Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forum'This Time, Israel Has Defied the Whole World'
December 4, 2012
Europe is furious with Israel for its plan to build 3,000 new settler units to punish the Palestinians, following their elevation to "non-member observer status" in the UN last week. While sanctions appear not to be on the table, German commentators say it is time to get tough with Israeli premier Netanyahu.
One might think that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Wednesday visit to Berlin could provide for some fireworks. He has come under significant criticism from the European Union for Israel's announcement last Friday that it would build 3,000 new settler homes in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. Britain and France denied reports on Monday that they were considering recalling their ambassadors from Israel, though both nations, in addition to Sweden, did vent their anger by summoning the Israeli ambassadors to voice their concerns.
On Tuesday, cooler heads seem to be prevailing. British Foreign Secretary William Hague ruled out the possibility of European sanctions on Israel. "I don't think there is enthusiasm around the European Union … about economic sanctions in Europe on Israel," he said. "I don't believe there would be anywhere near a consensus nor is that our approach." France too has indicated that it would not pursue sanctions.
Furthermore, despite Merkel's own warning on the settlement construction plan -- her spokesman said on Monday that the chancellor was "extremely concerned" -- it seems more likely that the experienced stateswoman would chide Netanyahu in private rather than openly.
remainder: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/german-commentators-blast-israel-for-settlement-building-plan-a-870924.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Sternly worded letters and lectures, but a refusal to do anything about it.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)of some sort but probably not really." 
Mosby
(16,319 posts)I can't think of a worse crime against humanity than building houses.
The zionist state should be dismantled and the leadership imprisoned for life.
TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)is not acceptable. Might does not mean right.
shira
(30,109 posts)...according to the Clinton Parameters of 2001 (Taba).
Arafat regretted turning down that offer later and even called Bill Clinton to tell him he wanted to accept it a couple years later.
History 101.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Arafat is dead and Sharon ain't exactly talking either Bill is not POTUS we're dealing with the now but if you want to go there then why did Israel continue to create facts on the ground after those dates? The settler population of the West Bank has doubled since then and more than tripled since Oslo why if Israelis presumably so interested in peace does it continue to make that peace so difficult?
shira
(30,109 posts)All the noise right now is ridiculous in light of that fact.
I don't see you coming out in support of either of the offers Israel has made in the past 12 years.
At least Arafat admitted he made a mistake.
========
But if you wish to speak of the present and future, how did the UN vote bring the 2 peoples closer to peace? All the PA has done is threaten to take the conflict to a new level.
Congrats "world"!
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)from the sounds of thing Palestinians and the majority of the world as of right now do not agree with that
shira
(30,109 posts)So why all the screaming harpies?
No Israeli PM will concede it. E1 is high ground that overlooks Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley. In no way will Israel allow the PLO, let alone Hamas, to use that as a base for further attacks.
Recall that the Geneva Initiative folks lauded Olmert's Napkin map offer. That map of a future Israel included Maale Adumim. Abbas has admitted repeatedly that Olmert's offer was serious.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and as of last Thursday the world declared differently
shira
(30,109 posts)It's not going to Palestine.
You need a kleenex?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Maybe Netanyahu can declare himself pharoah just to bring things full circle.
At least you're honest about your agenda of Greater Israel and don't pretend to give a f@ck about the two-state solution or Palestinians as human beings.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
Which is an odd position for a Jewish woman to take, much less garner support from Jewish gay people like some of our other regulars.
But so long as it applies to Arabs, and not gays, women, or Jews, I guess they think it's a fine argument to make.
shira
(30,109 posts)....are lying ad-hominem attacks. I explained myself already to you. You never replied to this...
See #63:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113424023#post63
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You very clearly stated that political rights are not civil rights. Here's a link to the post, in case you want to try to squawk that I somehow faked the screencapture;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113420501#post68
If we were having a discussion on the best topping on a pizza and I pulled out your post there to demonstrate why we should not accept your judgement that sauerkraut is the best pizza topping, that would be ad hominem.
