Abbas wants 'not a single Israeli' in future Palestinian state

[oberliner]

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas laid out his vision on Monday for the final status of Israeli-Palestinian relations ahead of peace talks due to resume in Washington for the first time in nearly three years.

Abbas said that no Israeli settlers or border forces could remain in a future Palestinian state and that Palestinians deem illegal all Jewish settlement building within the land occupied in the 1967 Middle East war.

The forceful statements appeared to challenge mediator U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's hopes that the terms of the talks, scheduled to begin Monday night over dinner, be kept secret.

"In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli - civilian or soldier - on our lands," Abbas said in a briefing to mostly Egyptian journalists.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/30/us-palestinians-israel-abbas-idUSBRE96T00920130730

[COLGATE4]

1. Well, that certainly looks promising... nt

[azurnoir]

2. How shocking

at the end of negotiations if and when a Palestinian state is formed Abbas wants the occupation army and the colonists it protects wait for it - gone, shocking why we thought a 2 state solution meant the Israeli colonists (settlers) and Israeli occupation forces would remain comfortably right where they are-as if nothing had changed

thanks for broadcasting this shocking news flash

[oberliner]

3. Why can't Israelis stay if they are willing to live under Palestinian law?

For many of them, it is the only home they have ever known. It's not a baby's fault that his or her parents moved to a settlement.

If an Israeli was born in, say, Gush Etzion, and had lived there all their lives and were perfectly willing to live under Palestinian law once a peace agreement is reached - why must they be forced to leave?

[azurnoir]

4. a couple of questions

a would Abbas be allowed the security apparatus to guarantee their saftey?

b would Israel be willing to allow it's citizens to remain in what is obviously considered hostile territory without IDF protections?

also a reminder as to whom is instituting such a practice right now



once again it's just peachy keen when Israel does it, but not so much when an Arab does or says it at lerast for some apparently

[oberliner]

8. Answers

A peace treaty - two states side by side with one another. If they stay in the Palestinian state, they are Palestinian citizens (or maybe Israeli citizens of Palestine). Signs like the one in the picture would thankfully be no longer relevant.

Glad you are coming around!

[azurnoir]

10. what 'peace treaty' there is none yet

and are you saying that Israel will give up the major settlement blocks? If not exactly what 'settlements' are we speaking of here? The outposts, the one where the M-16 brandishing settlers regularly harass the Palestinians? Or maybe the kindly settlers of Hebron, those folks?

I guess we're supposed to out raged however considering the past circumstances if and when a 2 state deal is reached it seems reasonable for the safety and security of everyone involved that no ISRAELI settlers remain in Palestine

[oberliner]

12. The one Abbas is talking about?

Obviously, he is talking about a situation after there is a peace agreement establishing an independent Palestinian state.

I'm not outraged about anything other than your bizarre over-generalization of the settlers. The settlement I named above, for instance, is nothing like what you describe.

Interesting, though, that you mention Hebron, considering its history with respect to the past Jewish population there.

In any case, there had been statements in the past that Israelis could live in a future Palestinian state assuming they live under Palestinian laws, so I was surprised to read this statement to the contrary.

Hopefully there actually will be a peace agreement in the not-so-distant future so that these will be more than hypothetical speculations.

[azurnoir]

14. Oh so only Abbas is talking about peace® and that is what we call negotiating?

however let's review here I asked if Netanyahu/the citizens of Israel were willing to give up the settlement blocks? If they are not willing just what settlers are we left with? Mainly the outposts and Hebron

[oberliner]

17. The OP is based on a quote from Abbas

I thought that was what we were talking about.

Jews have lived in Hebron for a very long time. Should they not be allowed to live there anymore? Or maybe only non-Israeli Jews should be allowed to? Do you see how this becomes problematic?

[shira]

18. Not just Hebron. No Jews allowed to live in Palestinian Jerusalem either....

...just like Jordan and Saudi Arabia's anti- "Israeli settler" laws.

[oberliner]

25. Palestinian Jerusalem

Al Quds, you mean? Or is that the whole thing?

[azurnoir]

30. so you believe the Israeli settlers in Hebron should remain?

would that be with or without their IDF guards?

[shira]

39. What if they wish to remain as Palestinian citizens? You against that? n/t

[Israeli]

34. good lord oberliner....

what planet are you living on ?

the Hevron settlers are the worst of the worst .... how long do you think they would survive without IDF protection ?

I would give them 48 hours at best .

[shira]

38. You don't trust the Palestinians to protect Jews in a future Palestine. Why? n/t

[Israeli]

41. because I'm a realist shira ...

and why the hell should they .... after everything that hotbed of Kahanist extremists has done both to the Palestinians and to us .... nobody is going to cry over their demise shira .
Least of all me .

So I think Abbas is doing you a favor ... get out now while the going is good .

[shira]

42. You expect them to do to the Jews what they did in the Ramallah lynching?

And all the Jews in Hebron, even the kids, would get what's coming and no one should cry for them?

How about Jews beyond the green line who are not in Hebron and aren't crazies and they want to live peacefully with the Arabs? Palestine will butcher them too in your opinion?

[Israeli]

44. its a possibility ..

which is why Abbas is doing you a favor .

They have a choise shira ...which is more than Baruch Goldstein or Yigal Amir gave us .

I will cry for them as much as they cried for Rabin .

[oberliner]

43. All of them?

The children too?

There are quite a few children.

[Israeli]

45. sure oberliner....

they are all going to return within the borders of Israel proper and leave their children behind

[oberliner]

48. I very much doubt it

I don't think they are going to leave their children behind, and I don't think the Palestinians would kill the adults or the children.

I think it is bizarre that you are assuming they would. Is that not what you were suggesting?

[Israeli]

53. I think its bizarre that you think ....

that they would survive more than 48 hours without the IDF oberliner.

These are the most hated settlers of them all , Hevron is a Kach stronghold .

Its a hellhole .

Abbas knows exactly what would happen should they be left unprotected .
I would stop worrying if I were you ... its not going to happen anyhow .
These peace talks are a sham and will come to nothing .

[oberliner]

56. That is sad

I don't believe Palestinians would kill entire Israeli families, even the Hebron ones, without being "protected" by the IDF.

[azurnoir]

47. In addition to what another poster has said

and this being the second time you've taken the "but what about the children" route, it is unfortunate indeed that that the parents of these children have chosen to put their families in land that does not belong to their country, to move them into an illegal settlement project as what could be called human shields for Israels military occupation of Palestine, to raise them in an atmosphere like this, wouldn't it be healthier for these kids to be raised in Israel?

[oberliner]

49. My point is that the Palestinians won't kill them

They certainly would not kill Israeli children from Hebron, and, furthermore, they would not kill the adults either.

[Shaktimaan]

54. Really?

Why not? Israeli children have often been killed by Palestinian extremists. Why would they not be in this instance?

[oberliner]

57. That is very rare

And those responsible have been arrested for their crimes. I think, especially in the context of a peace agreement and the establishment of a Palestinian state, people's better selves will emerge.

[delrem]

59. That's up in the air.

Every culture has its outliers.
The core problem that the vid's that azurnoir has posted portrays is the role of the IDF in mainstreaming what would, in any sane society, be extremist outlier actions.

This suggests that insanely racist outliers are in control.

The picture presented sure as shit isn't one of "integration", or even "multi-culturalism".
And it isn't just a picture, it's fact on the ground.

"Peace talks" that don't honestly address the asymmetry of military occupation on one side, total military dominance on the other, are kabuki theater. Esp. so when on the occupied side you have... wait for it... Mahmoud Abbas.

[oberliner]

60. Agree and disagree

Agree about the nastiest of the settlers and their behavior; however you are unfairly dismissing the peace talks and Abbas.

[Ken Burch]

73. If they stay, they SHOULD relinquish Israeli citizenship.

No harm in expecting that. Wanting to keep that citizenship and live IN Palestine is about wanting to preserve the settlements, and the only reason Ariel Sharon invented the settlement movement in 1973 was to prevent a Palestinian state from being created by using the settlements for annexation-in-all-but-name.

[oberliner]

76. Agreed

Last edited Mon Aug 5, 2013, 11:10 PM - Edit history (1)

But they still may think of themselves as culturally Israeli, as Palestinian citizens of Israel may think of themselves as culturally Palestinian.

[Ken Burch]

80. And no one would stop them doing that.

Also, it's not fair to spend too much time parsing quotes from Palestinian leaders at this stage in the process. The end result is what matters.

[oberliner]

88. Agreed again

Glad to see we have so much common ground.

[Israeli]

84. Arik did not invent the settlement movement Ken ....

.... that honor goes to Gush Emunim.

See :
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/is/summary/v010/10.3newman.html
and
http://israel_history.enacademic.com/363/Gush_Emunim

He supported them for his own reasons mainly based on security but that was well after they were established .

[Ken Burch]

91. I respectfully stand corrected on the point.

Thanks for the links.

[sabbat hunter]

9. wouldn't they then be

Palestinian citizens not Israelis?

[oberliner]

27. Israeli by heritage, Palestinian by citizenship perhaps

Like those Israeli citizens who refer to themselves as Palestinian citizens of Israel.

[delrem]

28. w.t.f. "heritage" goes back to 1947, but whose actual

"heritage" goes back to signing onto some "settlement project" deal with the Israeli gov't, then moving into areas cleansed by the IDF.

[oberliner]

31. That's nearly 70 years

I consider myself American by heritage and that's about as far back as my lineage goes in this country.

[delrem]

33. So, your family lineage in the US

mirrors that of an Israeli settler's lineage in the West Bank, and you consider your right to live where you do as being equivalent to that of an Israeli settler. Some of whose "lineage" in the settlements goes back 2 yrs, 5 yrs,.... You consider your situation equivalent to that of an occupier.

I'm just curious how far you want to import Israeli morality, to the USA.

[oberliner]

36. Uh, no

The question was with respect to Israelis who elect to stay in a newly established Palestinian state under Palestinian laws, presuming they are permitted to do so.

I was saying they might call themselves Israeli citizens of Palestine, since their Israeli-ness might still be important to how they self-identify.

[delrem]

50. Yes, I wasn't thinking. Being too reactive.

After all, you understand and support Palestinian RoR, so you're consistent and fair.

[oberliner]

51. Thank you

I appreciate that.

[delrem]

52. You earned it.

I'll admit that I've got all of hasbara on "ignore" so lots of threads don't exist or are bluntly truncated. Each "ignore" instance came after a decision that there was no hope of communication, and that to *not* put the bot on ignore would be a net loss. But I've never thought of ignoring you, pissed off as I might sometimes be.

Israel is one of the front-line modern states, not just technologically. If I were an Israeli by birth I wouldn't dream of giving up my birthright. If I were an Israeli by Aliyah I would not, I tell you plain I would not, voluntarily be a "settler". Supposing that I were an Israeli by Aliyah and had been zugzwanged into being a "settler", after following all the enticements offered and not understanding at the time what Israel's settlement movement is designed to do: then for certain I would very quickly learn the truth. I think, or rather I wish, I would be among those settlers who denounce Bennett and fight back against that kind of racist fascism.

[oberliner]

55. I'm not a fan of ignore

In fact, I don't think I've ever used it. My favorite thing about this forum is getting to engage in conversation and debate with folks like you - people I disagree with on many issues, who can challenge me and call me out without being rude about it. I endeavor to try to do the same myself. Maybe we'll never be able to convince one another of anything, but, speaking for myself at least, there is a chance for learning where some perspectives are coming from.

With respect to the settlers, I think that they are a very mixed bag. There are some (probably the majority) who are extremely religious and believe that where they are living is as much a part of Israel as anywhere (in fact, in some cases, moreso). They see it as a religious duty to live there, have as many children as possible, and harass Palestinians, whom they believe should move to Jordan or some such.

There are also some, however, who are living there for economic reasons, who respect the Palestinian people, get along with them relatively will and would be comfortable with a peace agreement being reached. In the case of such an agreement, some would re-locate, but I can see others wanting to stay and live in the newly created Palestinian state. And I can see them eventually being integrated into that society (with some difficulty).

The first group would probably have to be removed kicking and screaming by the IDF (as was done when all the Gaza settlements were evacuated) and would fight tooth and nail against any kind of two-state solution. The second group, though, could help to pave the way towards peaceful co-existence between two peoples and two states.

Maybe I am overly optimistic (probably so), but there ought to be some hope at least.

[delrem]

58. Ignore is a last resort.

It says nothing about anybody except me.

The factor that forced me to use ignore was that I have difficulty controlling my responses when repeatedly provoked.

For example I recently was called out on an issue regarding Israeli law, was told that I'm an ignorant newb, even though I knew I was correct. But how to respond? Fool that I was, I did many hours work researching the issue, reading article after article including those detailing solid info like supreme court decisions and so on, then collating all that and setting it down as a justification. Only to be blown off by the original critics and hit by of a bunch of hasbarists/dittoheads/whatever-you-call-them, who hit me with canned memes that quite simply didn't make sense. That had no connection to the topic. I would reply, *and by doing that* I would be caught in a trap that leads further and further from the point, which leads closer and closer to hysteria.

Another time I was discussing Benny Morris's conviction that Ben-Gurion's "cleansing" of lands he was claiming for Israel didn't go far enough, and *that* was the cause of today's problems. The discussion that ensued was painful and something I wasn't prepared for. Something I'll *never* be prepared for. So, that was my first use of "ignore".

I can read the whole of I/P, all input from everyone, until I'm logged in. Having to take that extra step, to log in before sending off a reply, saves my butt.

[oberliner]

61. I hear ya

I often do a lot of research and put a lot of efforts into posts only to have them quickly dismissed or ignored. Sometimes I wonder if it's worth it.

[shaayecanaan]

32. many of them are russians

Who have never lived in Israel proper in their lives.

[oberliner]

46. Yes, indeed

About 20 percent, I think.

[delrem]

26. I'd treat them very cautiously.

I'd not presuppose their motivations.
These are settlers who used the military to force their way in, who have done fuck all to try to "integrate" with existing cultures, and who rely on the IDF 100% for their continuing theft.

