whereas the former means hostility specifically toward Jews. Thus, it is possible for other Semitic groups, such as Arabs, to be antisemitic — but not anti-Semitic. My Webster’s dictionary and Microsoft spell checker, however, reject my logic, and ‘anti-Semitism’ continues to be the most common spelling in most publications. What is your take on this issue that piques my academic sensitivities?”
I must say that this e-mail has compelled me to think about the question for the first time. I myself have always spelled the word “anti-Semitism,” and as Professor Marschall observes, if I try to write “antisemitism,” my computer corrects me automatically by inserting a hyphen and upper-casing the “s.” Indeed, this is obviously one reason that “anti-Semitism” has never caught on. Who wants to fight a computer all day long?
And yet as has been often pointed out, not only does “anti-Semitism” describe an unfortunate phenomenon, but it also is itself an unfortunate term. Coined in the 19th century, it has generally but mistakenly been attributed to German journalist Wilhelm Marr, who founded a Bund der Antisemiten, or “Anti-Semitic [Antisemitic?] League,” in 1881. In fact, however, the word was first used two decades earlier, in 1860, by German-Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider in an article about a book by French linguist and cultural historian Ernest Renan, “Histoire Général et Système Comparé des Langues Sémitiques.”
----------------------
I think he is right, it should be "antisemitism".
King_David
(14,851 posts)It is very tiring some people think they making some kind of relevant point insisting the term be applied to Arabs too .. What's with that ?
Behind the Aegis
(53,959 posts)The next time someone is droning on foolishly about "Arabs are Semites, too" as a way to imply anti-Semitism is anything other than discrimination/hatred against Jews, simply ask them if they are pedophiles, after all, "pedo" means "child" and "-phile" means "lover of." Therefore, using their 'logic' if they love children, they are pedophiles. Don't want to be that aggressive? Then try; "would you smoke or light a match near a sign that said something is "inflammable?" Again, using their "love for the real meaning of the word," the prefix "in-" means "not" and "flammable" means "combustible." Therefore, "inflammable" means "not combustible."
The constant droning on about the origin of the word is nothing more than people being dishonest or disingenuous, and often, usually deflecting from "Jew hatred" (where the term originated).
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)How are you going to argue that they are not?
Behind the Aegis
(53,959 posts)Or do you understand the term only refers to Jews?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)If it didn't change then the western world might still be speaking some ancient Indo-European language.
Some may wish to wrap words and definitions so tightly around themselves; keeping everyone else out in the hope that they may remain relevant. I doubt that it will keep them warm, and these purists will most likely be ignored in time with such behavior.
If they wish to wrap that definition around themselves then they are welcome to.
It is surprising that some react as if they have been burned by acid with the slightest suggestion that any inclusion of discrimination of other Semites into their lexicon is possible.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Are insistent on this nonsense. Ain't gonna happen. Check any dictionary.
This tired argument is just boring now.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Behind the Aegis
(53,959 posts)I do not need a lesson in fluidity. "Gay" is a prime example of a word which has changed and re-changed over time. However, there is also a false and forced change that some try to do, usually to their own ends. Staying with gay examples, "homophobia" is another word that us "purists" believe is discrimination against gay and lesbian (homosexual) people, but some language champions wish to claim and encourage the belief that the word means "fear of sameness" and therefore are people afraid of "routine" or things seen as routine, such as marriage. Gee, I wonder why they would re-create the definition in such a way.
What is surprising is the level of dishonesty involved in those who continue to try and re-create "anti-Semitism" in an "image of their own creation." Personally, I find it ironic with a smidge of dark humor. The word was created by a notorious Jew hater, because the German word, Judenhass, was too harsh and now, we have those trying to either change the meaning to distract from anti-Semitism or completely remove Jews from the equation ("Jews aren't even Semites." . It is intellectually dishonest.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)especially for one who has studied languages for years.
On one hand you have presented the word "gay" and noted that the definition has changed over time while on the other you suggest that there are dishonest people or movements trying to steal the definition of anti-Semitism away from the Jews: as if the word is forever inviolate.
This makes me wonder if the word itself has become less a word and more of a badge that only some may use to invoke outrage, suffering and *accusation while ignoring the suffering of others: who happen to share a close genetic history.
If anything is intellectually dishonest it is trying to exclude one group or groups with preference for another.