However, bringing out the plain fact that you believe that Palestinians should have no political rights, that political rights are separate from civil rights, to back up a poster who is saying you support Apartheid (you know, where one class of people has separate and diminished rights from a preferred class of people) is actually quite topical and relevant to the discussion at hand.
Also relevant is that the post you linked to me clearly demonstrates that you have a hard time keeping your story straight about settlements. 'Cause in that post, you oppose them. In this thread you support them.
It's amazing how mutable your positions are. I'd have to wonder what a full documentation of your posts on DU would look like. I imagine it would be a terribly confusing thing to read, since your positions and opinions seem to radically shift from moment to moment.
shira
(30,109 posts)If you're genuinely confused, ask.
I'm not sure you're genuinely confused. This seems to be some debating tactic of yours.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Maybe you're confused about how on the internet, shit you say sticks around for a while.
To me, your position is crystal clear. In fact I don't even need to read your posts, I can just skip the middleman and go straight to Arutz Sheva, Samsonblinded, Gatestone Institute, or the like to see what your gibberishing points for the day will likely be.
Also, you think we're debating. That's so cute.
I'm all for 2 states.
In 2001 and 2008, fair offers were made to the PA. They were both rejected. Both put Israel in control of Maale Adumim and E1. Arafat later wanted to accept the 2001 deal, but it was too late.
There's no reason Maale Adumim cannot be part of Israel in a future peace deal. Even the Geneva Initiative (which Carter and Chomsky have endorsed) puts Maale Adumim and E1 under Israeli control.
---------
The problem isn't Israel. It's that the Palestinians, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.. won't accept Israel as a Jewish state.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)And spare us the "I favor a Palestinian state, so long as it doesn't resemble anything close to an actual state" line.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)especially on the left and center the right is however another story heck take a look upstairs Israel has even lost Harper on this one
and why on earth would I need a kleenex?
shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)now maybe if you have ruby slippers and click your heels 3 times and wish real real hard.........
shira
(30,109 posts)Netanyahu didn’t invent the E-1 dealbreaker that’s got the world so mad at him; it goes back to Rabin and reflects overwhelming Israeli opinion....
http://972mag.com/israeli-consensus-much-prefers-maaleh-adumim-to-peace/61434/
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)continued settlement (colonization) to peace thanks for highlighting that for us, but Israel is not the world
shira
(30,109 posts)...over E1 territory.
It was called the Geneva Initiative.
It's not Israel's fault that the world is largely oblivious to how important E1 is to Israeli security. Or that they simply don't care about Israeli security... That "world" was mighty silent over the past decade while > 12,000 rockets fell over into Israeli territory. They shouldn't get to dictate terms pertaining to Israeli security.
It's nice to see you admit you believe almost all Israelis are in favor of war and conflict and that they're either delusional or lying about how vital E1 is to their security.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and no matter how you choose to phrase it the end conclusion is the same
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Link it please. I can't wait to read this.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
King_David
(14,851 posts)And "Zionists " etc bro, it consumes you .Us people are driving you crazy.
You gonna burst a blood vessel and blame us for it.
You should see your doctor and get some Ambien ,assuming you can tolerate one of my family.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Neither does the Right, for that matter.
shira
(30,109 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)You said that the Left and Right agree in Israel.
For reasons that I think you'll understand, I won't go into the Left's position.
Yet, Yisrael Beiteinu, a right-wing party, also wants a Palestinian state, albeit for racist reasons, what, with no Arabs around.
So, in Israel, the Left and Right do not agree - yes, they both want to states, but for two different reasons - one, for humanitarian reasons, the latter, for racist ones.
shira
(30,109 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)It doesn't matter what I consider.
"Liberal zionists?" "Extreme fringe?"
Can you define these terms for me?
shira
(30,109 posts)By consensus, I mean the liberal Left included with the rest of Israel.
The anti-zionist Israeli Left is another story (extreme fringe).
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)What an argument.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Pursuant to the Geneva Accord, E1 is to be returned to the Palestinians.
shira
(30,109 posts)...any of the 2 state proposals offered since Camp David.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Edit: phone
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)... which I'll go gladly by, you'll find out that the Palestinians made the concessions. I'll go in detail if you'd like. I'm on my phone and will come back.
shira
(30,109 posts)And not only that, go full-on war via Intifada 2?