Suppose they were just foreigners, adventurists who struck out into unknown territories having great promise, a bit like the american draft dodgers who inundated Canada in times not so long ago. As a Canadian I thought these new people were terrific. There's hardly anything I can say to voice my appreciation for their contribution to Canada.

Hmmm. Maybe the difference is that these american interlopers, with all their weird ideas, their boundless enthusiasm and -- it would be totally wrong not to put this first -- their friendliness, were motivated to escape a military run amok.

eta: a critical "not"

[shira]

40. You mean settler thieves like this guy?

Menachem Froman, Rabbi Seeking Peace, Dies at 68
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/world/middleeast/menachem-froman-rabbi-who-sought-mideast-peace-dies-at-68.html?_r=0

Just an FYI to complicate and muddy the waters.

Not all is black/white, settlers = evil thieves....

[aranthus]

135. I can think of several reasons.

1. They would always be a reminder of what was imposed on the Palestinians, of Palestinian defeat, and of Israeli attempts to dominate the Palestinians. That would be a constant irritant that the new state just does not need.

2. If there was any kind of trouble they would spark the fear that the Israeli army would return.

3. They would always be considered a fifth column.

4. Many of them have shown themselves to be bad neighbors.

5. They are a different nation who should be in their own state (Israel) and let the Palestinians have their state.

[oberliner]

136. The bottom 3

Those are what RW Israelis say about Palestinians citizens of Israel.

[aranthus]

137. Perhaps.

But it's much more true about the settlers.

[oberliner]

139. What if they had to sign a loyalty oath?

If any Israelis wish to remain in the new Palestinian state, they must sign an oath expressing their loyalty to said state. Might that alleviate some of the concerns?

[aranthus]

191. I don't think that would suffice.

Let's say they signed such an oath. Would the Palestinian Arabs believe it and accept them as legitimate Palestinians instead of the imposition of the conqueror? I doubt it. Could the Palestinian Arabs be trusted to protect the security of the now Jewish Palestinians? Maybe, maybe not. Palestinian society is one of the most anti-Semitic on the planet. Add to that the natural distrust they have of the settlers, and the prospects don't look that good. Would the now Jewish Palestinians trust the Arabs to protect them? No. The Jews would retain their weapons and probably add to them increasing the instability. However you slice it, the point of the settlement movement was to extend Jewish domination over Judea and Samaria, and the continued presence of the settlers after a peace agreement is going to be seen as confirming that intent. There needs to be a full separation.

[shira]

217. The fact that Jews won't be protected, much less allowed to live there.....

...goes to show peace isn't on the horizon anytime soon.

What's happening now shouldn't be described as "peace" talks. Peace simply is not happening. Bibi knows the Palestinians will never make genuine peace, so he's going through the motions. It would be nice to see him speak publicly about some gradual, realistic disengagement plan b/c that's all that can actually be expected at this time. Disengagement. Separation. No end of conflict. The Truth. If the Palestinians ever want to make peace and resolve the conflict, they know where to go.

[aranthus]

232. Yes and no.

Yes, peace isn't likely to happen anytime soon, simply because the Palestinians aren't interested in making peace with a Jewish state. However, assuming they were, I still don't think that the settlers would be wanted, simply because their presence is the fruit of the 1967 conquest. So when, if ever, the Palestinians get around to making real peace, the settlers will still have to go.

[shira]

233. If the Palestinians were interested in making peace with the Jewish state....

....then they wouldn't have a problem protecting Jews who'd wish to live on their ancestral lands. Israel doesn't have a problem with Arabs living there, so neither should a genuinely peaceful Palestine.

[bravenak]

5. [phone]

[shira]

6. So you agree with Abbas, no Jews in a future Palestine? n/t

[bravenak]

19. They would be Palestinians.

[bravenak]

20. He said Israelis .

I am an atheist.

[shira]

21. Stop playing games and prevaricating....

His US envoy was very clear about it, without the Israeli/Zionist/Settler euphemisms...
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=53&x_article=2120

When Abbas refers to Jews in Israel, he says Jews or Israelis. When speaking about Palestinians, it's either Palestinians or Arabs. I'm certain you'd have a problem with an Israeli leader calling for not a single Palestinian in Israel. Besides, Abbas has never offered to extend Palestinian citizenship to Jews in a future Palestine.

I can't understand why anyone leftwing and progressive would support such a future racist, authoritarian, apartheid Palestine based on sharia law vs. women, gays, christians, and jews.

[bravenak]

22. Stop playing games ?

Ok. Ill leave that to you.
You are a treasure.

[shira]

23. Look it up... It's illegal for Palestinians to sell land to Jews...

Last edited Wed Jul 31, 2013, 02:38 PM - Edit history (1)

They risk the death penalty when they do so...
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/PA-affirms-death-penalty-for-land-sales-to-Israelis

It's about Jews.

Maybe you should read about Palestinian racism against Africans, err blacks. Maybe this will make you think about the future Palestine you support....
http://souciant.com/2011/10/black-and-palestinian/

Here's a video about it going on within the Palestinian community in Israel...

&feature=related


It's part of a bigger problem throughout the Arab world.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/opinion/10iht-edeltahawy.1.18556273.html?_r=0

But I know, you only see scattered cases within Israel and think that defines the Jewish state. I know, I know...

[azurnoir]

29. okay shira want to tell us againm about how your all for a 2 state solution?

and how much you care about Palestinians

[shira]

37. We should all be for a healthier, more progressive Palestine

I'm for a more westernized, liberal Palestine than I am a Hamastine or Fatahland.

Why aren't you?

Oh yes, you fear that criticizing them now, before a state, delegitimizes the whole notion. So therefore you support a regressive Palestine and you will always cover for them. That's the Palestinian 'cause' in a nutshell. You support their tyrannical leadership, not the moderate Palestinians (gays, women, christians, blacks) who Hamas/Fatah oppresses. The goal is Palestine, even at the expense of Israel.

Where am I wrong?

===========

This is incidentally how I know that when you guys all say you're for the BDS fairy-tale version of 1 secular progressive democracy, you're all full of shit. I expect you guys to start working YESTERDAY for such a society, not whitewashing Fatah and Hamas' vile actions.

[azurnoir]

63. so your saying an occupied Palestine is better than an independent Palestine?

because yes military occupation is always the road to liberalism?

[shira]

68. Occupation beats Hamastan but doesn't beat a more progressive democracy.

Hamastan (Gaza) is occupied by forces far more ruthless than the IDF.

You should know that.

[azurnoir]

70. but we aren't talking about Gaza though are we? n/t

[Ken Burch]

147. Occupation didn't stop Gaza from becoming "Hamastan"

Hamas had control of the place anyway and there was never any possibility that the IDF was going to drive them out. And you know it.
Hamas was pretty much able to do everything it did after the IDF left while the IDF was still there. The Gaza Occupation didn't prevent the suicide bombers, and if it couldn't even do that(best efforts of the troops notwithstanding)what else COULD it achieve there?

And it isn't a question of "Occupation beats Hamastan" in the West Bank because the West Bank isn't likely to ever become Hamastan anyway-Hamas has no popular base of support there and isn't likely to get one now.

All the Occupation has achieved in the West Bank is to keep the settlements in place and to prevent anything at all from ever getting better for the Palestinian people. What good did it do, for example, for the IDF to steal ancient Palestinian olive groves and give them to the settlers? What good did it do for the Occupation to shoot Tom Hurndall in the head just because he tried to protect some harmless, innocent totally unarmed(including totally unrocked) Palestinian children from being shot for innocently running through the wrong strip of land. What good did it do for the IDF to destroy SOLAR PANELS, probably the most harmless things anybody could build anywhere just because the NGO that built them decided to not keep waiting for the Occupation authorities to approve their construction(construction the Occupation authorities had no justiification whatsoever to delay, since solar panels can't be weaponized and could never have harmed anyone in any way whatsoever)as those authorities had delayed doing, for no good reason at all, for months and months?

Nothing that immiserates one people can truly make the people next to them secure. When you collectively immiserate a people, you fuel their anger and desperation, you increase the sense they have nothing to hope for from even trying to be reasonable, you build their determination to change their situation by any means necessary, and you give those advocating violence an audience they wouldn't otherwise have. I respect the soldiers for their physical bravery(as I respect the people of Palestine for simply getting up each day and trying to get through their lives on any sort of normal terms, when the situation they are in has been designed by their occupiers to drive them either to emigration, extremism or suicide) but this simply doesn't work. And it is already that it will NEVER have the effect the occupiers want it to have...that is, the effect of driving them to revolt against the current Palestinian leadership. It can ONLY have the effect of increasing their anger towards Israel. If that is all the Occupation has done in the past, that's all it can do now. Refusing to see that, shira, means living out the definition of insanity "doing the same thing over and over again, while continuing to expect a DIFFERENT result".

Yes, it looks like a show of strength to have Israeli soldiers perpetually patrolling the West Bank, but, in doing nothing but building Palsetinian rage, what looks like strength is actually a display, on the part of Israel's political leaders, of suicidal recklessness with the lives and futures of the people they supposedly lead. And all it's going to do is lead to more and more misery without every changing or ending anything.

The answer is real negotiations, negotiations carried out AFTER all the immiserating measures against Palestinians are ended, carried out while the people of the West Bank are given a real chance, in the here and now, of making their material and political futures better. This isn't disarmament, because the status quo isn't security or "strength". It's simply stubbornness for stubborness' sake.
Not only do the people of Palestine deserve better, the people of Israel deserve better. Both have been failed equally by their leaderships. And neither can be made to change their leaderships by having their lives made worse.

[shira]

24. Abbas wants every last Jew gone. When India and Pakistan separated, millions of Muslims....

....and Hindus moved in order to either live in India or Pakistan. But neither country is 100% ethnically cleansed. Pakistan has over 2M Hindus while India is home to >13% Muslims. Israel has close to 20% Palestinian population. But here you are supporting a Jew-free Palestine with no Jews in either Palestinian owned Hebron or Jerusalem...where Jews have lived for thousands of years.

I don't get how anyone claiming to be a progressive can support such a racist, apartheid, authoritarian future Palestine that officially discriminates against women, gays, blacks, christians, and jews.

[azurnoir]

222. False equivalency the situation between India/Pakistan is not the same as Israel/Palestine

now if you to discuss the British empire/India you might be more on track

[shira]

224. There's no false equivalency. That was a religious war every bit as much....

...as the I/P conflict. The dwindling population of christians in Gaza and the WB (while their population increases in Israel) is also proof of Islamist oppression vs. religious minorities.

[azurnoir]

225. very false equivelency shira as neither Hindu's or Muslims were colonial occupiers

as Israel's are in Palestine, but your centering on Islam is quite revealing indeed

[shira]

226. The conflict began prior to 1948 when the indigenous Jews weren't being called.....

...colonial occupiers yet. The anti-Israel brigade didn't have their shit together yet. At that time, they were cheering on Hitler's SS troops.

[azurnoir]

227. still you are using what happened in India as comparison of Israel/Palestine today

doesn't matter when the situation in India happened it still is a false equivalency

[shira]

228. You're pretending the conflict began in 1967. Tsk, tsk....

You probably think Israel within the green line is an illegitimate, colonial state.

[azurnoir]

229. I'm pretty sure we're dealing with right now today :)

eta usually I let your accusations go, but this time you've topped yourself for just plain silliness

[shira]

230. You're pretending the Arabs were fighting colonialism, occupation, settlements....

....and oppression by the mean Jews way back before 1948, all the way back to the 1920's and the Hebron riots. As if Hitler's grand Mufti fought a noble cause back in the day.

Can't let you get away with that garbage.

----------

Or, you want us to believe the Arabs are fine with Israel and that they're really sorry for 1929, 1948, and 1967. They only want peace and 2 states now that they have no problem with Israel's existence.



Bullshit either way.

[Mosby]

7. I assume this includes Israeli companies like Ahava and Sodastream

So they will have to shut down and relocate to Israel proper leaving all of the Palestinian workers without jobs.

But they will gain the cultural and ethnic purity they desire, something far more valuable than mere money.

[King_David]

11. Can you imagine if an Israeli leader said that about Palestinians within Israel ? nt

[oberliner]

13. Israelis have said such things

There have been similar remarks made by some RW Israelis over the years.

[King_David]

15. The leader ?

[oberliner]

16. Shamir was in the ballpark

Quote mining is not my favorite hobby, so I am not going to tempt fate.

[Israeli]

35. the deputy leader ?

Avigdor Lieberman .

[shira]

62. A week later & not a peep from "anti-racists" who howl when an Israeli....

...so much as sneezes in the direction of a Palestinian.

Nothing from major so-called "pro-Palestinian" anti-zionist, "anti-apartheid" organizations. How is this possible, given that they say the Palestine they support is 1-secular, diverse, pluralistic democratic state of nirvana with equal rights for all?

[azurnoir]

64. Fail we're all over this thread

unless you're calling out someone specific?

[shira]

66. Criticizing the future racist Palestine? Where? n/t

[azurnoir]

69. because we're agreeing with you I see

so unless the Palestinian government says that the occupationists can stay they're racist I see

[shira]

71. Like I wrote earlier, not one pro-Palestinian, anti-racist/apartheid screeching....

....Leftist here has condemned Abbas for advocating a Jew-free Palestine.

Don't try to whitewash Palestinian racism and apartheid. It exists against their own refugees as well, who won't be allowed citizenship in this future Jew-free Utopia....
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2011/Sep-15/148791-interview-refugees-will-not-be-citizens-of-new-state.ashx#ixzz1YC6riGNB

Nice state you support and defend there while bashing Israel.

[azurnoir]

83. first off there was a major typo in my title line but that didn't stop a screechy rant

Last edited Tue Aug 6, 2013, 01:44 AM - Edit history (1)

I left out the word not but even further you really trot out that no Palestinian refugees in a Palestinian state stuff again? what he really said was that Refugees would be not be automatically citizens of a Palestinian State, how many times has this been debunked now shira and yet you keep on keepin on .............

Oh and tell us are all Jews in diaspora automatically citizens of Israel?

