If Peace Never Comes, This Will Be the Reason

[Mosby]

The sit-in was held at a pub in the Hadar neighborhood of Haifa, a common meeting place for Arabs and Jews. The issue at the top of the agenda was how to convey to the world at large that dialogue on the Israeli-Arab conflict still exists and both sides are equally frustrated with the status quo. The vibe in the room was positive, with attendees from both sides encouraged that what the rest of the world calls enemies could sit and drink and talk.

Then, without warning, a stranger intruded. An Arab man had apparently overheard the conversation. He approached the group shouting, “But first you have to let the refugees come home!” An Israeli organizer explained that the meeting wasn’t about solving the refugee crisis—it was about opposing inaction and stasis. But the man wouldn’t have it. Becoming increasingly agitated, he demanded that the issue be addressed. One of the Arab organizers, Mudar, tried to calm him down, telling him in Arabic, “We know it’s not right. We know that the only way is for the refugees to come home, but we aren’t talking about that now.”

The implication, of course, was that one day we will talk about it. In Mudar’s mind, not only will we talk about it, we will make it happen. Like so many of his peers, Mudar—a moderate involved in many coexistence initiatives—is a subscriber to the maximal position on the Palestinian right of return; a position that, if achieved, will effectively put an end to the Jewish state. But the maximal position is a symptom of a far deeper concern, one that is the driving force behind the current impasse in Arab-Israeli relations.

On a cognitive level, Mudar is capable of accepting the fact that it is impossible for Israel to agree to his maximal position. He knows that the return of Palestinian refugees will mean the end of the Jewish state. But Mudar almost certainly does not subscribe to the maximal position out of a desire to harm Israel’s Jewish character. In fact, it probably has little to do with Israel at all. Instead, Mudar is trapped in a psychological construct essential to his identity as a Palestinian—a collectivist identity that dominates the Palestinian mainstream.



http://www.thetower.org/article/if-peace-never-comes-this-will-be-the-reason/

[msongs]

1. goddess forbid palestinians should have an identity as a people while their lands are stolen nt

[aranthus]

2. Of course the Palestinians have an identity.

The problem is that the identity they have is focused on victimhood and achieving a redress of grievances that would result in the elimination of the Jewish state of Israel. So how do they redirect their identity in such a way that they can move forward and live n peace with their neighbors?

[Vinnie From Indy]

28. I reject the offering that a "redress of grievances" automatically

leads to the elimination of the Jewish state. i reject the that the issue of right of return also leads to the elimination of the Jewish state. It simply goes without saying that there is hardly a negotiation where both sides get everything they want. I do not believe the extreme positions on either side have to be fully satisfied for some lasting peace to be achieved.

[aranthus]

46. Do you have a reason or are you just in ignorant denial? n/t

[oberliner]

4. "the greatest achievement of the Palestinian people is the development of their national identity"

Did you not actually read the article?

[yurbud]

26. and genderless God forbid Palestinians dispossessed of their land 70 years ago have equal right of

return as those who lost their land 2,000 years ago.

[shira]

3. There can't be peace with a collective mindset that requires full RoR.....

...and an end to Israel as we know it. This belief is so powerful that any Palestinian opposing it is considered traitorous, even to their Western "supporters" who encourage Palestinian rejectionism.

The only "correct" response from Israel, according to Palestinians and their anti-zionist supporters, is absolute surrender. National suicide. We all know what that means.

[Scootaloo]

5. There's a richness of irony here.

First, I'm continually amused by your inability to say "Right of Return." It's not a complex phrase, Shira. Three English words, forming four syllables. R i g h t o f R e t u r n. See, it's not hard!

Second, you're saying there can't be peace as long as people insist on international law being obeyed. Now, i know your UN-phobic arguments and all, I see them every time a Paulbot starts positing on other discussion boards. But tell me, for real and true. Do you think that Israel's insistence on the abandonment of international law is going to work out well for Israel in the long run? Do you think Israel's demand that its ethnic cleansing be respected as a right and legal move, is going to result in good things for Israel's future? Or is it just something you squawk about because that's how you've been trained?

Third... Pretty much everything you said could just as easily be applied to Israelis and Zionism as a philosophy. Though I'm very grateful that I've never seen you use the term, I'm sure you've heard it - "diaspora-minded Jews"? Seen the application of terms like "race traitor," "kapo," and "judenrat" to Jews who don't buy into Zionism? I've seen you cite Dershowitz and Horowitz, and those dimwitz are kind of fond of these terms and idioms, so I'm certain you've bumped into them. How is this different from "any Palestinian opposing it is considered traitorous"?