He declared war on Israel (Intifada 2) that started while the talks were going on, FFS!
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)I'm going to let some excerpts help me out, only because I went out tonight and had a good time, so I'm a little drunk.
Oh, and spare me the whole character assassination of Norman Finkelstein - no one has been able to dispute his facts based on historical record.
The context:
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I’m going to try to focus on the key points or issues about the refugees in Jerusalem, which for now I can’t get into, but I will be happy to return to them later when we discuss what was the impasse at Oslo — excuse me, the impasse at Camp David and Taba, but I want to set the context, and I don’t think — I agree in part with the context that Dr. Ben-Ami set out, but not fully.
The main context, in my opinion, is as follows. Since the mid-1970s, there’s been an international consensus for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict. Most of your listeners will be familiar with it. It’s called a two-state settlement, and a two-state settlement is pretty straightforward, uncomplicated. Israel has to fully withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza and Jerusalem, in accordance with the fundamental principle of international law, cited three times by Mr. Ben-Ami in the book, his book, that it’s inadmissible to acquire territory by war. The West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem, having been acquired by war, it’s inadmissible for Israel to keep them. They have to be returned. On the Palestinian side and also the side of the neighboring Arab states, they have to recognize Israel’s right to live in peace and security with its neighbors. That was the quid pro quo: recognition of Israel, Palestinian right to self-determination in the West Bank and Gaza with its capital in Jerusalem. That’s the international consensus.
It’s not complicated. It’s also not controversial. You see it voted on every year in the United Nations. The votes typically something like 160 nations on one side, the United States, Israel and Naru, Palau, Tuvalu, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands on the other side. That’s it. Now, the Israeli government was fully aware that this was the international consensus, but they were opposed (a) to a full withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza and Jerusalem, of course, and (2) they were opposed to creating a Palestinian state in the Occupied Territories.
Come 1981, as pressure builds on Israel to reach a diplomatic settlement in the Israel-Palestine conflict, they decide to invade Lebanon in order to crush the P.L.O., because the P.L.O. was on record supporting a two-state settlement. As Dr. Ben-Ami’s colleague, Avner Yaniv, put it in a very excellent book, Dilemmas of Security, he said, "The main problem for Israel was," and now I’m quoting him, "the P.L.O.’s peace offensive. They wanted a two-state settlement. Israel did not." And so Israel decides to crush the P.L.O. in Lebanon. It successfully did so. The P.L.O. goes into exile.
Come 1987, Palestinians in the Occupied Territories despair of any possibility of international intervention, and they enter into a revolt — the Palestinian Intifada — basically nonviolent civilian revolt by the Palestinians. And the revolt proves to be remarkably successful for maybe the first couple of years. Come 1990, Iraq invades Kuwait. The P.L.O. supports, ambiguously, but I think we fairly can say, and I agree with Dr. Ben-Ami on this, they lend support to Iraq. The war ends, Iraq defeated, and all the Gulf states cut off all of their money to the P.L.O. The P.L.O. Is going down the tubes.
Along comes Israel with a clever idea. Mr. Rabin says, ’Let’s throw Arafat a life preserver, but on condition.’ And Dr. Ben-Ami puts it excellently, that "the P.L.O. will be Israel’s subcontractor and collaborator in the Occupied Territories," and I’m quoting Dr. Ben-Ami, "in order to suppress the genuinely democratic tendencies of the Palestinians." Now, it’s true, exactly as Dr. Ben-Ami said, that Israel had two options after the Iraq war. It could have negotiated with the real representatives of the Palestinians who wanted that full two-state settlement in accordance with the international consensus, or it can negotiate with Arafat in the hope that he’s so desperate that he’s going to serve as their collaborator and subcontractor in order to deny the Palestinians what they’re entitled to under international law. The Israelis chose Arafat, not only because Arafat himself was desperate. They chose him because they thought he would deny them what they were entitled to. He would suppress all resistance to the occupation.