[shira]

85. Nowhere was it hinted refugees would eventually become Palestinian citizens....

what he really said was that Refugees would be not be automatically citizens of a Palestinian State, how many times has this been debunked now shira and yet you keep on keepin on .............

Even the ass-hats at Mondoweiss are concerned about this...
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/09/who-would-be-a-considered-citizen-in-a-new-state-of-palestine.html

The Lebanese Ambassador was clear...

"the new Palestinian state would “absolutely not” be issuing Palestinian passports to refugees."

BTW, Lauren Booth, Greta Berlin, and George Galloway qualify for Palestinian passports. But not refugees.

[azurnoir]

92. nice try here is what he said

The ambassador unequivocally says that Palestinian refugees would not become citizens of the sought for U.N.-recognized Palestinian state, an issue that has been much discussed. “They are Palestinians, that’s their identity,” he says. “But … they are not automatically citizens.”

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2011/Sep-15/148791-interview-refugees-will-not-be-citizens-of-new-state.ashx#ixzz1YC6riGNB

spin away though

[shira]

143. So the PA plan for taking all refugees in is........?

I mean, if they'll eventually take them in what's the plan?



This is like your denial of a Jew-free Palestine. Where has Abbas claimed that Jews who wish to become Palestinian citizens are welcome?

Spin away....

[oberliner]

65. Does he actually mean Israeli?

Like are Israeli Arabs not going to be allowed to live there?

[shira]

67. He means Jews. Just like land sales are forbidden to Jews in Palestine....

Just like his US Ambassador admitted....
http://blogs.jpost.com/content/‘judenrein’-state-palestine

[oberliner]

77. Which contradicts what Fayyad said just a few years ago

Of course, he was speaking to an American audience so that may explain the discrepancy.

[azurnoir]

82. so is that what the article at shira's link said? Because I read something else entirely

shira (18,736 posts)
67. He means Jews. Just like land sales are forbidden to Jews in Palestine....

Just like his US Ambassador admitted....
http://blogs.jpost.com/content/‘judenrein’-state-palestine

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=45792



also are you implying that Fayyad is a liar?, I know that's a popular meme with some here, Arabs lie when speaking with 'Westerners'

[oberliner]

87. I don't know

And yes, Fayyad is a liar. Arab leaders lie when speaking with Westerners. Israeli ones do too. Look at speeches Netanyahu gives to settler groups versus the ones he gives for Western consumption.

American leaders lie. European leaders lie. You name it. Most everyone in politics gives one story to one audience and one story to a different one. Netanyahu, Abbas, Fayyad, Barak, and on and on. Arab leaders are just as capable of lying as Israeli or American ones.

[Ken Burch]

72. Why SHOULD he be ok with letting Israeli citizens live in a Palestinian state?

The only reason to demand that he accept such a thing is to demand that most of the major settlements be left in place...a demand that is designed to leave Palestine with too little territory to survive.

This isn't about bigotry or about anybody's "right to live where they want"...it's about wanting to stop annexation-by-settlement.

No Israeli citizen has any legitimate reason to live in the West Bank, since none have humane, positive reasons for wanting to live there.

[shira]

74. Ken, you're now contradicting a position you just made last week....

You just wrote:

No Israeli citizen has any legitimate reason to live in the West Bank, since none have humane, positive reasons for wanting to live there.

But last week you wrote:

An Israeli government could frame it this way"We do not renounce the roots of the Jewish peoples in 'Judea and Samaria' but, in the name of peace, we will not keep the war going and keep our children growing up to be soldiers in the name of physically asserting those roots in the present day. We will enter into negotiations for the resettlement of any Jewish people who lived in Judea and Samaria prior to 1948, and at least some of the next generation of those people...perhaps this can be arranged in exchange for our acceptance of RoR for the Palestinian elders of 1948 who were forced out of what is now Israel, with right of return for subsuquent generations of both communities to be recognized through not only compensation, but acknowledgment of the wrong and apologies for it on both sides".

That would be a moderate, reasonable way to deal with both of those issues.

Either Jews do have legit reasons to live in the W.Bank or they do not. Which Ken Burch are you pretending to be tonight?

[Ken Burch]

81. No contradiction.

In what I said last week, the people I was speaking of would become Palestinian citizens(most of the Jewish population of Palestine that was forced out in 1948 weren't actually Zionists themselves at the time, so I don't know that they would mind living as Palestinian civilians in simple equality with other Palestinians now(unlike the settlers, who see the lands of the West Bank as theirs alone and therefore feel fully entitled to take Palestinian farmland and steal Palestinian olive groves anytime they want to).

Nothing in what I proposed last week talked of letting anyone keep Israeli citizenship and live in Palestine, so I didn't contradict myself at all.

If they want to stay, it's enough for them to stay as Palestinian citizens. And the Palestinian elders allowed RoR in what I was talking about would be Israeli citizens. Could you live with that?

"Israeli citizens" and "Jews" are not synonymous and calling for Israeli citizens to not be allowed to live in the West Bank isn't the same thing as saying that the West Bank should be judenrein. It never has been.

[shira]

86. Yeah, right.... And the thousands of Israeli Arabs in settlements now?

They have no right to be there, no humane reason....unless they're willing to become Palestinian citizens too?

[Ken Burch]

90. Most of them would prefer to be Palestinian.

it's not as if they're being done any favors by being on those settlements...the reason they are there is to be used as cheap labor.

BTW, if you'd be willing to have THOSE Arabs be Israeli citizens, you're on shaky ground in opposing a single-state proposal in which Israelis and Palestinians would all have the same citizenship status. Is there any reason to assume that the Israeli Arabs you are speaking of are intrinsically superior to Palestinians on a moral level?

[shira]

95. How do you know? You make one ridiculous statement after another....

And if you had read the article, Arabs within Jewish settlements actually live there and they're not cheap labor.

So why do you still support Abbas and the PA's future vision of a Jew- free racist apartheid Palestine? There's no sense denying it as they still have laws on the books making land sales to Jews illegal (death penalty). Besides, Abbas' US Ambassador said the same thing 2 years ago, very clear about Jews - not Israelis.

http://warped-mirror.com/2012/06/11/maen-rashid-areikat-wants-you-to-imagine-palestine/

[Ken Burch]

103. Stop saying I support things you know perfectly well I don't support.

And stop insinuating that people are antisemites when you know perfectly well they aren't.

You're not entitled to use such despicable tactics. And you don't help Israel(a country I want to see living in peace and security) by doing so.

[shira]

111. Abbas' US Ambassador said the same thing in 2011...

When you imagine a future Palestinian state, do you imagine it being a place where Jews, if they wish to become Palestinian citizens, could own property, vote in elections, and practice their religion freely?

I remember in the mid-’90s, the late [PLO official] Faisal Husseini said repeatedly [font color = "red"]“OK, if Israelis choose to stay in a future Palestinian state, they are more than welcome to do that. But under one condition: They have to respect and obey Palestinian laws, they cannot be living as Israelis. They have to respect Palestinian laws and abide by them.” When Faisal Husseini died, basically no Palestinian leader has publicly supported the notion that they can stay.[/font]

What we are saying is the following: We need to separate. We have to separate. We are in a forced marriage. We need to divorce. After we divorce, and everybody takes a period of time to recoup, rebound, whatever you want to call it, we may consider dating again.

So, you think it would be necessary to first transfer and remove every Jew—

Absolutely. No, I’m not saying to transfer every Jew, I’m saying transfer Jews who, after an agreement with Israel, fall under the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state.

Any Jew who is inside the borders of Palestine will have to leave?

Absolutely. I think this is a very necessary step, before we can allow the two states to somehow develop their separate national identities, and then maybe open up the doors for all kinds of cultural, social, political, economic exchanges, that freedom of movement of both citizens of Israelis and Palestinians from one area to another. You know you have to think of the day after.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/48834/qa-maen-areikat

Abbas also said the same thing back in 2010...

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/columnists/37008/no-outcry-abbass-racism

Speaking in Cairo on July 28, Abbas gave his version of negotiations with Israel's former Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert. In the course of his remarks, Abbas made a statement so astonishing that I quote it in full, as reported by Wafa, the official Palestinian news agency: "I'm willing to agree to a third party that would supervise the agreement, such as Nato forces, but I would not agree to having Jews among the Nato forces, or that there will live among us even a single Israeli on Palestinian land."

A week or so later, Abbas's political adviser, Nimar Hamad, no doubt realising the embarrassing insensitivity of these remarks, effected to issue a retraction, blaming unnamed American media for spreading the falsehood that the word "Jews" had ever been used.

But when I looked last Friday, the statement, including that word, was still on the Wafa website, and I understand that, in any case, some Arabic newspapers, such as Al-Quds (on July 30), had had no hesitation in reporting that it was "Jews" to whom Abbas had referred.

Apologists for the Palestinian position frequently assure me that when Arabs talk about Jews, and especially when they talk about Jews in negative terms, they usually mean Israelis.

Yet here we have the Palestinian President talking quite clearly about Jews - not Israelis - and declaring that he for his part will not tolerate a single Jew in any Nato force that might police the borders of an emergent Palestinian state.

***This version was reprinted by Palestinian newspapers al-Quds and al-Hayat al-Jadida on July 30 and by other Arab newspapers.

[Ken Burch]

120. No one would ever have a natural preference to be a minority in one society

instead of a majority in another.

And it's exceedingly difficult to believe that you'd get Arabs believing that Israel was a superior country and that they should take its side AGAINST Palestinians. Nobody could possibly hate their own countrymen THAT much.

Yes, Palestine needs better leaders, but the Occupation can't give it better leaders. All the Occupation has ever done is to keep the worst possible Palestinian leaderships in place. When it still existed in Gaza, it didn't do a damn thing to slow down Hamas, as far as that goes. If it had, you'd have actually seen an effective progressive-secular alternative to Hamas emerge there. Rather than causing that, all the occupation achieved when it was still in place in Gaza was to cause a "rally 'round the flag" effect for Hamas-just as all it has done in the West Bank has been to cause the same effect for Fatah.

And the so-called "alternative leadership" that the Occupation was supposedly nurturing in the West Bank during the Eighties was growing totally independently of anything, Israel was doing there-and was never, ever, under any circumstances going to accept anything other than full statehood(it goes without saying that neither Hanan Ashrawi nor anybody else in Palestine would ever have backed "the Jordanian option"-because Palestinians don't want to BE under Jordanian rule and never will want that...and why on earth would they? Jordanian rule doesn't have anything to offer them other than continued powerlessness).

And, really, shira, the settlers don't have to live in "Judea and Samaria&quot labels no one had used for the West Bank for centuries prior to 1948)to have a Jewish identity. To say that they do implies that you can't have a Jewish identity and live in Tel Aviv, West Jerusalem, Haifa or anyplace else on the Israeli side of the Green Line. It comes damn close to saying that Israelis aren't Jewish UNLESS they're living in the West Bank.

What is so damn special about living on the West Bank? As I've said, I can see repatriating those who were forced out of there in '48(as part of a deal that repatriates the Palestinian elders of 1948 to homes in Israel AND leaves the Bedouin in the Negev alone, since nobody but the Bedouins seems to want to live in the Negev anyway)but why should ultra-right religious crazies from Brooklyn or France be brought in there? Especially if those particular people didn't themselves have an ancestral connection to that area?

Why is it that, to you, keeping the settlements is SO important that it is worth making it harder to actually end the war?

I've never heard a clear answer from you on that.

If you really loved Israel, you'd put stopping the war FIRST.

[shira]

124. No one? If one society is free with civil rights for all, while the other....

Last edited Wed Aug 7, 2013, 05:33 AM - Edit history (2)

...is not, then why is it so difficult to understand why many Palestinians would prefer to live in Israel?

And it's exceedingly difficult to believe that you'd get Arabs believing that Israel was a superior country and that they should take its side AGAINST Palestinians. Nobody could possibly hate their own countrymen THAT much.

I've linked to articles here in the past that show Arabs proudly joining the IDF. Get educated man...

And, really, shira, the settlers don't have to live in "Judea and Samaria&quot labels no one had used for the West Bank for centuries prior to 1948)to have a Jewish identity. To say that they do implies that you can't have a Jewish identity and live in Tel Aviv, West Jerusalem, Haifa or anyplace else on the Israeli side of the Green Line. It comes damn close to saying that Israelis aren't Jewish UNLESS they're living in the West Bank.

You severely underestimate Jewish historical, cultural, and religious connections to great parts of the holy land. While they don't have to live there, the connection to that land is very real and forever letting it go is a HUGE sacrifice for many Jews, whether religious or not. Think about how important Jerusalem and Hebron are to Jews. Jews were barred from all that between 1948-67 and don't wish to go back to that situation permanently. Do you not understand that Jews had lived in Judea/Samaria for over 3000 years? Never were they barred from living there under the Romans, Turks, or Brits but that's what's being proposed today.

What is so damn special about living on the West Bank? As I've said, I can see repatriating those who were forced out of there in '48(as part of a deal that repatriates the Palestinian elders of 1948 to homes in Israel AND leaves the Bedouin in the Negev alone, since nobody but the Bedouins seems to want to live in the Negev anyway)but why should ultra-right religious crazies from Brooklyn or France be brought in there? Especially if those particular people didn't themselves have an ancestral connection to that area?

What is so alarming to you about Jews wishing to move back to their historical, cultural, and religious lands? Are any other people on this planet barred from doing so? If ethnic Greeks wish to live on their ancestral lands (going back thousands of years) and they're barred from doing so, would that be considered "progressive"? It's very disturbing you are here promoting a Jew-free Palestine. You're basically saying that unless you have papers showing "recent" residence prior to 1948, then no Jews should be there. There are already no Jews in Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Isn't that enough?

Why is it that, to you, keeping the settlements is SO important that it is worth making it harder to actually end the war?

I've never heard a clear answer from you on that.

If you really loved Israel, you'd put stopping the war FIRST.

How does establishing an apartheid racist, Jew free country end the war? If peace were on the horizon, you'd think the Palestinian leadership would accept Jews as equals, at least granting them the rights Israel's Arab population has.