*I'm also not sure why you would bring up that some believe that Jews are not Semites (they are obviously...just like the Irish and Scots are Kelts) unless you are trying to paint me as an anti-Semite. It wasn't in my former replies, and I take offense that you are even trying to link me to such a movement.
Nice distraction, and shame on you for the implication.
Behind the Aegis
(53,959 posts)It is quite apparent you didn't understand what was written. Both "gay" examples were examples of changes in words. I noted you neglected to mention the second example; likely because it fits the variation you are supporting in regards to anti-Semitism. The first example was one over time, the second was a forced, belabored change which still hasn't taken hold. So, it isn't a matter of trying to "steal" the word (homophobia) from gays, per se, but rather an attempt to mock, deride, and diminish gays by re-creating the word "homophobia." This is what some are attempting with anti-Semitism. It is why many are wanting to abandon the word for "Judeophobia." Though, I am certain the same process will be applied to that word as to anti-Semitism, and for the very same reasons; though, the tactics will have to change.
It isn't a "badge." But, it is an important word, especially, in part, because of how it came to be. So your "wonder" should be spent pondering why so many like you keep trying to re-create the word into something it isn't. Why not refer to anti-Palestinian bigotry as just that? Don't like it isn't a "fancy word?" Then, try "anti-Palestinianism." IMO, another reason it is so popular for some to try to change the word is because they further mutilate the word by claiming a member of said group, in this case, Semites, cannot be "anti-" themselves, which is complete nonsense and nothing more than further bastardization and proof positive that the change is to insulate against charges of discrimination against Jews.
So, no, it is not intellectually dishonest to actually use the word as it was intended. It is intellectually dishonest, however, to try to change a definition through shady means, such as claiming "that is not what the word "literally" means" and the like.
The only distractions happening in this exchange all belong to YOU and YOU alone! The first one being your absurd "anti-Semitism applies to Semites" bullshit argument. The second being making accusations that I accused you of something I didn't. It was VERY clear I was stating examples of the arguments presented by some who try to change the word anti-Semitism, and I wasn't even exhaustive in that, but I did provide two, you only noticed one? I wonder why that is?! When you jump to conclusions based on your own inferences, you might just end up with a bad sprain.
Oh, and for shits and giggles, here is someone saying EXACTLY what I said (one of the reasons some try to butcher anti-Semitism):
Joy Behar: But you are not Jewish.
Helen Thomas: **giggle** Well what does that mean?
Behar: Well, no, I am just trying to clarify.
Thomas: They're not Semites. I mean most of them are from Europe.
Behar: The Jews?
Thomas: Yeah.
"Helen Thomas: I am not anti-Semitic. I am a Semite!" ()
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Both "gay" examples were examples of changes in words.
Yes, there are words that have changed over time, and that was my original position and still is.
I didn't neglect to answer the second gay statement since it wasn't necessary. My position is that the definitions for some words change. You made that clear yourself.
"Staying with gay examples, "homophobia" is another word that us "purists" believe is discrimination against gay and lesbian (homosexual) people, but some language champions wish to claim and encourage the belief that the word means "fear of sameness" and therefore are people afraid of "routine" or things seen as routine, such as marriage. Gee, I wonder why they would re-create the definition in such a way."
This is a bigoted comment you say, I have not heard that one used yet, by proponents of the term "homophobia" in order to remove it altogether from what gay has come, in part, to mean.
Conversely, suggesting that anti-Semitism be inclusive of all Semitic peoples who are persecuted is not trying to recreate the word to exclude one group but expand on and strengthen it for all. It is the very exclusion of these other groups of Semitic peoples, by one lone group, which is the most puzzling to me especially since the word as you state it "was created by a notorious Jew hater." This "notorious Jew hater" most likely hated other groups of Semites and anybody that was not of the Aryan race. What is more puzzling is why any group of Semites would want anything to do with a word or definition coined up by a proto Nazi in the first place, but there is also some question as to who first coined the word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism
Although Wilhelm Marr is generally credited with coining the word anti-Semitism (see below), Alex Bein writes that the word was first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider in the phrase "anti-Semitic prejudices".[13] Steinschneider used this phrase to characterize Ernest Renan's ideas about how "Semitic races" were inferior to "Aryan races."
You say "It isn't a "badge" yet the zeal in which you defend it as practically your birthright suggests that it is.