For that matter you talk about powerful collective mindsets among the Palestinians. Here in specific, you're talking about htier powerful collective mindset that they have a right of return to their territory. You frame this as an awful thing, a hideous thing, an unreasonable, awful, monstrous thing... But you've also propounded on the powerful collective mindset of Jews about their belief that they have a right to the same territory, and you regard this as holy, sacrosanct, and unquestionable. Again, what's the difference here?

In fact isn't the original thesis of Zionism that the Jewish people have a right to return to and claim the territory of the southern Levant? I mean I'll grant it's mutated quite a bit since the early days, but as of August 31, 1897, wasn't that the motivation behind the movement? Why does the right exist for these people, but not these people?

And isn't your position - your personal position, that is - one that calls for absolute surrender from the Palestinians - cease your struggles, cease your protests, cease your movements and demonstrations and maybe we'll think about going easy on you? Exile yourselves to Jordan and maybe we'll something something? Isn't it a call for suicide among the Palestinians?

I have to wonder if you even read your own posts, or if you just go into some sort of automatic writing trance.

[shira]

6. RoR is my lazy way of avoiding writing out "Right-of-Return". Just lazy shorthand....

There is no International Law calling on all Palestinian refugees to return, much less their descendants (who are not refugees). UN Resolutions are not International Law. They're suggestions.

Compare the situation in Israel to that of Cyprus.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan devised a far-reaching proposal to reunite the island in 2004, but in a national referendum, the Greek half of the island rejected the plan. Nevertheless, the U.N. plan does provide an interesting insight into the international community's view of the right of return in general. The plan did not hint at a general right of return of those who had fled their homes upon partition of the island. Only Greeks over 65 years old were granted anything like a right of return, and even then, only on condition that they not constitute more than 10% of the total Turkish population, and no more than 20% in any particular area.

Had Israel accepted such a proposal, it would have had to export Palestinians rather than bring them back for the simple reason that Palestinians constitute over 10% of Israel's population.

http://www.mideasttruth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5990

Was that an example of the International Law to which you're referring? Maybe there's different International Law that applies only to Israel.

Here we see the European Court of Human Rights with their ruling on Cyprus:

"It is not enough for an applicant to claim that a particular place or property is a 'home'; he or she must show that they enjoy concrete and persisting links with the property concerned. Some 35 years have elapsed since the applicants lost possession of their property in Northern Cyprus in 1974. Generations have passed. The local population has not remained static. Turkish Cypriots who inhabited the north have migrated elsewhere; Turkish-Cypriot refugees from the south have settled in the north; Turkish settlers from Turkey have arrived in large numbers and established homes. Much Greek-Cypriot property has changed hands at least once, whether by sale, donation or inheritance."

I don't think you know what International Law is. The ECHR complied with the UN's version of International Law that applies to all countries other than Israel....



Lastly, your issue is with the way the world (International Law at the time) carved up the mid-east. They created the states that exist there, including the Jewish homeland. You don't seem to have a problem with those other fabricated nations; only Israel. Why is that? Oh yeah, because the Jewish people aren't really a people/nation like the Palestinian one that you think has a right to self-determination there. I've heard of these people who deny Palestinians are a people/nation and undeserving of self-determination. Their counterparts feel the same way about Jews....



As to your claim of "ethnic cleansing", I wonder if you believe Jews have a RoR to the areas from which they were ethnically cleansed prior to 1948. I don't see you fighting for their rights guaranteed by this mythical International Law you refer to....

[Scootaloo]

8. I love this argument, and how you think it strengthens your position

Last edited Thu Aug 15, 2013, 09:39 AM - Edit history (1)

The Annan plan was, as you noted, rejected. And rightly so, because.. .well, read it. Apply it in your head. It's fucking bizarre, and surely degrades my opinion of Kofi Annan even further.

Second, the "ruling" from the UCHR on the issue of Greek Cypriot claims is not what you are told it is. First off, most of what you quoted isn't even a ruling.