With the context set, and I invite you to view or read the whole interview (it's fascinating), I will present this excerpt which answers your "concessions" theory:
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: My concern is let’s look at the diplomatic record, the factual record. What were the offers being made on each side of the Camp David and in the Taba talks? And the standard interpretation, which comes —- which is -— you can call it the Dennis Ross interpretation, which, I think, unfortunately Dr. Ben-Ami echoes, is that Israel made huge concessions at Camp David and Taba; Palestinians refused to make any concessions, because of what Dr. Ben-Ami repeatedly calls Arafat’s unyielding positions; and that Arafat missed a huge opportunity. Now, it is correct to say that if you frame everything in terms of what Israel wanted, it made huge concessions. However, if you frame things in terms of what Israel was legally entitled to under international law, then Israel made precisely and exactly zero concessions. All the concessions were made by the Palestinians.
Briefly, because we don’t have time, there were four key issues at Camp David and at Taba. Number one, settlements. Number two, borders. Number three, Jerusalem. Number four, refugees. Let’s start with settlements. Under international law, there is no dispute, no controversy. Under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it’s illegal for any occupying country to transfer its population to Occupied Territories. All of the settlements, all of the settlements are illegal under international law. No dispute. The World Court in July 2004 ruled that all the settlements are illegal. The Palestinians were willing to concede 50% — 50% of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. That was a monumental concession, going well beyond anything that was demanded of them under international law.
Borders. The principle is clear. I don’t want to get into it now, because I was very glad to see that Dr. Ben-Ami quoted it three times in his book. It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war. Under international law, Israel had to withdraw from all of the West Bank and all of Gaza. As the World Court put it in July 2004, those are, quote, "occupied Palestinian territories." Now, however you want to argue over percentages, there is no question, and I know Dr. Ben-Ami won’t dispute it, the Palestinians were willing to make concessions on the borders. What percentage? There’s differences. But there is no question they were willing to make concessions.
Jerusalem. Jerusalem is an interesting case, because if you read Dr. Ben-Ami or the standard mainstream accounts in the United States, everyone talks about the huge concessions that Barak was willing to make on Jerusalem. But under international law Israel has not one atom of sovereignty over any of Jerusalem. Read the World Court decision. The World Court decision said Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory. Now, the Palestinians were willing, the exact lines I’m not going to get into now – they are complicated, but I’m sure Dr. Ben-Ami will not dispute they were willing to divide Jerusalem roughly in half, the Jewish side to Israel, the Arab side to the Palestinians.
And number four, refugees. On the question of refugees, it’s not a dispute under international law. Remarkably, even fairly conservative human rights organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, in 2000, during the Camp David talks, they issued statements on the question of the right of return. And they stated categorically, under international law every Palestinian, roughly five to six million, has the right to return, not to some little parcels, 1% of Israel, which Israel is about — which Israel would swap, return to their homes or the environs of their homes in Israel. That’s the law. Now, Dr. Ben-Ami will surely agree that the Palestinians were not demanding and never demanded the full return of six million refugees. He gives a figure of 4-800,000. In fact – I’m not going to get into the numbers, because it’s very hard to pin it down — other authors have given figures of the tens of thousands to 200,000 refugees returning. That’s well short of six million.
On every single issue, all the concessions came from the Palestinians. The problem is, everyone, including Dr. Ben-Ami in his book — he begins with what Israel wants and how much of its wants it’s willing to give up. But that’s not the relevant framework. The only relevant framework is under international law what you are entitled to, and when you use that framework it’s a very, very different picture.
Now, I'm sure you and any reader here will understand is that Dr. Ben-Ami, himself the lead negotiator at Camp David, said that he wouldn't have accepted what was offered if he were a Palestinian. This is quite damning. Why? Finkelstein and Ben-Ami are pretty much on the same side, but they quibble a bit, but when it comes down to spades, ultimately, the Palestinians have a very legitimate grievance - and beyond that, they are offering concessions!!!
But, yes, we shall call them "disputed." We can call them "fried chicken (I'm hungry now)" for all I care. I'm interested in the historical record. I'm interested in facts. I'm interested in a peaceful approach to this conflict, not forwarding more propaganda.