You ask "Why not say anti-Palestinian bigotry?" For that matter it is difficult since many on I/P won't even acknowledge its existence; at least when it involves Israelis.
Then for some reason you move on to this.
another reason it is so popular for some to try to change the word is because they further mutilate the word by claiming a member of said group, in this case, Semites, cannot be "anti-" themselves, which is complete nonsense and nothing more than further bastardization and proof positive that the change is to insulate against charges of discrimination against Jews.
I never mentioned this in any way so why do you try and lump me in with bigots again is beyond me. Perhaps it is easier to label one a hater than it is talking about a subject with them.
What I see is inclusiveness of the definition for all Semites, and yet what I perceive is overt hostility to the use of the word by any other group other than the Jews.
It is NOT intellectually dishonest to ask why a definition is not inclusive of all groups interested regardless of who coined it.
The only distractions happening in this exchange all belong to YOU and YOU alone! The first one being your absurd "anti-Semitism applies to Semites" bullshit argument.
Actually I wrote "Arabs are Semites. How are you going to argue that they are not?"
The second being making accusations that I accused you of something I didn't.
Your words.
What is surprising is the level of dishonesty involved in those who continue to try and re-create "anti-Semitism" in an "image of their own creation."
Also.
So your "wonder" should be spent pondering why so many like you keep trying to re-create the word into something it isn't.
You implied it.
So, ahem, what I actually did write seems to be even more valid now, and you supplied the proof in the pudding.
"It is surprising that some react as if they have been burned by acid with the slightest suggestion that any inclusion of discrimination of other Semites into their lexicon is possible."
Thanks for the clip of Helen Thomas. She gets under everybody's skin. Some hate her.
So instead of responding further this is what you SHOULD have said.
Since the Jewish Diaspora almost two thousand years ago the nation of Israel had wandered in the wilderness: as a nation unto itself. They have been shunned, forced to move from land to land, have been scapegoated for the problems of the world, have been persecuted by the Christian church during the Inquisition and other times, have been persecuted throughout Europe, have been forced to live in ghettos, have been prohibited from owning property, murdered, tortured and vilified in literature: keeping alive the stereotype of hate generation after generation. It was through these stereotypes that the term Anti-Semite was coined by the bigoted German writer Wilhelm Marr during the late 1800s, and possibly in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider. The word has been associated with the wandering tribe essentially in Europe ever since. That being said one could argue that all Semitic peoples should be included in the definition, but the difference is that the term was born out of hatred against one group in particular. There is and was certainly bigotry against much of the inhabitants of the Middle East from within as well as without in Europe and Asia Minor; which can be seen in the colonization of those peoples under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, French and English. These peoples could be identified in the places they lived, the tribes they lived in and their differing cultures. The difference is that the Jews did not. They may have lived in every country in Europe and elsewhere but the country did not define them inasmuch as their religious identity did: still a nation unto themselves.
That is why there is a difference between the term Semitic, which covers many peoples, and Anti-Semitic which has been both an epithet and heavy weight on the Jewish people.
>>> If you were really forward thinking you might even go this far.
That is not to say that the word will always have the same meaning. It may for many years. The world has changed, but in many sad ways bigotry still largely remains. In time the word anti-Semitic may encompass a broader more inclusive definition to regard all bigoted acts against all Semites everywhere. The word may have been coined to describe one people out of many, but in solidarity and regardless of religion we will stand up and be counted as one.
You see, I'm not really in opposition to you on this point inasmuch as I would like you to work harder at explaining your position, and I still wonder why it is so hard to include others in the definition. Perhaps there is too much hate and alienation all around for that to happen. The Jews may always be a nation apart, and it is too bad that they share a commonality in terms of bigotry against them that they deign to refuse and use to their advantage.
Good night.
Behind the Aegis
(53,959 posts)I didn't neglect to answer the second gay statement since it wasn't necessary. My position is that the definitions for some words change. You made that clear yourself.
"Staying with gay examples, "homophobia" is another word that us "purists" believe is discrimination against gay and lesbian (homosexual) people, but some language champions wish to claim and encourage the belief that the word means "fear of sameness" and therefore are people afraid of "routine" or things seen as routine, such as marriage. Gee, I wonder why they would re-create the definition in such a way."