Some 35 years have elapsed since the applicants lost possession of their property in Northern Cyprus in 1974. Generations have passed. The local population has not remained static. Turkish Cypriots who inhabited the north have migrated elsewhere; Turkish-Cypriot refugees from the south have settled in the north; Turkish settlers from Turkey have arrived in large numbers and established homes. Much Greek-Cypriot property has changed hands at least once, whether by sale, donation or inheritance.

That part? Not a ruling. That's an observation of the socio-political climate within the island of Cyprus. Here's the whole sub-segment;

83. The Court observes that the arguments of all the parties reflect the long-standing and intense political dispute between the Republic of Cyprus and Turkey concerning the future of the island of Cyprus and the resolution of the property question.

84. In the present applications, some thirty-five years have elapsed since the applicants lost possession of their property in northern Cyprus in 1974. Generations have passed. The local population has not remained static. Turkish Cypriots who inhabited the north have migrated elsewhere; Turkish-Cypriot refugees from the south have settled in the north; Turkish settlers from Turkey have arrived in large numbers and established their homes. Much Greek-Cypriot property has changed hands at least once, whether by sale, donation or inheritance.

85. Thus, the Court finds itself faced with cases burdened with a political, historical and factual complexity flowing from a problem that should have been resolved by all parties assuming full responsibility for finding a solution on a political level. This reality, as well as the passage of time and the continuing evolution of the broader political dispute must inform the Court's interpretation and application of the Convention which cannot, if it is to be coherent and meaningful, be either static or blind to concrete factual circumstances.

86. The Court will proceed, in light of all the above considerations, to examine the two main branches of objections by the applicants and the intervening Government to the procedure before the IPC: firstly, whether the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies applies at all to the situation of Greek-Cypriot owners of property under the control of the “TRNC”; and then, secondly, whether or not the respondent Government in these cases have furnished a remedy in the IPC capable of providing effective redress.

(yes, sub-segment, there's a lot there)

This part?

It is not enough for an applicant to claim that a particular place or property is a 'home'; he or she must show that they enjoy concrete and persisting links with the property concerned.

is indeed a portion of the ruling... directed at one of the joined cases. Why? Well, because the lady making the claim had nothing backing up her claim. No documentation at all. That case was dismissed, leaving seven under the aegis of Demopoulos et al v. Turkey.
Those other seven were simply declared inadmissible to the ECHR, owing to the fact they had not exhausted domestic judicial options (in other words, they were told to take it to a back Cypriot court.)

Do note that the observations come before the rulings (quite a deep gulf of text between the two in this case). Yet somehow, a fragment of the court's finding has ended up not only placed before a fragment of the observations, but actually joined whole to it... and then that gestalt is falsely sold to you as the ruling itself.

It's terrible how Zionists even lie to each other. Sociopathy isn't curable, but I believe it is treatable.

And yes, the ECHR has complied with UN standards on this issue.. .which is why there is ruling after ruling in favor of Greek Cypriots against Turkey. Read up on Loizidou vs. Turkey, for a good example.

Lastly, your issue is with the way the world (International Law at the time) carved up the mid-east. They created the states that exist there, including the Jewish homeland.

Yes on the first part, no on the second. I challenge you to find me a map that has "Jewish homeland" on it. Such a place was promised by Britain, but was never actually penciled in anywhere. And if you think about it, it makes perfect sense. I suppose you've never actually thought about it, have you? Okay, here goes.

It's 1917, and you're great Britain. You're fighting on two fronts against the Hun and the Turk, and it's not going too well. You're not losing, but you're not winning either... and since the Central powers control sea routes to your most prosperous holding, it's REALLY starting to pinch. You need a loan, but the rest of Europe is either as broke as you are, or trying to kill you - and the Yanks have already told you they're not interested. What you need is a domestic loan from someone, some wealthy, connected British person, oh, but who? You've got it! How about that wealthy-as-fuck dude, Baron Walter Rosthchild? Banker, business magnate, he's got thousand-pound notes hidden up his moustaches, you hear!

So you go to this guy, and ask him for a loan. He agrees, conditional on you entertaining this political notion of his, something about a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Fair enough, you figure - you take his check, and have your foreign secretary, one Arthur James Balfour write up and publish a letter announcing the agreement. Yeah it's a little premature since your campaign in the orient is still bogged in the Sinai, but whatever, right?