The problem with you and yours is that your goal isn't peace. Your goal is a very narrowly defined end to occupation/settlements, and that's it. You have no plan B. If the Palestinians attack with a vengeance after that, so be it. I'd be okay with an end to occupation/settlements too if it meant peace, but knowing that it will just result in more war and death (and re-occupation) I don't see the point. All I see is a major waste of life.

[Ken Burch]

140. The issue isn't "Jews"...the issue is Israeli citizens

In this case, people who are Israeli citizens and want to stay in what they know are illegal settlements to assert a claim that the West Bank is part of Israel, instead of Palestine.

Don't EVER again accuse me of having an issue with Jews...it's a damn lie and you know it. I don't have to agree with you on Israeli security issues and the settlements to prove that I'm not an antisemite...and neither does anyone else. It's enough to make it clear that a person opposes antisemitism as that person opposes, with equal commitment, ALL forms of bigotry(since all forms of bigotry are just as toxic and lethal as antisemitism).

I am not responsible for what the PA says, and neither I nor anyone else is obligated to denounce the PA every time you want it denounced. Denouncing the PA in this situation is about as useful as all those U.S. denunciations of what the Soviet Union did to Eastern Europe were for forty years...and NONE of those denunciations(or that sickening rhetoric about "the 'Captive Nations'&quot ever did the people of Eastern Europe any good. Oppression there ended solely because the people of Eastern Europe stood up against the decaying old dinosaur regimes and because Gorbachev made it clear that he wouldn't save the regimes by sending in the Red Army to soak the streets with blood-something the people of those countries should have been rewarded for with a new Marshall Plan by "the West", but for which they got nothing but austerity and layoffs from the Anglo-Euro-American moneygrubber class, and something Gorbachev should have been rewarded for with big increases in Western aid and trade, but was instead given nothing but the bum's rush out the door of power...two decisions by "the West" that had no positive results for the world at all, because all they did was revive right-wing nationalist politics in Eastern Europe and make Vladimir Putin the new tsar.

The thing is, both national communities are going to have to accept giving up SOME historic claims to actually physically reside in areas where their ancestors resided or may have resided. But these renunciations will have to be equal on both sides. You are demanding that Palestinians give up FAR MORE than Israelis when you demand that Palestinians completely forswear RoR(even partial RoR, and apparently even without getting apologies and acknowledgments that they were made to suffer and mostly didn't deserve to)while continuing to defend the West Bank settlements, settlements that were placed deliberately where they were in order to make sure that Palestinians didn't have enough contguous territory to form a viable state.

I believe that Jews should be allowed to live in Palestine AS PALESTINIAN CITIZENS-and with an acceptance that the lands they live on, if they live in Palestine, will NEVER be part of Israel. Palestinians given RoR in Israel should do the same. It has to be equal. It can't be Palestinians giving up MORE than Israel, and it can't be a situation where Palestinians have to accept non-Arabs living in their lands as having right to live there while Israelis don't have to make an equal acceptance of returning Palestinian elders.

And my goal is peace...I work for that(btw, I speak only for myself, so stop trying to make me part of some diabolical cabal when you know perfectly well that I'm not)by proposing solutions that are meant to be fair to both sides and to make sure that neither side's leadership is humiliated and discredited for signing on to them. What really upsets you about me, shira, is that I'm not a partisan of Israel. I'm also not a partisan of Palestine. Being a partisan of either "side", in the sense of wanting either side to be able to claim "victory", means ultimately being against peace, because nobody on either side can accept a deal that can possibly be presented as a victory for the other side but a defeat for them.

And the reasons I haven't presented a "Plan B" are that:

A)I don't have an obligation to present one;

B)You would automatically reject any "Plan B" that wasn't an endorsement of a scorched-earth campaign throughout the West Bank and Gaza...even though there is no way that another IDF invasion of either place could possibly make ANYTHING better.

Hamas can't be defeated militarily. Neither can Fatah. Neither can the IDF.

Therefore, "peace-through-victory" is impossible.

OK?

[shira]

142. No, of course you don't have issues with Jews....

You're just pretending the Palestinian leadership does not, when both Abbas and his US Ambassador very clearly referred to a No Jews policy in Palestine. The same Palestinian leadership which controls all institutions within the W.Bank that always portray Jews as apes and pigs.

Why shouldn't I think you have the best of intentions while giving me lectures on how moderate and reasonable your positions are?

[Ken Burch]

145. I have no connections to the Palestinian leadership and I'm not responsible for them

I'm just one person speaking for myself. That is why you should assume that I'm a decent human being.

Fair enough?

There's nothing much I can do about anything the Palestinian leadership might say or do when I'm not Palestinian and they don't have any reason to care about anything I might say.

And you really can't make assumptions about what one side in what will have to end up in negotiations(since even you would have to admit that neither Israeli nor Palestinian military "victory" is possible in this conflict, thus making negotiations and compromise inevitable).

Finally, there is no possible way that maintaining the Occupation could ever change any Palestinian feelings about Israelis for the better. If this conflict was based solely on Palestinian bigotry(we both know that isn't the main point and never really has been)you aren't going to reduce that bigotry by force. You can't beat people into liking you. Or shoot them into it. Or shoot their kids into it.
Force can't solve anything here...and even if "victory" on the field of battle WAS possible, it would be worthless, since either side would be totally unmagnanimous towards the other in "victory". That's a major reason I refuse to go along with your fixation with having a "Plan B"...the only real "Plan B" would be to find a new basis for negotiating, and the use of military force can't ever create that basis.

What matters is getting the shooting and all the rest of the violence, on BOTH sides, brought to an end and then getting both sides to accept the idea of REAL negotiations based on mutual respect and mutual willingness to compromise.

[shira]

146. Then don't whitewash their bigotry and hatred

And of course you have no plan B.

In your view, Israel should just pull back and if that results in more war and bloodshed, so be it. There's your peace plan. When Palestine is Jew-free, so be it. That's peace. First you'll deny that's what you believe; then you'll say there's no other option; and finally, there's nothing you could or should say critically because Palestinian leadership is what it is.

Great talk.

[Ken Burch]

148. There's as much bloodshed now as there ever was.

And, while there is some Palestinian bigotry towards some Jews(there's an equal amount of Israeli Jewish bigotry towards Palestinians and other Arabs, as you'd clearly have to concede)and that bigotry IS unacceptable, this conflict is not driven by Palestinian antisemitism. There's really no difference between the feelings Palestinians have towards Israelis, on the one hand, and the feelings the communities that identify as "Nationalist/Republican" and "Unionist/Loyalist" have towards each other in Northern Ireland. To put it down to Palestinian hatred of Jews means believing that Palestinians would be just fine with anybody ELSE treating them as the Israeli government and the IDF have treated them...and you can't seriously believe that anybody, anywhere, would be content with such treatment if only it was being meted out to them by people of the same ethnicity.

I am convinced that a significant amount of what the Israeli government describes as "antisemitism" among Palestinians is simply the anger that an occupied people would naturally feel towards their occupiers. Do you really believe, shira, that Palestinians have no significant reasons to feel anger about the conditions that Netanyahu and the others who have gone before him on the Occupation path have imposed on them? That they have no reason to be outraged about the decades of collective punishment? The land takings, the destruction of crops and all the rest? If so, why not? Why would anyone, anywhere, NOT be outraged by such treatment?

All bigotry needs to be challenged, in this conflict and everywhere else. But the reason that YOU keep trying to change the subject to
antisemitism is that you want the world to accept the idea that historic antisemitism(largely, but not exclusively an Anglo-European crime)should automatically give the Israeli government a free moral pass on everything it does in the name of "security"...including all the misery it meets out collectively to Palestinians, without even trying to make a distinction between militants and noncombatants, or between those who use the path of violence and the probably equal or larger-sized group of Palestinians who protest nonviolently. I don't think, shira, that you believe that any Palestinian can ever truly be innocent, can ever NOT be to blame for the worst things done in their name. No one would ever say that of Israelis as a collectively entity, so why should it be any fairer to say it of Palestinians?

The issue is two nations who have equal roots and equal claims in the same lands, and who are going to have to come to some sort of agreement as to how to share and divide those lands. If you solve that, if you create a fair, humane, respect-based agreement on how to resolve that conflict, you do more to end the bigotry on BOTH sides than a billion sanctimonious denunciations of anybody's "leadership" could ever achieve.

That is why I focus on trying to propose negotiated solutions rather than on calling out anybody's particular "leadership". Leaderships come and go. Most countries in the world don't have the same leadership structure decades after achieving independence that they had when independence came. Most started as repressive and gained more internal freedom as they went along(the U.S. prominent among them, considering that the U.S., in 1789, was a total police state for anyone who wasn't a white, male "Christian" property owner or, to a far lesser degree, his spouse). There's no reason to think it's any less likely for an independent Palestine to improve with time than it was for any of the other countries who did so...unless the person asserting that has a specific agenda to discredit the notion that Arab or Muslim countries can EVER progress in the same ways other countries do.

[shira]

151. And when there's even more bloodshed after your "peace" plan is carried out

...you'll just call for more of the same old and define all of it as inevitable "progress". Just like you did the Arab Spring. The question is, how many have to die in order for you to see you're wrong and opt for a plan 'B'?

And let's face it, you're against all criticism of Palestinian leadership. They're the victims to you, Hamas included. You've LAMBASTED the Israelis for years while saying virtually nothing about Palestinian viewpoints and actions that are 100X worse. You rationalize it by saying that criticism of Palestinians wouldn't change anything, a bigoted view in itself which is an admittance the Palestinians can't ever change (while of course the Israelis can). Look, if both sides were equally to blame, you'd rip BOTH sides. Obviously, you don't believe both sides are equally to blame and that's why you rip only the Israelis and rarely, if ever, the Palestinians.

I really think you support the Palestinian leadership, not the people themselves. That's the "cause" for you. It's why you refuse to challenge the ugliest, most vile and rightwing actions of the Palestinian leadership (or any Arab leadership in that region which oppresses the Palestinians). Palestinians have no basic civil rights under Hamas or the PLO and they suffer actual apartheid in Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan. You're silent on that as you won't even admit to it. You obviously don't see the problem, which goes to prove (at least to me) that you support what goes on. IOW, you support the Arab leadership's oppression against the Palestinians. You support the 'cause', which is entirely anti-Israel and in no way pro-Palestinian. Proof of this was your admittance recently that BDS isn't mostly leftwing, but being that you support the anti-Israel 'cause' you're against criticizing what you admit is a rightwing movement.

Ken, we cannot agree b/c fundamentally we're on opposite sides. The cause you support is fundamentally anti-peace, rightwing, and vile. And I'm going to keep call you out for attempting to put lipstick on that pig.

=================

This conflict isn't about occupation/settlements either. You're going to have to do better than that, as there was no occupation or settlements in 1948 or leading up to the '67 war. The root cause is something else and you know it. No other occupation worldwide has led to the same suicide bombings, rockets, or dehumanizing hatred & genocidal intentions. No other occupied people has a majority supporting murder of innocents on the other side. And no, the Israelis don't hate their enemies in the same way no matter how much you try to equate the sides.

[Ken Burch]

157. The root cause is NOT antisemitism, and it never has been.

And it serves no purpose to keep insisting that it is, because insisting that it's that is about denying that the Israeli side bears any real responsibility for anything it has done.

And here's the main reason that I have spoken out more about what the Israeli leadership has done than about what the Palestinian leadership(a leadership I thoroughly oppose but can't do anything about) has done:

The Israeli government has total power OVER everyone in Palestine. Palestine has no power over anything the Israel leadership does. You always have to hold the side with most of the power to a higher standard. It's why it was silly, for example, for people who were acting as apologists for the apartheid regime in South Africa to keep demanding that everybody condemn "ANC terrorism". That demand ignored the fact that everything the South African government did to the black majority under apartheid was, itself, an act of terrorism, and that the black majority had few, if any, other means of resistance at its disposal(the massacres at Sharpeville and Soweto proved that nonviolence, while admirable, was doomed to failure as a liberation strategy in that country).

The way to stop the ugliness is to stop the conditions that create the ugliness. Most Palestinian anger at Israel has been driven by the occupation and the settlements SINCE 1967, and before that most of it was driven by the dispossession of the 800,000 Palestinians during the 1948 war. Yes, the Arabs should close the refugee camps and offer citizenship to those in them, but you have to accept that that wouldn't now and wouldn't ever in the past have made Palestinians still living in their traditional, ancient homelands forget about the deportations(any more than the fact that Irish people fleeing the famine in 1847 were given Australian, American, and Canadian citizenship was ever going to make the Irish stop feeling righteous anger towards their British occupiers.

If you want Palestinians to feel less angry towards Israel, call on the Israelis to do less to oppress them, less to collectively punish them, less to make their lives utterly hopeless, less to try to drive them into a revolt against their leadership that the above things are NEVER going to drive them into if they haven't by now. The worst thing is that the Israeli side totally crushes the Palestinians collectively on a daily basis and then asks them to believe that the Israelis HAVE IT WORSE THAN THE PALESTINIANS DO. One nation can't victimize another nation and then demand that the other nation regard its victimizers AS THE VICTIMS. Jewish people have been victims of massive and unspeakable historic violence, but that historic violence was mostly committed by Europeans(if you recall, the founders of the Zionist movement were mainly from the Pale...there were none from the Arab and Muslim world, IIRC. Not that life didn't get a lot worse for Jews in the Arab and Muslim world after 1948 and should never have been made worse, but it was the Christians of Europe that inspired Herzl's, Herzog's and Ben-Gurion's cause, a cause I still believe to be legitimate, though not without injustices that still need to be acknowledged)not the Arabs and not the Muslims.