Apparently the international community, when not bullied by my government, is interested in the same.
For those who are "pro", "anti" or "anything" in between, please visit:
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/14/fmr_israeli_foreign_minister_shlomo_ben
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Now you're gung-ho for them and are making up this "disputed land" bullshit claim.
Why the change?
Do you even realize there was a change, or is this another "Eurasia has always been at war with Oceania" moment for you?
shira
(30,109 posts)The Palestinians are going to have to be reasonable at the negotiating table in order to get their state.
If they really want peace, they'll come around.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Then, with military control of all the prime strategic land in hand, control of all water and mineral wealth, when Israel's "reasonable offer of a land swap" is rejected in its US brokered "peace negotiation", Israel can can claim the moral high ground.
Yup, sounds familiar. How many years have you been banging out that tune, shira?
shira
(30,109 posts)Or in 2001 or 2008.
They don't just want their own state, now do they?
delrem
(9,688 posts)you make for a terrible, just terrible representative of Israel.
If an enemy of Israel wanted to portray Israel in the worst light possible, your posts could be a model. Is that your intent? Do you like to taunt the indigenous Palestinian population about occupying and systematically annexing their land, driving them out? Because it is that, even more than the annexing of Palestinian land, that you appear to enjoy. Or maybe your taunting is all that is left for you, and that you having else to hide behind?
In any event, posts like yours paint a vivid picture of a reason-defying inhumanity, showing why a worldwide BDS movement has to be ramped NOW.
shira
(30,109 posts)And tell me this, what kind of 2 state proposal would you back? Or are you a 1-stater?
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Disputed is not the recognized term by the international community. They are occupied. We can quibble about the details, but anyone who says otherwise is a reactionary.
shira
(30,109 posts)They do this to portray Jews (they call them Zionists) as thieves.
Both people have legit claims to the land. When you hold to such a position, you are stirring shit and working towards keeping the conflict going.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)And you saying that shows the void in your argument.
I actually would prefer Jews in the Occupied Territories. I would also prefer Arabs there, also. In fact, I would like them both to peacefully coexist.
Calling them "disputed" doesn't promote that.
Did you want to rearrange my argument anymore?
shira
(30,109 posts)...the Zionists (Jews/Israelis) are building on someone else's land.
As if Jews have zero legitimate claims to any part of the West Bank. They do have rights.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)But, I will concede your point, momentarily, because you haven't even entertained mine, that I agree with you, they have every right to the land.
But, that's not what we were arguing, were we?
I believe we were discussing if anyone else has equal rights to the land ... and perhaps, to be free - just as we "Zionists (Jews/Israelis)" as you put it.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Hmmmm. You do that pretty often, too. How weird.
Israel has no claim to a scrap of land within the territories. None. Squat. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. This is because Israel has these things called "borders." Land outside these border is not Israel's. This is a pretty simple notion that has defined the way the world works since World War II, when we did way with the notion that you could expand your turf by killing your neighbors.
If you wan to acquire territory from your neighbors, you go to them and make an offer, and be ready to accept that you're very likely to just be flat-out told "no."
if an individual wants to acquire land outside their nation, well, they need to find a seller, and will have to follow whatever laws apply in the land they want to emigrate to. If they cannot find a seller, they have no right to take that land anyway. if they do not want to follow the laws of the place they are moving to, they have no right to demand their own nation take that land for them.
shira
(30,109 posts)The 1949 armistice lines are not borders. That was made clear way back then.
And Jews do have rights to what was Judea/Samaria for 3000 years. I find the denial here fascinating.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)When "the world" gets far more worked up over building houses than they do WRT what's happening elsewhere around the globe, something's seriously wrong.
Talk about anti-Israel firsters.