This is a bigoted comment you say, I have not heard that one used yet, by proponents of the term "homophobia" in order to remove it altogether from what gay has come, in part, to mean.
I am glad you agree it is bigoted, at least it appears to be that you agree. Whether you have heard it or not is immaterial. I do not know what your connection is to the GLBT community, but if you are interested, you can surf a variety of sites and see such comments. You can also check out some GLBT sites where they discuss these attacks on our community via words. I will warn you the sites which actually use 'homophobia' in that manner are usually very nasty, bigoted (and not just toward gays), and often very religious (though not always).
You claim it is to strengthen by including all Semites, but I see it as distracting from one group, Jews. Remarks and attacks generally associated with anti-Semitism, such as, "They are more loyal to other countries/Israel." "They control (insert country) or the world's media." "They are clandestine and in all parts of banking, media, and politics." "They are disproportionally wealthy and in positions of power." ALL of these things are used to describe JEWS not any other group of Semites.
Although Wilhelm Marr is generally credited with coining the word anti-Semitism (see below), Alex Bein writes that the word was first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider in the phrase "anti-Semitic prejudices". Steinschneider used this phrase to characterize Ernest Renan's ideas about how "Semitic races" were inferior to "Aryan races."
You say "It isn't a "badge" yet the zeal in which you defend it as practically your birthright suggests that it is.
You ask "Why not say anti-Palestinian bigotry?" For that matter it is difficult since many on I/P won't even acknowledge its existence; at least when it involves Israelis.
The "zeal" is because of the reasons I have already stated, multiple times. I see many trying to appropriate this term for what I believe to be notorious reasons, the biggest of which is to diminish the hate directed against Jews...NOT Semites. I also see this same tired, worn-out, and trite argument almost every time discrimination against Jews is the topic. As for your last response, the difficulty is irrelevant, if it is anti-Palestinian, it just is. The same problem exists in regards to anti-Israel bigotry and I don't let it stop my confronting it for what it is, and not pretending it is something else.
another reason it is so popular for some to try to change the word is because they further mutilate the word by claiming a member of said group, in this case, Semites, cannot be "anti-" themselves, which is complete nonsense and nothing more than further bastardization and proof positive that the change is to insulate against charges of discrimination against Jews.
I never mentioned this in any way so why do you try and lump me in with bigots again is beyond me. Perhaps it is easier to label one a hater than it is talking about a subject with them.
Again, another distraction by you. Guess what? You wanted a discussion about the topic, so that is what I did. Just because I brought up a topic, especially one that describes why I see the situation as a problem does not mean it is all about you. So maybe it is easier to claim you are victim than addressing the situation.
It is NOT intellectually dishonest to ask why a definition is not inclusive of all groups interested regardless of who coined it.
It is intellectually dishonest to use a word for something other than its intended use. I never said it was intellectually dishonest to ask why; so, another distraction. It is important to understand words do change, but it is just as important to understand why a word came to be, especially when it was born the way this word was.
Actually I wrote "Arabs are Semites. How are you going to argue that they are not?"
The implication was that anti-Semitism also applied to Arabs, so don't pretend that wasn't the reason for your 'innocent' question.
Your words.
What is surprising is the level of dishonesty involved in those who continue to try and re-create "anti-Semitism" in an "image of their own creation."
Also.
So your "wonder" should be spent pondering why so many like you keep trying to re-create the word into something it isn't.
You implied it.
So, ahem, what I actually did write seems to be even more valid now, and you supplied the proof in the pudding.
"It is surprising that some react as if they have been burned by acid with the slightest suggestion that any inclusion of discrimination of other Semites into their lexicon is possible."
Ahem...you claimed I called/implied your were an anti-Semite! I was talking about you altering a definition, you know, the TOPIC of the discussion.
*I'm also not sure why you would bring up that some believe that Jews are not Semites (they are obviously...just like the Irish and Scots are Kelts) unless you are trying to paint me as an anti-Semite. It wasn't in my former replies, and I take offense that you are even trying to link me to such a movement.
Nice distraction, and shame on you for the implication.
You falsely accused me after YOU made an inference, not because I said anything.
So instead of responding further this is what you SHOULD have said.