Much more than antisemitism(which was always less toxic in its Arab/Muslim appearances than in its European manifestations, and always less widespread)I believe that much of the Arab/Muslim resentment towards Israel was the fact that they were cast, with little or no justification, as the villains in the story-and also as the successors in infamy to Caesar, the church, the tsars and the Nazis. It wasn't Arabs or Muslims that burned conversos at the stake(some Moorish conversos were being burned alongside the Jewish ones)or who staged the pogroms, or who led the victims into the gas chambers at the death camps. It especially wasn't the Palestinians. So why, when the people of North America and the Antipodean countries(countries that could easily have taken in everyone fleeing from Hitler, but who sent them home to die instead)refused to do what they were morally obligated to do after the war and taken in the survivors of Hitler's barbaric work, should the Palestinians, one of the most powerless national communities on the planet, have had to give way for them? And which of the countries that had failed the Jews in their hour of desperate need(such as ours) had any right to lecture the Palestinians about not wanting to get driven off of their land and out of their homes?

Israel exists. It will always exist. I support its existence. But it needs to be admitted that the Palestinians were not the villains in Israel's early history and that they never deserved to suffer as they were made to suffer(as yes, it needs to be admitted that Native Americans, First Nations people in Canada, the indigenous peoples of Latin America and Australia/New Zealand also didn't deserve to suffer as they did)and not only compensation but apologies need to be administered.

That is the key. Not demonizing the Palestinian leadership(a leadership that will pass out of the scene once independence is achieved, as it must be at some relatively near point), but admitting the wrongs and healing the wounds.

Want Palestinians to feel less anger towards Israelis? Try admitting that they are entitled to feel the anger in the first place, and try admitting that they have suffered just as much as, if not more so than, the side you cheerlead for. And try admitting that it's wrong to blame ALL Palestinians for the actions of the violent minority(just as it is equally wrong to blame all Israelis for the violent on their side).

And stop asking about "Plan B" because trying to come up with a "Plan B" is always a useless activity.

And, yes, the Palestinian leadership has done some horrible things, but none have been 100X worse for Israelis than decades of collective punishment for the actions of a few have done to Palestinians.

[shira]

163. Sure it is & it goes back to Hitler's favorite Palestinian Mufti....

...back to the 1920's with the Hebron massacre and attempts to abort the birth of a Jewish homeland on even one square mile of holy land. Before 1948, the Palestinian leadership under the Mufti was collaborating with Hitler and working diligently to carry out the Jews' extermination. This is historical fact from a time in which it wasn't possible to label the Jews as the oppressors and the Palestinians as the poor helpless people being brutalized by the mean Jews. There was no South Africa parallel then, just as there isn't now, but that won't stop you from pretending otherwise.

You also say 800,000 refugees from 1948 was the fuel to 1967, but that's total horse-shit since Arab states obviously don't care about the refugees and they never have. It's why refugees to this day still live in apartheid conditions throughout the Arab world, denied basic rights citizens have in those countries. You know this, so why the dishonesty? I'd say it's because you care for the Palestinians as much as regimes throughout the mideast care for them, meaning that they're useful to you only as political pawns and sticks to beat Israel with.

What fueled 1948, Ken? Or the Hebron massacre? Why didn't the Palestinians accept their own state in 1937 or 1947? Yeah, there really is only one answer. Look no further than the Palestinian leadership of the time. Hitler's favorite fascist Mufti.

[Ken Burch]

165. Using the Mufti to demonize all Palestinians

is about as fair as using Yitzak "Two legged-beasts thirsting for Jewish blood" Shamir to demonize all Israelis.

The Mufti has been dead for forty years now. He'd been politically irrelevant for twenty-five years before that. Yes, he was personally a total bastard but the Palestinians weren't responsible for him having his position(Haj Amin Al-Husseini-the specific person you're talking about here, the one and only "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem"-everybody else who ever held that position was simply "the Mufti of Jerusalem-the Brits threw in the "Grand" as a sop to his overweening ego- was given the job as Mufti, after finishing FOURTH in the advisory ballot taken among Palestinian Muslims, by Herbert Samuel, the British governor of the Mandate). And the Mufti didn't invent the Palestinian cause or nation...their wish for self-determination went back long before he was born. All colonized peoples yearn for the day they will no longer be part of somebody else's empire. And Palestinians would have wanted self-determination even if Zionism had never existed. They had wanted out of the Ottoman Empire from the moment they were subjugated by it.

And you can't put the Palestinian anger about the dispossession of those 800,000 people together with the Arab mistreatment of them. Nothing would be different if the Arabs HAD allowed those people out of the camps and into citizenship in the countries where the camps existed. They weren't ever going to give up their identity AS PALESTINIANS no matter what, because Palestinians are not generic Arabs(no other Arabs are either...Arabs are as widely varied in culture and viewpoints as are people of any other race or ethnicity-but that's another discussion).

And even if you were right about the Palestinian position just being antisemitism...there is nothing in the Israeli approach to the West Bank that could change. You can't oppress a people into tolerance and occupy them out of bigotry. The very idea is Orwellian.

The only way to change Palestinian attitudes towards Israel is for Israel and Israelis to give them breathing space. Nothing else can work. And military victory, for either side, is totally impossible.
i

[shira]

172. Using the Mufti helps explain the current Palestinian leadership....

Last edited Sun Aug 11, 2013, 07:56 AM - Edit history (1)

...as well as those Palestinians who still support the views of the Mufti, Arafat, or Hamas. I realize you believe any criticism of Palestinian leadership is somehow an indictment of all Palestinians & therefore all criticism of Palestinian leadership is racist/bigoted in your view. That's why you're incapable of condemning the most vile and repulsive Palestinian actions. They get a free pass from you, their biggest supporter.

And you can't put the Palestinian anger about the dispossession of those 800,000 people together with the Arab mistreatment of them. Nothing would be different if the Arabs HAD allowed those people out of the camps and into citizenship in the countries where the camps existed. They weren't ever going to give up their identity AS PALESTINIANS no matter what, because Palestinians are not generic Arabs(no other Arabs are either...Arabs are as widely varied in culture and viewpoints as are people of any other race or ethnicity-but that's another discussion).

If there was truly Palestinian concern about 800,000 refugees, then where's that concern when it comes to apartheid conditions vs. the refugees throughout the mideast?

The only way to change Palestinian attitudes towards Israel is for Israel and Israelis to give them breathing space. Nothing else can work. And military victory, for either side, is totally impossible.

If this was about the Palestinian need for breathing space, their own state and no more oppressive Israeli occupation, they could have agreed to a Palestine in 1937, 1947, 2000, or 2008. Apparently, you have no idea what you're writing about.

===============

Back to the OP.

Now that you DEFINITELY know Abbas is working towards a 100% Jew-free, ethnically cleansed Palestine (just as you're well aware that his US Ambassador confirmed this) why aren't you protesting it? Why are you still in denial and reluctant to address it? Your alleged support of a moderate, fair and liberal settlement to the conflict appears to be 100% utter bullshit. It's little things like this, Ken, that nudge me into calling bullshit on you and why I sincerely cannot distinguish between your I/P views and that of David Duke or the neo-Nazis.

[Ken Burch]

173. No, no, no...you don't get to do that.

You don't get to make false accusations about me. You don't get to accuse me of supporting bigotry. I oppose all bigotry.

And I also oppose punishing an occupied people for the crimes of their leaders. We both know that, if the Occupation hasn't led to the creation of a better Palestinian leadership after forty-six years that it never CAN create such a leadership. The Palestinian leadership didn't create the Israel/Palestine conflict: the conflict and the way Palestinians were treated after 1948 largely caused the leadership. If you put people under what seems like hopeless conditions, this will always clear the way for leaders with the worst values, because those leaders never have shame and are always willing to make the wildest promises-not caring if they actually keep them.

Since the effort to delegitimize the PLO had no effects other than to cause the rise of Hamas(it never had effect
effect of bringing any better Palestinian leaders to the fore) it's clear that obsessing on the leadership doesn't lead to anything worthwhile. They could be led by a true "Palestinian Gandhi" figure-such as Mubarak Awad the apostle of nonviolence in Palestine that the Israeli occupiers deported FOR ENCOURAGING NONVIOLENT PROTEST-and all they'd get for it would be more and more settlement construction and more and more land confiscation.

You don't just want me to criticize the Palestinian leadership(something I've done here many times, such as in that last post)you want me to do nothing BUT criticize the Palestinian leadership AND defend the Occupation-because you still hold to the delusion that the actions of the Palestinian leadership vindicate the Occupation(if you had your way, the IDF would reinvade Gaza, even though their presence their before did nothing to stop or even slow down Hamas-the suicide bombings occurred WHILE the IDF occupied Gaza-and couldn't stop them now if it didn't before. You want to go on punishing ALL Palestinians for what the Fatah and Hamas militants have done, and to do that is just as immoral as it was for Hamas to blow up that Sbarro's and to harm the other Israeli civilians it harmed.

The Palestinian people, in my view, can only be induced to find leaders with better values if it can be shown that osingthey will get a better deal FOR choosing such leaders...you can't oppress a people and lecture that people about morality at the same time. You can't expect the oppressed side to act differently, to try to impress their oppressors, without giving them a REAL reason to believe that this will give them a better life. The tactics of the Israeli leadership have never been designed to make that case to the t Palestinian rank-and-file...because the Israeli leadership has never really accepted the fact that "winning" in the military sense is now permanently impossible for either side. The Israeli leadership STILL thinks that, if it just holds on long enough, just uses enough force and imposes enough subjugation and humiliation among Palestinians, it can succeed in denying the Palestinian fact...that it can take ALL of the West Bank(or at least keep all of the settlements, which is the same thing since the settlements as arranged make it impossible to form a contiguous Palestinian state)and can force Palestinians to either accept being reduced to subjugation to Jordanian occupation(your right-wing extremist "confederation&quot or just be forced to admit that there never really was such a thing as a Palestinian national identity...which would then mean getting to force Palestinians back to the choice the Israeli leadership has NEVER given up on forcing them into since 1967-statelessness at home, or permanent exile.

Palestinians need a better leadership...but we both know that isn't the real point here.

And no, what Fatah was proposing was not a Judenrein Palestine...it was and is a Palestine in which Jews could stay AS PALESTINIAN CITIZENS, and with the stolen lands from the settlements being returned to their rightful Palestinian owners. That should be more than enough. You don't have to be an Israeli citizen to have a Jewish identity in the West Bank...you can have just as strong an identity as a Palestinian citizen, or as a resident of Israel proper, or as a resident of the Diaspora. It's not as though the settlers are the only true Jewish people, for God's sakes.

I'm against antisemitism...and against violence...and against lies and hypocrisy...and against making false accusations against people simply because they disagree with me.

[shira]

174. No, obviously you don't have a problem with a Jew-free Palestine...

Abbas' US Ambassador was very clear about this in 2011. Neither Abbas or anyone on his team says it's okay for Jews to become Palestinian citizens. No leaders have come out with that since the mid 90's, as Abbas' US Ambassador says here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=45888

If you don't want to be perceived as supporting or whitewashing PA bigotry and apartheid, then don't keep doing it.

=============================

And once again, your BS about an end of occupation and end of oppression rings hollow in light of your utter silence when it comes to Palestinian oppression under Arab regimes throughout the mideast, including their own. You know very well that life in their own state under Hamas or the PA is occupation by another name, as the Arab Spring clearly proves. So please don't try framing this as something it's not. If you're for Palestinian self-determination, you cannot possibly be for such a state under Hamas/PA rule. They already believe their leadership sucks....

Palestinians also worked in Israel and watched Israeli television. They saw that, for its own citizens, the Israeli system had distinct virtues. This is not easy for even ardent Palestinian democrats to acknowledge.

Yet since 1996, Dr. Shikaki has been polling Palestinians about what governments they admire, and every year Israel has been the top performer, at times receiving more than 80 percent approval. The American system has been the next best, followed by the French and then, distantly trailing, the Jordanian and Egyptian.

In its early days, the Palestinian Authority held fourth place, with about 50 percent approval. Now, it is dead last, under 20 percent. Corruption, mismanagement and the stagnation of the Palestinian predicament have turned the culture of criticism against the Palestinian rulers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/02/international/middleeast/02LETT.html?pagewanted=1

You speak more for the Palestinian leadership than you do the people who they use and abuse as mere political pawns.

Bottom line: I get you're against Israeli occupation/settlements. But don't sell your advocacy as some end to oppression or Palestinian self-determination. They will continue to be oppressed under their leadership and that is NOT self-determination. I thought you were for the genuinely poor and oppressed throughout the world. Act like it, then!

[Ken Burch]

175. You make it sound like I could actually HELP get rid of the bad leaders in Palestine. I can't.

Only the Palestinians themselves can do that, and they have to be allowed to do it on their own terms. I could rant about how horrivle Fatah and Hamas are 24/7 and nobody in Palestine would CARE what I said. OK?

BTW, that poll you cited showed Palestinians supporting democracy...not supporting the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. That poll does not mean that Palestinians WANT the IDF to keep marching through their streets, destroying their crops, and punishing everybody for the actions of some.

There has never been any point at which having Israeli troops occupying Palestine has led to anybody better emerging as a leader there. So there's no point in using the bad leadership as a case for the Occupation, because the Occupation actually HELPS the bad leadership-as it helped Hamas take over Gaza.

And I've said I support allowing anybody who wants to live in Palestine to live there, provided solely that they accept Palestinian citizenship and provided that they don't try to take any part of the West Bank away from Palestinian sovereignty. So I don't speak for "the leadership and I've proved(as I should never have had to prove, since my decency as human being was never in question
0that i oppose antisemitism.

And I've said, over and over, that they should close down the refugee camps in other countries and offer Palestinians residency in those countries...so I've said enough on that. We both know, however, that doing that wouldn't stop those people wanting to go home and wouldn't make it alright that they were expelled from their homes.

[shira]

181. You can't even admit now that Abbas is calling for a Jew-free Palestine....

...so it's apparent you're not interested in reality or opposing bigotry in all its forms.

You make it sound like I could actually HELP get rid of the bad leaders in Palestine. I can't.

You refuse to see what they're doing. You're in total denial. How can you condemn them for anything when you won't admit what they're doing wrong?

Only the Palestinians themselves can do that, and they have to be allowed to do it on their own terms. I could rant about how horrivle Fatah and Hamas are 24/7 and nobody in Palestine would CARE what I said. OK?