Muslims are crucifying (yes, crucifying) other Muslims in Yemen
Shia Muslims are bombing Sunni Muslims to smithereens every day in Iraq
Sunni Muslims are bombing the daylights out of Shia Muslims in Iraq during Eid
Shia Iran is rounding up, imprisoning and executing (by hanging them from cranes – no BDS action to boycott the makers of those cranes, strangely enough) anyone who the regime summarily accuse of being in the drug trade, gay, Christian, Zionist, spy or political dissident, including women
Sunni Turkey has imprisoned more journalists than any other nation on earth, and that includes some nations that are pretty horrific dictatorships, all of which enjoy full voting rights at the UN
Taliban Islamists in Afghanistan are busy killing little schoolgirls to prevent them from attending classes
Pakistani Taliban frequently kill and maim schoolgirls to prevent them from acquiring an education
Other Islamists in Mali are smashing centuries-old Islamic shrines because they belong to a group of Muslims they don’t like
Turkey is continuously hunting down Kurdish Muslims and killing them because the Kurds want an independent Kurdistan
Islamist Saudi Arabia refuses to let women drive cars because, as we all know, that will mean the “end of virginity” in the Royal Kingdom. No, seriously, that’s an official quote
Islamists in Pakistan are in the habit of routinely beheading (watch this only if you have a strong stomach), burning Christians alive and burning girls with acid to “protect family honour”
Islamists in Nigeria routinely kill Christians and burn churches
Church burnings in Egypt are a national sport that barely rate a mention in the news
Muslim Turkey has further strengthened its hold on northern Cyprus, a Christian territory it invaded and occupied four decades ago.
Turkey is the only UN member nation that recognises Turkey’s occupation of northern Cyprus
The Syrian Muslim regime is massacring its Muslim citizens on an industrial scale, played out on our TV screens every single day with a sickening regularity
The latest Egyptian dictator, Islamist Mohammed Morsi, has granted himself sweeping dictatorial powers that exceed even the powers of his secular predecessor Hosni Mubarak. Egypt is once again in flames
Palestinian Arab terrorist groups Fatah and Hamas are battling it out for supremacy at an almost daily cost in Muslim lives
The Islamist regime ruling Gaza, Hamas, has only just concluded its latest round of aggression against its neighbour Israel, deliberately using its own Muslim population as human shields. This is nothing new, they were doing this back in 2009 too – here’s what Human Rights Watch had to say about it back then, which is why Israel is always wary of “agreements” with Hamas
The increasingly extremist Muslim Fatah regime ruling Judea & Samaria, a territory also known as the West Bank following Jordan’s previous illegal occupation and annexation of that territory, is openly admitting that it intends to overrun its neighbouring state Israel
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-a-wonderful-world-this-would-be/
Have you ever really asked yourself: "WHY this "world" obsession with the Jews and Israel"? I know it'll be hard for you to admit - but don't you think it's at least LIKELY that this obsession exists in order to run interference away from all the truly awful shit happening in the world today?
Sorry, but if the "world" is more concerned about houses in Maale Adumim than the above, then the world seriously has its priorities fu**ed up and is deservedly going to hell.
It's shameful.
That post should be an OP.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Good luck with this approach if the Israeli government is ever brought to the Hague.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)you do realize the concept of separate issues don't you? oh and once again this is I/P
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)They're anti-Arab racists. They just happen to be progressives in the US because its convenient. They see no conflict with supporting right-wing fascists regimes abroad.
And no I don't support Hamas or any other oppressive, fundamentalist governments.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The only argument I have would be that I don't think any of them are "progressives." You'll notice that most of them have no comment outside of this one group. I figure that's probably because nothing they have to say on progressive issues would be tolerated among the rest of the community.
shira
(30,109 posts)Progressive Washing?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Reminds me of Ali Abunimah of EI calling J-Street and PeaceNow racist Zionist organizations.
This doesn't leave any room for anti-racist Zionists as they're all racists. Every last one.
Or, it could be that those calling them racist do so because they're the ones who are intolerant. The Stormfront crowd does that constantly WRT Jewish Supremacy, etc.
shira
(30,109 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Red Herring ...
shira
(30,109 posts)"Look over there! Jews are building houses in Jerusalem again. Those warmongers!".
Sudan:
"I know. I'm so appalled. What those horrible people are doing to the Palestinians."