Since the Jewish Diaspora almost two thousand years ago the nation of Israel had wandered in the wilderness: as a nation unto itself. They have been shunned, forced to move from land to land, have been scapegoated for the problems of the world, have been persecuted by the Christian church during the Inquisition and other times, have been persecuted throughout Europe, have been forced to live in ghettos, have been prohibited from owning property, murdered, tortured and vilified in literature: keeping alive the stereotype of hate generation after generation. It was through these stereotypes that the term Anti-Semite was coined by the bigoted German writer Wilhelm Marr during the late 1800s, and possibly in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider. The word has been associated with the wandering tribe essentially in Europe ever since. That being said one could argue that all Semitic peoples should be included in the definition, but the difference is that the term was born out of hatred against one group in particular. There is and was certainly bigotry against much of the inhabitants of the Middle East from within as well as without in Europe and Asia Minor; which can be seen in the colonization of those peoples under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, French and English. These peoples could be identified in the places they lived, the tribes they lived in and their differing cultures. The difference is that the Jews did not. They may have lived in every country in Europe and elsewhere but the country did not define them inasmuch as their religious identity did: still a nation unto themselves.
That is why there is a difference between the term Semitic, which covers many peoples, and Anti-Semitic which has been both an epithet and heavy weight on the Jewish people.
How fascinating! First you try to re-create the definition of anti-Semitism, then you proceed to tell me I am defending it incorrectly. As a Jew, I know what anti-Semitism is. I have been its victim a NUMBER of times, but that is hardly the reason I actually KNOW and UNDERSTAND what it is. I have actually studied it, just as I have homophobia/heterosexism, racism, and other forms of bigotry. It isn't just personal experience, it is academic experience as well.
That is not to say that the word will always have the same meaning. It may for many years. The world has changed, but in many sad ways bigotry still largely remains. In time the word anti-Semitic may encompass a broader more inclusive definition to regard all bigoted acts against all Semites everywhere. The word may have been coined to describe one people out of many, but in solidarity and regardless of religion we will stand up and be counted as one.
Again, I am doing it all wrong.
You know what your previous paragraphs tell me, it tells me you know exactly why the word anti-Semitism is important, especially to Jewish people. It confirms this was all intellectual dishonesty. For shame!
I will no longer play your little games nor engage you in this throughly dishonest exercise.
Arabs are Semites. Anti-Semitism is discrimination or hatred directed at Jews. Saying Palestinians are "towel-heads" is NOT anti-Semitism; it is bigoted, however.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)While you're at it wrap yourself in that old, worn epithet you cling so dearly to, and don't ever give it up for anything.
You will have plenty of company on I/P.
"I will no longer play your little games nor engage you in this thoroughly dishonest exercise."
Thanks. I have it in writing!
Good night.
Behind the Aegis
(53,959 posts)Don't light any matches near something inflammable, though it literally means "not combustible," physics and reality won't tolerate it.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)I guess not.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Huh? I don't know what you're going on about. The reality is that anti-semitic regards Jews, not semites. That's just a fact, I don't have any emotional issues riding on it.
LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)Antisemitism is a term coined by antisemites to mean anti-Jewish (the term was designed to imply opposition to Jews as an ethnic, not just religious, group).
Thus, hatred for other groups is not antisemitic, though it may be bigoted, racist, and generally dangerous.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)an 1860 article, as pointed out in post #224 above, used the term antisemites when writing
"about a book by French linguist and cultural historian Ernest Renan, 'Histoire Général et Système Comparé des Langues Sémitiques'."
Since Palestinians are Semites, you don't seem to offer a rational reason or even disingenuous reason as to why an expressed hatred towards them should not be legitimately called anti-Semitic.
Instead, you seem to seem to think that such animosity "could be Islamophobic."
Are there no Palestinian Christians? Are there no Palestinian atheists? Are you assuming that all the Semites in Palestine are members of the Islam religion?
If not, what do you call the neighbors of the Palestinian Christians who hate them, either because they are Palestinians or because they are Christians who reside in Palestine? What do you call the neighbors of the Palestinian atheists who hate them, either because they are Palestinians or are atheists who reside in Palestine?
LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)but then why not say anti-Arab? Or just plain bigoted or racist for that matter?
The person who popularized the term 'antisemitism' was Wilhelm Marr, a 19th century German scholar who was definitely for it rather than against it. Even if other people had used the term, Marr was certainly the one who started the use of the term in its modern sense.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)squelch free speech otherwise enjoyed by Americans and others so that they will not question, or even raise any questions, about war crimes ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/overview/crimes_1.shtml ) and the treatment of Palestines.