You don't rant about how horrible Fatah & Hamas are b/c you still deny what they do and what they're all about.

BTW, that poll you cited showed Palestinians supporting democracy...not supporting the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. That poll does not mean that Palestinians WANT the IDF to keep marching through their streets, destroying their crops, and punishing everybody for the actions of some.

No, it means your version of self-determination and an end to oppression for Palestinians is BS. They won't get that under their current leadership, so don't advertise it as such.

There has never been any point at which having Israeli troops occupying Palestine has led to anybody better emerging as a leader there. So there's no point in using the bad leadership as a case for the Occupation, because the Occupation actually HELPS the bad leadership-as it helped Hamas take over Gaza.

So you understand Israeli occupation is bad. The question is why you're so supportive of Palestinian occupation and oppression under Hamas/Fatah rule instead. Don't tell me you have issues with Hamas/Fatah when you're so eager to support, cover for them, whitewash, excuse, and deny who and what they are.

And I've said I support allowing anybody who wants to live in Palestine to live there, provided solely that they accept Palestinian citizenship and provided that they don't try to take any part of the West Bank away from Palestinian sovereignty. So I don't speak for "the leadership and I've proved(as I should never have had to prove, since my decency as human being was never in question that i oppose antisemitism.

So now you oppose antisemitic Palestinian leadership in their not allowing Jews to become Palestinian citizens? You've been in denial of their position for days here and many posts. Are you now finally admitting you were wrong? It appears you now realize they're going for a Jew-free state and you now say you oppose that. Why'd it take you so long if your opposition to antisemitism and bigotry was never in question?

And I've said, over and over, that they should close down the refugee camps in other countries and offer Palestinians residency in those countries...so I've said enough on that.

Why is it you've "said enough on that" but you haven't ranted nearly enough about anything Israel is doing? It's apparent that the lives of these Palestinians mean less to you b/c you can't use their misery and oppression as a stick to beat Israel.

In addition, can you admit that the refugee apartheid situation in other countries proves that Palestinian and Arab leadership throughout the region couldn't care less about Palestinians? Let's get real here, okay?

[Israeli]

144. * sigh *

shira has not heard a word you said Ken ....its like banging your head on a brick wall .

[azurnoir]

169. Oh no shira hears every word IMO

and with every word there is opportunity to post yet another antiPalestinian video or article, from Camera, MEMRI, palwatch, NGO monitor Pajamas Media, the Tea (party) room, you name it

[shira]

171. Yes, I get it that you're against any and all criticism of Hamas, the PLO....

...and all other Palestinian racist, fascist leadership. That much from you is loud and clear.

[oberliner]

75. "No Israeli citizen has any legitimate reason to live in the West Bank"

Just the Jewish ones you mean, right?

Because obviously Palestinian citizens of Israel, be they Muslim or Christian, would be welcome to move there, wouldn't they?

Very very strange for you to write what you have written here.

Is it not humane and positive to want to remain living where you have lived your entire life? Where you were born, where your parents were born, the only home you have ever known?

I don't understand this support for making Palestine Jew-free.

If some of the Jews living there now want to stay there and are willing to live under Palestinian law, what exactly is objectionable about that?

Here is an exchange with Fayyad on this topic:

“Now, if there is to be the rule of law in a Palestinian state, and if Jews want to live in someplace like Hebron, or anyplace else in a Palestinian state, for whatever reasons or historical attachments, why should they not be treated the same way Israeli Arabs are?” Woolsey asked. “That would be, there could be a sixth of the population consisting of them. They could vote for real representatives in a real Palestinian legislature, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and most importantly, be able to go to the sleep at night without worrying someone is going to kick down the door and kill them.”

Fayyad responded by saying, “I’m not going to disagree with you. And I’m not someone who will say that they would or should be treated differently than Israeli Arabs are treated in Israel.

“In fact the kind of state that we want to have, that we aspire to have, is one that would definitely espouse high values of tolerance, co-existence, mutual respect and deference to all cultures, religions. No discrimination whatsoever, on any basis whatsoever.

“Jews to the extent they choose to stay and live in the state of Palestine will enjoy those rights and certainly will not enjoy any less rights than Israeli Arabs enjoy now in the state of Israel,” Fayyad said.

[Ken Burch]

79. And that quote at the bottom was NOT calling for a "Jew-free Palestine"(in your inflammatory phrase)

It was saying they needed to become Palestinian citizens. Isn't that a fair expectation?

The point of insisting on Israeli citizenship for these people is to keep the settlements in place, and its reactionary to do that, given that those settlements were created for the sole purpose of preventing Palestinians from having their OWN state.

I'm not calling for a Judenrein Palestine at all...just not one with Israeli citizens. There's a massive difference in the two things.

[oberliner]

89. Oh ok

Then I think we totally agree.

[shira]

78. Thousands of Israeli Arabs live in settlements right now. They have no legit....

....or humane, or positive reason for being there?

They're still moving there, from Israel...

Also...

In 2007, the latest year with available statistics, about 1,300 of Pisgat Zeev's 42,000 residents were Arabs. In nearby French Hill, population 7,000, nearly one-sixth are Arabs, among them students at the neighboring Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Neve Yaakov, with 20,000 people, had 600 Arabs, according to the Israel Center for Jerusalem Studies, a respected think tank.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32702595/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa#.UTVWa6VAtvc

[azurnoir]

97. Pisgat Zeev is a neighborhood in the city of East Jerusalem

show us how many Arabs live in Itamar, Beit HaArava, the Gush Etzion bloc........

[shira]

99. So? What's your point? This "Jewish" settlement has > 1500 Arabs who chose to move there. n/t

[azurnoir]

100. you mean a neighborhood in the city of East Jerusalem has 1500 Arabs or did 6 years ago :)

[shira]

102. The settlement/neighborhood was empty prior to annexation. n/t

[azurnoir]

105. empty of who? and what annexation?

Oh the one that only Israel recognizes

[shira]

107. Can't stand the fact Arabs have been moving into "Jewish" settlements?

Hurts your baseless claims of Israeli 'apartheid', doesn't it?

Of course, Arabs moving into settlements is still apartheid but a Jew-free Palestine is not. Hell, there's even no apartheid going on in Lebanon vs. refugees in your view.

Another example of the depraved "cause" you promote and support.

[azurnoir]

109. Arabs moved into a an East Jerusalem neighborhood nothing more or less

now you can put any shade of lipstick you want on that but it changes nothing

[shira]

113. Arabs are free to move into any "Jewish" settlement. And they do....

But THAT's apartheid, while what happens in Lebanon vs Palestinians and Abbas' Jew-free Palestine is not.

Explain?

[azurnoir]

114. so Palestinians can move to Itamar righttttt shira

just who do you think your fooling with this crap?

[shira]

117. Any Palestinian within Israel or Jerusalem can, of course. Why not?

IDF, settlers (in Itamar) save Arab baby
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4043536,00.html

[azurnoir]

118. that years old incident involved IDF 'saving' a woman, not the woman living in Itamar

and was meant as see how much better we are than them type thing

[Israeli]

121. not I for one

shira has obviously never been inside The Wild West Bank .

There are Arab students enrolled in Ariel University, some of whom live in Ariel (city).

Apart from that I have never heard of Arabs (Israeli or not) living in a settlement. The Hebrew wikipedia for the 3 other city settlements, lists their demographics as having 0.0% Arabs.

In Itamar !!!!............

[shira]

123. Got a link for that hebrew wikipedia on the demographics within settlements?

You never heard of Arabs within settlements before? Like this...

Also...

In 2007, the latest year with available statistics, about 1,300 of Pisgat Zeev's 42,000 residents were Arabs. In nearby French Hill, population 7,000, nearly one-sixth are Arabs, among them students at the neighboring Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Neve Yaakov, with 20,000 people, had 600 Arabs, according to the Israel Center for Jerusalem Studies, a respected think tank.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32702595/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa#.UTVWa6VAtvc

[Israeli]

126. go find it yourself shira ...

whats the problem ?
do you struggle with Ivrit ?

BTW have you ever been inside The Wild West Bank ?

because if you have then your lying .... and I remind you that you called Shulamit Aloni a liar .

my guess is that if you have ever been here you did the usual tourist trail ...and never went near Itamar.

[shira]

128. Interesting that you had no idea thousands of Arabs lived in settlements...

You know, they're real people too.

What do you do with such information, now that you know?

[Israeli]

129. laugh at you shira ...

nothing else left to do .

[azurnoir]

93. One must wonder why someone especially someone who claims to so support a 2 state solution

would post such an inflammatory piece as this, and seem to go along with Godwinizing of the Palestinians, the only possible reason I can think of is to create animosity and whip up anti-Arab feelings but I'm sure there is another reason

[oberliner]

94. 972mag articles are inflammatory

Reuters, not so much.

[azurnoir]

110. Reuters had to retract its original because it claimed Abbas said "final solution"

and at best it's all hearsay because as Reuters confesses the quote was said to Egyptian reports-supposedly

[oberliner]

134. The article I posted says "final resolution"

I wouldn't even have known there was any other version if you hadn't drawn attention to it.

[shira]

96. Oh, so any criticism of Abbas and his racism is anti-Palestinian bigotry/incitement?

What kind of criticism against Palestinian leadership is legit, if any?

[azurnoir]

98. A hearsay quote that we're told was said to Egyptian reporters is sensationalism

no first hand reporting involved at all and Reuters was forced to retract part their original statement which claimed that Abbas used the term "final solution" which should be red flag for anyone

[shira]

101. But he said the same thing before, which you also denied. His US Ambassador said.....

...the same thing too.

Why do you defend this racist shit?

[azurnoir]

104. what are you talking about?

The many times debunked statement about Palestinian citizenship being denied refugees or just what?

[shira]

106. Jew-free Palestine. Abbas said the same thing 3 years ago & you cried bullshit....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113444209#post76

You completely denied that from 2010, but Abbas just said the exact same thing again last week. And rather than denying he said it, you now claim it's sensationalist and/or that it just pertains to settlers now (before it was IDF in 2010). You keep changing your tune in your desperate attempts to defend Abbas' bigotry. The very same jew-hating, holocaust denying Abbas whose PA puts out a steady stream of 'Jewish apes and pigs' in their media, religious functions, education....

But besides Abbas saying the exact same thing twice (in both 2010 and 2013) his US Ambassador also repeated it, showing a consistent pattern....

http://warped-mirror.com/2012/06/11/maen-rashid-areikat-wants-you-to-imagine-palestine/

Areikat was asked very specifically in that interview about Jews, not just Israelis. Couldn't possibly be more clear than that.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=44031

And yet here you are throwing up smoke-screens in defense of jew-hating racism and apartheid. Worse, you're accusing those who have a problem with this of inciting hatred vs. Palestinians. How low can you go?

[azurnoir]

108. post the quote with a link

Lol so you finally noticed that Jpost removed your original article from its site, wonder why hmmmmmbut did you not notice or just figured no one else would

[shira]

112. See above #111 to Ken. n/t

[azurnoir]

115. Nope I'm not going on a chase post it to me or we'll assume you can't :)

[shira]

116. Again #111 to Ken above, and here's the link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=45851

[azurnoir]

119. completely different links nowonder you wouldn't post them

oh and Tablet needs to get its facts straight too Fayyad supported that the settlers could stay on as Palestinian citizens, but when you have a willing audience anything goes I guess

[shira]

122. Still denying clear evidence PA leadership wants all Jews out of Palestine? n/t

[azurnoir]

125. I concede that that the Plestinians want the Israelis out of Palestine

it used to be against the rules here to conflate Jews and Israel's but these days it seems like it's your major theme

[shira]

127. How about Maen Areikat, who specifically said no Jews in 2011?

He's the PA's US Ambassador.

When you imagine a future Palestinian state, do you imagine it being a place where Jews, if they wish to become Palestinian citizens, could own property, vote in elections, and practice their religion freely?

I remember in the mid-’90s, the late [PLO official] Faisal Husseini said repeatedly [font color = "red"]“OK, if Israelis choose to stay in a future Palestinian state, they are more than welcome to do that. But under one condition: They have to respect and obey Palestinian laws, they cannot be living as Israelis. They have to respect Palestinian laws and abide by them.” When Faisal Husseini died, basically no Palestinian leader has publicly supported the notion that they can stay.[/font]

What we are saying is the following: We need to separate. We have to separate. We are in a forced marriage. We need to divorce. After we divorce, and everybody takes a period of time to recoup, rebound, whatever you want to call it, we may consider dating again.

So, you think it would be necessary to first transfer and remove every Jew—

Absolutely. No, I’m not saying to transfer every Jew, I’m saying transfer Jews who, after an agreement with Israel, fall under the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state.

Any Jew who is inside the borders of Palestine will have to leave?

Absolutely. I think this is a very necessary step, before we can allow the two states to somehow develop their separate national identities, and then maybe open up the doors for all kinds of cultural, social, political, economic exchanges, that freedom of movement of both citizens of Israelis and Palestinians from one area to another. You know you have to think of the day after.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/48834/qa-maen-areikat

That's all bullshit opinion and has nothing to do with Abbas' statements, right?

[azurnoir]

130. How many non-Israeli Jews live in Palestine shira? Are they neighbors of the Arabs in Itamar? :)

but now you've revealed the propaganda trick you choose to use, virtually all of the Israeli's that live in Palestine are Jews, as are the IDF soldiers that rip Palestinian children from their bed in middle of the night as a matter of course, use tear gas canisters as deadly weapons, guard the settlers while they harrass Palestinians or do whatever else they please..........

[shira]

131. So you maintain that what Abbas' US Ambassador said is different....

...than what Abbas has stated several times? I would expect to see Abbas setting the record straight if his Ambassador was talking shit out of his ass, so where has Abbas claimed that Jews are welcome as Palestinian citizens? Or when did he make Areikat admit it?

You have no straight answers, right? Just more smoke-and-mirrors? Right, just more deflection, denial. Same old...

Now that that's settled, can you at least state for the record that you oppose a future Jew- free Palestine?