Iran:
"The persecuted Zionist entity has become the persecuters."
Saudi Arabia:
"Apartheid! Apartheid!".
UN Human Rights Commission:
"Time for another Emergency Session. "
Syria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran
"Yes, yes. Good idea! For the benefit of humanity!"
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)... and still make no sense.
So, with your red herring, you wish to post what you just did?
Yikes!
(Oh, I don't make a habit of letting others frame the debate for me ... and I'm not going to let you, either).
shira
(30,109 posts)That the world is far more outraged at houses than the truly awful shit that's happening all around the planet.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Do you participate in any?
This is the I/P thread, so my concentration, if you'll forgive me, is on Israel/Palestine.
I'm a member of "Occupied Underground" and "Socialist Progressives", so if you'd like to discuss other issues, I welcome them!
Hope to see you there!
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)If she did, I doubt we'd ever see her again.
frylock
(34,825 posts)i need to build a shed to store some things.
Mosby
(16,319 posts)Do a little research.
I'll discuss it with you but first a couple questions.
Do you think Jews should be allowed to be citizens of the future state of Palestine?
If they are allowed citizenship should they have to follow dhimmi law?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)especially the one about dhimmi law why would that be considering that a fair number of Palestinians are Christians?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)state for all of their services (including any law enforcement functions) and subject themselves to the jurisdiction of Palestinian courts and executive officials, without exception.
Oh, and no more IDF to provide security.
Mosby
(16,319 posts)All of the two state configurations bring the large majority of Jewish settlers into Israel. The ones that are left like in the Jordan Valley could provide many kinds of tax revenue including sales tax, property tax, income tax and payroll tax.
Unfortunately though the Palestinian leadership would prefer that Palestine is free of Jews and will demand during negotiations that all Jews are ethnically cleansed from their country.
PLO official: Palestine should be free of Jews
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4122473,00.html
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The second they are ordered to disarm by Palestinian police . . .
Mosby
(16,319 posts)Lots of guns in the hands of Palestinians right now, why would settlers having guns be a problem?
Are the 300,000,000+ guns in the hands of US citizens stopping the American cops from doing their jobs?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Oh, but it's not happening to you. oh.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Curiously, it was even worse before there was such a country.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)But that was one of your weaker ones.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I do, however, think it is foolish to completely divorce the Jewish character of Israel from any attempt to understand the situation.
Those who argue that all criticism of Israel is antisemitic are ridiculous and that assertion is indeed insulting.
However, those who argue that antisemitism does not play some role for some people in their approach to their view of Israel is similarly ridiculous and insulting.
Especially if you look at some of the iconography used in terms of, for instance, cartoons that incorporate classic Jewish stereotypical tropes and apply them to Israel.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Yet, nothing is absolute.
I don't think that because there are antisemites who hold my positions nullifies mine.
They can like ice cream. I happen to like ice cream. I'm still not an antisemite. Though, I don't think it's possible for me to be one.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)There is a sense of unfairness with relation to the amount of focus, attention, and condemnation that Israel receives internationally, especially in comparison to other states whose behavior ought to be even more condemnable.
This is especially true when you look at international organizations such as the UNHRC, which has at various times had members who were clearly in grave violation of many basic human rights in their own countries passing judgement and drawing focus towards Israel.
With Israel being the only state that defines itself as Jewish in character, one cannot help but at least make note of the possibility that there may be some relationship between this perceived disproportionate focus and that Jewish character.
This is especially something that one who has an awareness of the historical discrimination (to put it mildly) that Jewish people have dealt with over the years in many parts of the world might be justified in mentioning.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Personally, I don't have much use for many of the international bodies precisely because of the reasons you cite.
However, it also doesn't automatically put up force field for Israel. Now, we can discuss, and I'd be happy to, and plus I could use the education, other conflicts and abuses.
This is, however, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict forum, so, as much it is exclusive of other abuses (which to me is kind of bullshit that we can discuss beyond these parameters), we are only to discuss this one.
And to me, having grown up with parents glued to the TV about this, I've studied a lot about what I was arguing about. I have come to one conclusion.