If anyone is popularizing the term, it seems to be them.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)antiArab anti Muslim Islamiphobia the more the merrier
and IMO that's the problem
King_David
(14,851 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)things change and language evolves as does general knowledge which is why more and more people are calling the linguistic acuity of the term antisemitism into question
King_David
(14,851 posts)The term applies to Jews only.
There's no groundswell to change it except for some people with an agenda and it is really a tiresome "argument ".
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Everything changes with time and usage, and the more those who say otherwise, digging in their heels, show their "us only" provincialism: eventually becoming irrelevant.
King_David
(14,851 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 24, 2012, 09:44 PM - Edit history (1)
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)
Hayabusa
(2,135 posts)mzteris
(16,232 posts)Palestinians are Semites, too. All the natives of the region are Semities. As far as the religious Jewish people who moved to Israel, well, while there may be some miniscule portion of "semitic" blood still flowing through their veins, in truth, they are less Semitic than the Palestinians.
Straw man argument. If you and yours were being obliterated and your lands slowly eroding away to NOTHING, you'd do whatever you had to do, too.
FYI - I do not condone violence by anyone.
I am not anti-Jewish. I am not anti-semitic. I am not pro Hamas. I am not pro violence.
I do not confuse the Jewish religion with the Jewish race construct.
I do not confuse the oppressive policies of the Israeli government with either of the other two.
I do not confuse the acts of terrorism as a legitimate means to an end.
There's a huge problem in this area and the blame does not rest any one side. Genocide - on either side - is not the answer. Repressive tactics - on either side - is not the answer. Prejudice, blame, hatred, violence - is NOT the answer.
Stop taking "sides". Peace is the ONLY SIDE you should be on.
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)Can't say I love or condone the behavior of the Israeli government.
Same goes for the Palestinians.
And I consider them both Semites, and I consider myself an ethnic Semite.
Although I am Catholic (a converso) and my family has been Catholic for the last 500 years.
LibAsHell
(180 posts)But I guess since I always mention the problem of Hamas' attacks when talking about Israel's asshole gov't, I'm not an anti-Semite. Phew; was worried there for a second.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)I'll take it a step further ........... does criticism of Israeli gov't actions equal hatred of Israel / its people any more than criticism of any other gov't in the world would? I find these antisemitic references really ugly and low.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)criticism in my view.
If you criticize the Israeli government, PM, IDF or whomever for human rights violations there is a rush to re-write the narrative that Israel bends over backwards: how dare you bla bla bla.
It gets really old really fast, and all the evidence in the world will not convince the screamers that Israel's policies hurt it in the long run.
KimonoGirl
(89 posts)And by "no one" I mean the Pro-Zionist lobby on DU. How can they answer it and not look more foolish?
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)If hating a government's actions meant hating its citizenry then I guess sometimes I'd hate myself for being American - like when Bush lied to invade Iraq, or like when Clinton signed NAFTA. But I don't hate my country or its citizens, but I do hate some of the mistakes that we've made. That's how I see Israel: An imperfect government (as they all are) which makes mistakes (as they all do). But I don't equate Israel's government's errors with Judaism, instead I blame politicians whose religion has either nothing or very little to do with their political decisions and calculations.
It's a lot like how most Americans detest the Iranian government without equating that government's actions with Islam: That Iran is a hostile country doesn't mean it is so because of its majority religion. Instead it simply means its geopolitical aims conflict with ours irrespective of the religion. If anyone thinks Iran is hostile to us because it's an Islamic republic I suggest that person is ignorant of history and facts ... just as I'd suggest the same to anyone who held that Israel's belligerence has anything at all to do with its majority religion.
And by the way, I condemn both sides' violent actions: Israel's and the pro-Palestinian actors as well. It's just as wrong to blow up a bus in Israel as it is to murder Rachel Corrie with a bulldozer, and rocketing innocent civilians inside of Israel's borders is equally abhorrent to forcibly annexing tribal lands and killing those who resist.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)but the fact remains both sides have f*cked up considerably. Neither side is without flaw or mistake. Occasionally, a leader on either side has gone for peace, but some jackass screws it up every time. Too many people have too much to gain from strife, distrust and bloodshed.