[azurnoir]

132. once again shira how many non-Israeli Jews live in the West Bank?

why don't you want to answer that shira ?

[shira]

133. None that I know of, so? Do you at least oppose a Jew-free Palestine? n/t

[azurnoir]

138. so IOW's the military/settler occupiers of Palestine are Israeli's who also happen to be Jews

but it seems you prefer to use the word Jews as a political ploy to score some sort of moral high ground for a military occupation and settlement project

No I am not offended by the fact the Palestinians want their occupiers gone

[shira]

141. Abbas' UN Ambassador said no Jews. He was very specific....

Abbas himself said no Jews within NATO forces are allowed either:

"I'm willing to agree to a third party that would supervise the agreement, such as Nato forces, but I would not agree to having Jews among the Nato forces, or that there will live among us even a single Israeli on Palestinian land."

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/columnists/37008/no-outcry-abbass-racism

Of course you'll deny this too, just as you do all the 100's of references to Jews as apes and pigs throughout Abbas' government controlled/censored PA institutions.

So congrats for whitewashing and condoning racism and apartheid. Not that it's surprising, because you do it even at the expense of Palestinians (like in Lebanon) who are denied the most basic of rights. At least you're consistent as both Palestinians and the "Israelis" can go to hell.

Of course, I'm the one you'll portray with the questionable motives here. It's your automatic defense mechanism. When exposed, attack your opponent. Maybe you'll just LOL at the Jews-in-NATO comment by Abbas. Surprise me...

[azurnoir]

149. what NATO forces but please post more years old 'quotes'

And a reminder here it's already been proven that your use of Jews rather than Israeli is nothing more than a ploy to justify the occupation and land 'acquisition' in Palestine by Israel, as at present there by your own confession no non-Israeli Jews living in Palestine (Israeli settlements)

[shira]

150. Abbas wants the land cleansed of ALL Jews, even those within a NATO force...

...that would be deployed in the event a peace deal is cut. That quote is from 2010 so it's not old, but you'll deny/ignore/minimize it regardless b/c you steadfastly support a racist, apartheid Palestine. And isn't it convenient you're clinging to his Israeli-free quote when no Israelis in Palestine just so happens to equate to no Jews also?

This isn't about justifying the occupation and more settlements, it's about the Palestinian 'cause' you and yours here supports. A 'cause' that is by no means just, humane, or anti-racist.

You all should be ashamed of yourselves.

[azurnoir]

153. again what Nato forces would those be? but what has become abundently obvious is that

despite your claims of otherwise you do not and can not (at least not anymore) claim to support a 2 state solution, at least not in the foreseeable future

I'll be bookmarking this thread

[shira]

162. Obviously, NATO forces Abbas would be good with in a final deal.

But no Jews allowed within those NATO forces.

The land is to be cleansed of all Jews.

That's the cause you support.

[azurnoir]

167. so finally you admit you really do not support a Palestinian State at all

this thread has been oh so worth it

[shira]

170. I support a pluralistic, more liberal Palestinian state...

Not a racist, apartheid, fascist ultra-conservative rightwing one like you support.

[shira]

220. So where can you point me to a quote from Abbas stating Jews will be.....

....welcome in a future Palestine?

We both know that a no-Israeli policy also conveniently means no-Jews. So where do we see Abbas saying it's okay for Jews to live there?

[azurnoir]

221. again shira how many non-Jewish Israeli's live in the West Bank?

but keep trying promise?

[shira]

223. You know "no-Israelis" = "no-Jews" in Palestine. Why the lies?

It's not as if Abbas has stated Jews are welcome, right? Still waiting for that....

Let's see you at least admit that a "No-Israeli" policy means "No-Jews" in EFFECT, if not in intent.

Yes or No?

============

Besides, Abbas said no Jews in a NATO force. He was very clear on that. Why the lies from you covering up such bigotry?

[azurnoir]

234. I keep wondering why you keep this up Why is keeping this thread kicked so very important to you

what do you hope to accomplish what is goal what impression do you hope to make?

However you yourself admitted you were using the term Jews instead of Israeli as a political ploy, because you admit there are no non-Israeli Jews living in Palestine

[shira]

235. So his NATO comment means nothing? His US Ambassador admitting a no-Jews policy....

....means nothing? You're sticking with no-Israelis even though that also means no-Jews. The same Abbas who is now celebrating and honoring, among others, an axe-murderer who proudly butchered an elderly Holocaust survivor.

Why do you defend this?

[azurnoir]

236. and didn't Israel make the man who murdred a UN ngotiator PM?

but once again your comments make what you are attempting to do quite obvious,

[shira]

237. You're defending Abbas' vile antisemitism....

The reason Abbas is celebrating the release of an axe-murderer is precisely because he targeted an elderly JEWISH Holocaust survivor, not because he was some random Israeli (possibly an Arab). The Palestinians do not deliberately target Arabs as they do Jews and you know it. WAIT. You probably believe they just target "Israelis", is that right?

Let me ask you something different:

If Netanyahu says he doesn't want one Palestinian in Israel, you're fine with that?

[shira]

231. Oh yeah, I forgot. Abbas is now honoring proud butchers of Holocaust survivors....

...who were just let out of Israeli prisons. Think there's any chance of Abbas stating FTR that the deliberate murder of elderly Jewish Holocaust survivors is a bad thing?

Any chance at all?

I say chances are slim to none, and slim never came to town...

No chance Abbas shows any regret or condolences for Jews deliberately targeted by his "freedom fighters" for being......ready for it? JEWS! The same Jews who won't be welcome in a Palestinian state.

[David__77]

152. If he means that former Israeli citizens would not be welcomed as Palestinian citizens, that's wrong

Truly immoral.

[azurnoir]

154. Former Israeli citizens? how would that come about?

would these former Israeli citizens be stripped of their Israeli citizenship? And would Israel be stripping presumably Jews living in Palestine of their Israeli citizenship, while demanding that Israel be recognized as the Jewish state?

seems unlikely to me

[David__77]

155. No, but I assume that a state of Palestine might not allow dual citizenship.

There are many states that would require renunciation of other state citizenship status.

[azurnoir]

156. do you honestly think that settlers staying in Palestine would renounce their Israeli citizenship?

and if not wouldn't Israel station IDF to protect its citizens?

[David__77]

158. Well then, that wouldn't be a Palestinian state, would it?

What I mean is that how would IDF station anything there if it was a state that had sovereignty?

[azurnoir]

159. I think that has been my point all along

[David__77]

160. I think we are in agreement.

If those people wanted to live under rule of a state of Palestine, under the protection of the state of Palestine and not the state of Israel, that would be one thing. But I'm not aware of such a thing being countenanced by anyone. Borders mean something and have consequences.

[delrem]

166. I think they would also have to agree to a stipulation,

that their land/property would never, ever, be designated to be part of the JNF.

If that kind of outrageous land-based racism were repudiated there might be a way forward.

But wow weee. Israel is so heavy into that, it's part of Israel's structure of law. And Israel is, now, occupying 100% of Palestine, and offering no quarter in their Zionist push. In fact today the Zionist push is greater than yesterday, and this has been true all my life. Today Israel is on the verge of outright annexing the whole of area C. The social engineering, the population displacements and the disempowerments are to all intents and purposes complete (It's like squeezing the whey from a cheese: when there're only a few drips left after a vigorous session the job is done.)

[shira]

161. Yes, Abbas' stance is truly immoral. His US Ambassador admitted as much...

When you imagine a future Palestinian state, do you imagine it being a place where Jews, if they wish to become Palestinian citizens, could own property, vote in elections, and practice their religion freely?

I remember in the mid-’90s, the late [PLO official] Faisal Husseini said repeatedly [font color = "red"]“OK, if Israelis choose to stay in a future Palestinian state, they are more than welcome to do that. But under one condition: They have to respect and obey Palestinian laws, they cannot be living as Israelis. They have to respect Palestinian laws and abide by them.” When Faisal Husseini died, basically no Palestinian leader has publicly supported the notion that they can stay.[/font]

What we are saying is the following: We need to separate. We have to separate. We are in a forced marriage. We need to divorce. After we divorce, and everybody takes a period of time to recoup, rebound, whatever you want to call it, we may consider dating again.

So, you think it would be necessary to first transfer and remove every Jew—

Absolutely. No, I’m not saying to transfer every Jew, I’m saying transfer Jews who, after an agreement with Israel, fall under the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state.

Any Jew who is inside the borders of Palestine will have to leave?

Absolutely. I think this is a very necessary step, before we can allow the two states to somehow develop their separate national identities, and then maybe open up the doors for all kinds of cultural, social, political, economic exchanges, that freedom of movement of both citizens of Israelis and Palestinians from one area to another. You know you have to think of the day after.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/48834/qa-maen-areikat

[David__77]

164. How sad, and sectarian.

And contrary to the original talking points of the PLO as well. It is racist and reactionary, and no political program incorporating such tenets can possibly succeed in freeing anyone.

[azurnoir]

168. how on Earth could such people especially ones that would elect Abbas ever deserve a state right?

above you said we agreed we do not as I do not support such 'liberal' ideas as occupation and colonization, I guess we're just different kind of liberals

[PDJane]

176. There will not be a treaty of any kind, because Israel does not want peace.

They will continue to build settlements and jews-only roads, they will continue to destroy farms and homes, and they will try to blame it all on the Palestinians when the peace talks fail.

Those talks have failed every time because of Israel's intransigence, and this time will not prove to be any better.

[oberliner]

177. There are no "jews-only roads"

It's disturbing that this canard still gets repeated here.

[PDJane]

178. Sure, right, of course not. Just roads that are jews only while the Palestinians wait.

[shira]

185. Those roads are open to all Israelis, including the 20% who are Arabs....

Did you know that?

Or do you consider them Jews too?

[PDJane]

192. Yes, I am well aware of that. I consider that splitting hairs.

It means that the Palestinians, whose land is under question, can't use them. It's obfuscation. Blowing smoke. It makes it sound better, but the fact of the matter is that the people whose land is confiscated can't use them.

[shira]

195. Well Palestinians drove on them all they wanted before Intifada 2....

Why do you think restrictions started?

[PDJane]

198. That's not the case. And, by the way, Intifada II was and remains a legal insurgency against an

Illegal occupation.

[pelsar]

202. redefining words again?

this is a really cool system you have. First you have an illusion of what the world is, and then if facts or events aren't in synch you just change the definitions.

some helluva fantasy world.

before intifada II the main roads were open to all....now you can redefine the words "open to all"
___

btw are you going to define genocide for me, and then i was going to apply it to the Palestinians actions...and then your reply would be a racist one saying something like the Palestenians can commit genocide because they are Palestenians.....correct?

and then you would add that only jews are not allowed to immigrate (especially those who survived a real genocide attempt), all other immigrations are considered legal, but you wouldn't write it that way..you would use "new world definitions" known only to a select group.
__

this legal insurgency....which involves as a policy the targeting of civilians.....I'm assuming your agree with it, Is it just jewish israelis that can be killed or are druze, muslims and bediouin israelis also included in these legal killings

[shira]

204. Before the mass waves of terror attacks after Oslo, there was free movement....

No "Jew only" roads.

But it's nice to see good progressives like yourself supporting the carnage against innocents that Intifada II turned out to be, especially in light of the fact the Palestinians were being offered almost everything they claimed they wanted in a state. Arafat, in fact, later regretted not taking the offer.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jun/22/israel

There was nothing legal about that "insurgency". Or do you find it's okay only when it's Jewish children and elderly intentionally murdered?

[PDJane]

239. No more than I think it's right to murder Palestinians.

However, it remains an illegal occupation. Israel should not be there, and the mess starts there. Palestine is the issue, was the issue, and remains the issue.

Other people do have rights, too, not just Israel.

[shira]

240. But you support the Palestinians' "legal insurgency"....

Last edited Wed Aug 14, 2013, 10:26 PM - Edit history (1)

...which is code for Arab terror vs. innocent Jews.

Why support something that you believe is no better than Israeli actions, which you oppose?

You're not alone b/c Mondoweiss sees all the murderers being released by Israel as "freedom fighters"....
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/08/palestines-foreign-ministry-pushes-back-on-prisoner-story-says-occupiers-are-the-terrorists.html

I'm sure that just "horrifies" someone like yourself who opposes the murder of all innocents.

[PDJane]

241. I oppose the murder of people. I oppose war. I oppose the occupation of Palestine

What I am saying is not code. I mean it as nothing more than a statement.

Jews are not, in this case, innocents. I haven't supported Israel for decades, and am not likely to do so again. You can debate all you like, you can decide I don't know the meaning of words, you can tell me how wrong I am. That's fine.

Israel was built on terrorism and blood, and the myth of the Jewish Homeland. Religions don't have homelands. The fact of the holocaust doesn't excuse the building of a Jewish state in the middle east; that was just moving the 'Jewish problem' around. If Israel had not managed to promote the myth of the downtrodden little state fighting the Arab world, it wouldn't have gone this far. And it has been a myth. Israel has been well-armed from the beginning, and even the 1967 war was started by Israel, contrary to belief. Who says so? Among many others, the Dutch observers of that conflict. In fact, the Jewish deaths from war and terrorism have been inflated; reported 3 and four times in the Western media, and yes, that's documented too.

One more time. Israel is not an innocent, and she never has been. That's what happens when you decide that your only chance of long term survival means someone else's death.

Neither are the Palestinians innocents, but they have not caused Jews as much death and damage as has gone the other way.

[shira]

243. When u say Palestinians have every right to a legal insurgency vs. Israel.....

...and that legal insurgency consists mainly of Palestinians deliberately murdering elderly holocaust survivors, women, teens, and children, it sure seems like you support those vile acts. And those Jews are innocents.

While religions don't have homelands, Jews around the world share a common ancestry, history, customs, beliefs, culture, and language with Jews in Israel. All traits of a people/nation.

[PDJane]

244. Oh, bullpucky.

Since the Palestinian innocents are being murdered at more than ten times the rate of Israeli innocents, that's a specious argument. I don't believe that your innocents outweigh their innocents, after decades of a brutal occupation. You're rationalizing. Doesn't work.