Israel holds the power. She can end this conflict immediately. It's within her power to stop the settlements, to stop being belligerent to her captives, and to let them have their own state. If conflict resumes, we can then revisit this as a conflict between two states.
And yes, I'm well aware of the "historical discrimination that the Jewish people have dealt with" having two Great Grand Parents parish during the Shoah.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 8, 2012, 03:50 AM - Edit history (1)
Your very base belief is simply wrong, you belittle the Palestinians and their abilities...
The obvious example of how wrong your belief is, is in gaza. Settlements destroyed, agreements made, EU involved and the rockets and attacks coming out of gaza only intensified, worse, hamas took over. Gaza was supposed to start on the path to being "club med" one step at a time....it didn't even get one step in that direction, thanks to internal PA politics, a choice solely made by the Palestenians of gaza. They could have ended the gaza part of the of the conflict or not, they chose not. Israel had no 'say" in the matter, it did give them, however a real choice. And that is the best Israel can do, offer options and choices.
In fact the Palestinians themselves do not control "their side of the conflict" Even now they have two govts, at odds with each other and only a hair breath away from their own "arab spring" in the west bank.
Hence israel may be the stronger party, but it does not control the conflict as you wrote.
as far a two state war that you seem to be so casual about......
Do you have any idea of the carnage that would be involved if the conflict resumed at that level? Not to mention the potential for a larger conflict with iran and egypt, now that egypt is in full control of the Muslim Brotherhood?
Raksha
(7,167 posts)Have you seen the size of the anti-Morsi demonstrations in Tahrir Square and elsewhere this past week? I haven't followed this too closely, but I believe Alexandria just declared its independence from Egypt. Most people say that's a "symbolic" gesture, but it doesn't exactly add to "full control."
pelsar
(12,283 posts)guess i wasnt up to date....which to a certain degree further makes my point. arab dictators in the particular period are highly vulnerable to being over thrown with the end results both long term and short term being totally unknown (if anybody can read the future they are welcome to explain to me how they know what will be and what stocks should i invest in....)
both hamas and abbas in the westbank are now dictatorships with no elections in sight....i.e. very vunerable and in their short histories none of them control the armed subgroups (as per their claims) that attack israel an have plans to take over their govts given the opportunity....
hence the conclusion that Israel does not have full control over the conflict still stands, only it can get worse, if neither hamas nor abbas can hang on....which is debatable
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Yet you place 100% of the onus of ending it on them.
Yes, stronger parties in conflicts are famed for their utter and complete lack of ability to control the situation.
I don't think you understand this conflict beyond "ARAB BAD!" Pelsar.
For instance, here's what the Israeli government had to say about the Disengatement Plan from Gaza;
“The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process,” said Sharon’s closest adviser, Dov Weissblas. “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. Disengagement supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians”
http://mondediplo.com/2006/02/03sharon
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 8, 2012, 08:13 AM - Edit history (1)
nothing is black and white, nothing is 100% on one side or the other. If you believe this, then you have little understanding of the conflict, the people involved or the dynamics involved.
lesson no 2:
if you claim someone in a discussion of the conflict believes that one side has 100% of all the cards and power, then:
either that person has no understanding or (in this case) the one (you) who is making that claim either
1)has no understanding of the arguments being made,
2)cannot understand the arguments being made, or
3)does not want to understand the arguments being made
100% of anything does not exist in this conflict
lesson no 3
it doesnt make a difference what any particular politician/govt official may say or believe, they do not have control over any particular situation.... the dynamics on the ground make their own reality with a different set of people influencing the process, especially years after the initial change.
comment no 1
you seem to believe that if one disagrees with one of your "holy writs" that person must be racist....granted its not a surprise given the intolerance of this place, but your really just wasting bandwidth with the silly accusations, but if it makes you feel better you can call me a arab -baiting racist jew (israeli) who believes in the supremacy of the jewish race, and has rights beyond all non jews who ae genetically inferior and this especially includes "our cousins" the arabs, all of them and muslim too, even if they arent arabs. (and some native indians as well, specifically the blackfoots)
feel free.