[shira]

245. Cut the BS about legit resistance and legal insurgencies....

...when you know full well what they are when innocents are the intended targets.

Whatever it is that you think Israel is doing, you cannot possibly expect to be taken seriously when you argue that the Palestinians are entitled (legally) to the same thing.

[PDJane]

246. Because Jewish lives are more important? Or is there some other reason????

[shira]

247. More important than what? The deliberate targeted murder of any innocents....

...is wrong, illegal, vile, illegitimate, and disgusting.

Why are you defending Palestinian "resistance" and "insurrection" when you know damn well what that really means?

[PDJane]

248. Because it is their land. Not Israel's. Period.

And Israel is committing genocide, and yes, I know exactly what that means, so don't run this around in circles again. You are engaging in justification.

[shira]

249. WOW. n/t

[aranthus]

250. You're surprised? n/t

[shira]

251. Just fascinated, that's all. In the last week alone here....

....we see our opponents supporting the deliberate murder of innocent Jews, defending a Jew-free Palestine, and the defaming and demonization of Holocaust era Jews seeking refuge.

Feels like I stepped back in time 70 years.

[Dick Dastardly]

242. Sure it was the case as the facts contradict you . Palestinians in fact could pretty

much enter and leave Israel as they wanted with little restriction prior to Intifada 2.

Legal insurgency or not, the terrorism which made up the bulk of the I2 was not legal.

Legal insurgency or not, either way it does not preclude Israel from taking action against it.

Legal insurgency or not, either way it does not make Israel's occupation Illegal.


Israels occupation is in fact legal and by and large is only called illegal by fringe elements and those with an agenda.

[Israeli]

179. semantics oberliner

what do you prefer ?

roads for yellow license plates only ?

" no Palestinian " roads ?

considering these roads are used almost exclusively by settlers and there are no non-Jewish settlers ....well ??

Ref :
http://www.btselem.org/freedom_of_movement/checkpoints_and_forbidden_roads

Forbidden roads
Another restriction is forbidding Palestinians to use certain roads. In February 2013, there were 67 kilometers of roads in the West Bank that Israel classified for the sole, or almost sole, use of Israelis, primarily of settlers. Israel also prohibits Palestinians from even crossing some of these roads with vehicles, thereby restricting their access to nearby roads that they are ostensibly not prohibited from using. In these cases, Palestinians travelers have to get out of the vehicle, cross the road on foot, and find an alternative mode of transportation on the other side.

The forbidden-roads policy is not laid out in the military legislation or in any official document, except for the prohibition on travel on Route 443, a road that connects the Tel Aviv area with North Jerusalem, which was prescribed in a military order five years after the prohibition was instituted and was partially removed following a ruling by the High Court of Justice. Another road, which runs from the Beit ‘Awwa junction to the Negohot settlement, was reopened following a High Court ruling given in October 2009. The IDF Spokesperson's Office informed B'Tselem that the prohibitions on Palestinian travel are based on “verbal orders” given to soldiers. This mode of operation adds a dimension of uncertainty and makes it difficult to critique the policy and test its validity in court.

Plus ... I give you 972
http://972mag.com/a-divided-palestinian-neighborhood-torn-in-two-by-an-israeli-highway/66978/

... I would give you Shulamit Aloni again but I hate to see her being called a liar .

[pelsar]

180. facts are facts....

the roads in fact are not for Palestenians...(and their are internal roads not for israelis as well). It has nothing to do with religion....nor skin color, or height.

you'll notice the PCJane declares them jewish only and will continue to claim them as jewish only..she also believes as far as i can tell that all jews in israel, zionists and "post zionists" all believe that they have the right to the land as the superior people because they are jews.

and that we are all committing genocide as well

[Israeli]

182. It has nothing to do with religion....!!!!

you cant be serious .....can you ??

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/shulamit-aloni-israel-is-controlled-by-religious-fanaticism-1.277278

For 42 years we have been occupying, oppressing and stealing lands that are not ours. To be free in our land do we need to become thieving Cossacks, uprooters of trees, burners of fields and harassers of women, the elderly and the very young? "We have this land, we have it," goes the song, but what should have been said is "We have the power, we have it, we have the money, we have it, and we are allowed, we are," to starve an entire population, imprison it and annihilate it using air strikes, cluster bombs and white phosphorous. Because we are the lords of the land and God has chosen us to rule. For the shame of it.

"A unique people," wrote David Ben-Gurion. Alas, for that uniqueness. Instead of a Jewish and democratic state they have delivered us a Jewish state controlled by religious fanaticism, one that maintains the purity of the race. They have delivered a democracy in the most primitive sense - not the preservation of democratic values but rule by the demos, the populace that is dictating the transformation of Israel into a totalitarian ethnocracy.

Hooray for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman - they are eradicating everything we built, everything we dreamed about and everything we fought for.

[pelsar]

183. try culture......

some of us zionists, the vast majority in israel today, see our jewishness as part of our culture..and its mixed in with our past which also is a combination of religion and culture. ...but you know that. And you also know that the roads were limited to israelis....of all religions

the bad news for the post zionists is...is that its not up to you to decide where you belong, which group. Unfortunately for reason that are totally unclear, the definition of who is as jew, who is a zionists is up to the anti semites/anti zionists....not us.

remember germany 1930, the enlightened/ assimilated jews?.....who were walked in to gas chambers. And you hear, like I do when interviewing Palestenians they refer to us israeli jews as "jews" not israelis, not zionists, not "post zionist"...just jews.

and of course you'll find posters here who cannot differentiate between jews, post zionists and zionists.
____

your kidding yourself by believing that being a "post zionist" separates you in the eyes of the world and the eyes of the western left from the rest of us.

your kibbutz sits on stolen land, and you and your family are guilty of genocide....just as pcjane and in the words of the late journalist Helen Thomas

Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine,” .... “They should go home.” “Poland, Germany and America and everywhere else.”

she means you and me.....

[Israeli]

187. your past and

my past /Shulamit Aloni's past are not the same pelsar .... she and I were both born here and not in America , we are both products of the Hashomer Hatzair socialist movement and both of us have worked for separation of religion and state and human rights.

We are atheists and post-zionists and neither of us care "who cannot differentiate between jews, post zionists and zionists."

In other words your culture is not my culture .

BTW you are avoiding the subject ..... do you seriously think Gush Emunim was based on culture ?

[pelsar]

201. so you were born in israel....you get two points for that

Last edited Tue Aug 13, 2013, 01:59 AM - Edit history (2)

and you get -100 points for not knowing what gaza really looks like at the street level, what the inside of a Palestinian village looks like, what its like to chase down settlers and talk to them...your right we have different experiences and i would bet you, that mine, which involves less years here, has a lot more real knowledge of the Palestenians and the settlers that yours does.....

try me......lets see where you've actually been, what you actually know about the Palestenians, about gaza and how they live....what the occupation is really like, what its like to invade a Palestinian house at 2:00am and scare the shit of them...find a bomb on a 12 year old kid who doesnt even know hes carrying one...... do you know anything, anything at all about the process of pre and post oslo that changed the Palestinian society?, the affect that bringing back arafat had on them? anything ?

you remind me of the people of zichron yaacov...they use to have a heirarchy of who came first and because of that they felt that they had "more rights.", they didnt like standing in line at the local health care clinic with the "new comers."....and yet they were all related to immigrants, just like u. You were born here? how about your parents, I know some people in Safed and in Zichron that will laugh at your version of being a "vatica" (older citizen)
_____________________________________________

and you miss the point....you can scream as loud as you like how your a "post zionist".....nobody cares. Our neighbors, see you as a jew, an invader no matter how many generations you can trace back....(1920?..big deal). The western leftest see you as an invader who are part of the ongoing genocide, just ask them here, Your "post zionism" does not reduce your connection to israel to a regular "nationalism", like other citizens, of other countries just ask the posters here.

Your guilty of "original sin" your part of the establishment of israel, again just ask the posters here. It doesnt take away the need for separation of religion and state, but its not going to affect the worlds view of you, the invader, the genocide your helping to commit.

and Gush Emunim...of course their based on religion as are so many of the settlers...it doesnt make all decisions in the west bank based on religion. Those additional checkpoints that i was at during intifada II? they weren't based on religion, they were there to slow down/stop our busses from blowing up that you might have travelled on. The Israeli only/Palestinian only roads? not based on some god given right for separate roads based on religion but based on a desperate situation to stop people from killing each other.

___________________

[Israeli]

203. thank you pelsar .....

and Gush Emunim...of course their based on religion as are so many of the settlers....

..... thats the answer I was looking for .

[oberliner]

184. 'what we do in West Bank is worse than all pogroms'

If that's your starting point (as it is for Aloni), then everything else falls into line.

[Israeli]

188. no answer to " semantics oberliner " ? /nt

[oberliner]

190. There are no Jewish-only roads

This is a lie. People still repeat it even though it is not true. That was my only comment.

[shira]

205. Disingenuous wordplay from you....

Sure, the settlements are almost entirely Jewish, but Israel's Arabs are free to live their by choice. Why deny that?

And of course at the same time you're silent about Abbas' repeated proclamations of no Jews allowed in a future Palestinian state.

You then wonder why you and your cohorts aren't taken seriously? Really?

[Israeli]

238. Nothing " Disingenuous " about the truth shira

which " cohorts " would that be ?
we are all Israeli citizens ..... not taken seriously by who ?
you ?
an American ???
Really

[shira]

186. You wrote...."there are no non-Jewish settlers". But you just learned about them....

...a few days ago, and you're denying they exist now?

Or did you just conveniently "forget" the following?

In 2007, the latest year with available statistics, about 1,300 of Pisgat Zeev's 42,000 residents were Arabs. In nearby French Hill, population 7,000, nearly one-sixth are Arabs, among them students at the neighboring Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Neve Yaakov, with 20,000 people, had 600 Arabs, according to the Israel Center for Jerusalem Studies, a respected think tank.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32702595/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa#.UTVWa6VAtvc

[Israeli]

189. azurnoir answered that for you shira /nt

[azurnoir]

193. shira you presented us the fact that Arabs are allowed to live in East Jerusalem

something I'll wager we already knew, fools no one shira, but you wouldn't be attempting to mislead would you?

[shira]

194. They're major "Jewish" settlements. As the video and article shows....

...more and more Arabs are moving into these "Jewish" settlements.

[azurnoir]

196. They are neighborhoods in East Jerusalem as is shown nothing more

but nice try, albeit it doesn't speak all too well for what your attempting to sell folks here

[shira]

197. So settlements hugging the line around Jerusalem don't count as "Jewish"....

...settlements, is that right? So tell me which ones do...

Does Ariel? Because there are Arabs living there too.

[azurnoir]

199. Pisgat Ze'ev is an East Jerusalem neighborhood shira

nothing more or less, if you wish to call it a settlement because a few Arabs are allowed to live there go ahead, still really isn't fooling anyone though

[shira]

206. Hmmm, I wonder if there are any others like you who don't consider these towns settlements

Is this just your opinion?

[azurnoir]

210. I am pointing out that becuse Arabs are allowed to live in a single 'Jewish' neighborhood

located within East Jerusalem does not actually create the picture you are attempting to present here

[shira]

212. No, you're the only one it seems who says these towns are not settlements....

So they're legal homes in your view, right?

Not illegal settlements?

Just wondering...

[azurnoir]

214. They are called settlements and ilegal because they are built on land that

does not belong to Israel, so it both a settlement and a neighborhood in East Jerusalem

[shira]

216. So any Israeli Arabs who choose to move in are settlers by definition?

Like these folks...

Are these Arabs illegal settlers in your view?

[azurnoir]

218. How many times are you going to post about Israeli citizens being allowed to live in East Jerusalem

you've posted it more than once on this thread alone haven't you? I'm not impressed with the fact that Israeli citizens are being allowed to live in East Jerusalem simply because they are not Jews, are you impressed by certain neighborhoods in the US allowing Blacks to live in them? Same type of thing shira

Trap set and sprung without desired result

[shira]

219. So Arabs living in settlements are illegal settlers. Yes or No? n/t

[azurnoir]

200. and about Ariel which again you attempt to mislead us on

of the approximately 14,000 students at Ariel University, 600 are Arab citizens of Israel, not Palestinians

Current enrollment at the university is about 14,000, including secular and orthodox Jewish, including the largest number of Ethiopian-born students in any Israeli university, Arab, and Circassian Israeli students.[22][23][24] As of 2011 there are 600 Israeli Arab students.[25] The Center is open to all Israeli citizens, including Arabs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_University#Enrollment

more on Palestinians and Ariel here from B'Tselem

Ariel is an Israeli settlement in the Salfit District in the central West Bank, some 16.5 kilometers east of the Green Line, with a population of 16,800 (at the end of 2009). It was founded in 1978 on land that was seized under the false pretext of imperative military needs and on land that was declared state land, including cultivated farmland of villages in the district and on rocky land the villagers used for grazing their flocks. The state's declaration of state land was made in breach of the right to due process and relied on a distorted interpretation of the binding legislation in the West Bank. The settlement's municipal area contains many enclaves of privately-owned Palestinian land, whose owners are not allowed access to them (see map).

http://www.btselem.org/settlements/20100830_facts_on_the_settlement_of_ariel

[shira]

207. So Ariel is a settlement where hundreds of Arabs choose to live, right? n/t

[azurnoir]

208. says nothing about live, 600 out of 14,000 Israeli student are Israeli citizens who are Arabs

so no not right at all

[shira]

209. Funny how you bash Israel for welcoming any Arabs to live anywhere they wish....

Meanwhile, you support Abbas' policy of No-Jews-Allowed in a future Palestine.

That says something about you, don'tcha think?

[azurnoir]

211. what on Earth are you talking about?

you've just been shown that isn't true and further more with regard to Ariel the cities population is 19,000 there are 14,000 students enrolled at Ariel university, obviously not all of them live in Ariel

[shira]

213. LOL. Keep trucking! n/t

[azurnoir]

215. I intend to and you do the sam okay? :)