And then happy day! a little over a year later, the war is over and Great Britain is on the winning side! Now you have to make good on those promises you made to the Jews about that homeland, and the Arabs about their independence, and the Indians about membership in parliament., and you're like "pfft, whatever. You shuffle the Jews back to the bottom of the stack, you backstab the Arabs and split their land up with the French, and you tell the Indians to get back to making socks for you or they get the fusillade again. You're motherfucking Great Britain, and don't let anyone forget it!

...Point I'm making is that the Balfour Declaration was intended to be bullshit, Shira. Straight up, grade-A bullshit. It was a promise (and a non-binding promise at that! For someone who argues "a resolution is not law" you surely understand that personal correspondences aren't, either?) regarding a parcel of land that Great Britain hadn't yet captured. had Britain lost the war (which was certainly a possibility at the time) it could not have possibly expected to be held to its promise. And since Britain won, it was in a position to just ignore the promise... which it did in a steadfast manner all the way to 1948. Just as it did with several other promises made in the course of the war (the Arabs and Indians I mentioned.) Had it not been for the horror of the Holocaust, I imagine that Britain probably would have just kept smothering the promised homeland until people just stopped asking.

You don't seem to have a problem with those other fabricated nations; only Israel. Why is that?

Really? 'cause I've expressed my antipathy for the Sykes-Picot frankensteining fairly frequently... well, frequently compared to how often the opportunity appears, I guess. I've also expressed it in response to colonial map-lines throughout Africa and Asia in general.

I've heard of these people who deny Palestinians are a people/nation and undeserving of self-determination. Their counterparts feel the same way about Jews....

I'm typing a response to such a person right this minute. I'm glad that you've managed to recognize yourself in a mirror Shira, now we know you at least have the self-awareness of the average porpoise.

As to your claim of "ethnic cleansing", I wonder if you believe Jews have a RoR to the areas from which they were ethnically cleansed prior to 1948. I don't see you fighting for their rights guaranteed by this mythical International Law you refer to....

You've asked this a few times, and I've answered it each time. I suggest you write it down or something. Yes, they absolutely have such a right. As do those so expelled from their homes after 1948. They also have right to compensation for property lost in such. You keep trying for these sad, sorry little "gotcha" questions Shira. I don't think you fully comprehend the notion of someone whose opinion is grounded in ethics, rather than team sports.

[shira]

10. Of course the UN and ECHR rulings on Cyprus support what I'm stating....

1. You're essentially saying the UN isn't familiar with, nor interested in complying with "International Law", which it appears you realize is nothing more than UN resolutions (suggestions). So which is it? The UN simply didn't know WTF they were doing or didn't give a rat's ass? Moreover, why shouldn't the same apply to Israel?

2. The ECHR ruling doesn't negate RoR, but it doesn't guarantee it absolutely. Meaning there are other avenues like compensation, which Israel has agreed to. The bottom line is that Greeks who were ethnically cleansed from Cyprus won't find that they have some unqualified, absolute right to return to their property. So that's your ECHR ruling and they had to comply with "International Humanitarian Law". While they rightly adjucated that Greeks have property rights in Turkish Cyprus, they did NOT rule for RoR. We're talking $$$ compensation here! Get it?

3. Furthermore, and this will knock your socks off......if the Greeks don't have any absolute guarantee via this mythical understanding of IHL that fanatics like yourself subscribe to, then the Palestinians have an even weaker case. The Greeks aren't responsible for the Turkish invasion, but the Palestinians DID start a civil war that eventually led to a regional one months later. The Turks are FAR more culpable and responsible for the situation than the Israelis, and they are not being ordered by anyone to allow these Greeks to return to their rightful property. I know, your head is exploding due to the cognitive dissonance... Where's this mythical IHL for Greeks? It doesn't exist. RoR is a figment of your imagination...

4. As to Jewish RoR, doesn't IHL (and you're the supposed expert here) claim that Jews are illegally settling those areas? But you agree they have a right to return, so we have a little contradiction here, don't we? If Shmuli lived over the green line in 1945, was expelled in 1948, and then returned right back to his home/business in 1967 he is supposedly an illegal settler according to that holy, mythical, nonexistent corpus of International Humanitarian Law you religiously subscribe to. But a Jordanian who may have squatted in his home for the 19 years b/w '48-'67 is legally there according to the same "IHL". Care to explain WTF is going on in your head?

[Scootaloo]

11. Did you not read what I just said, Shira?

Look, it's not complicated, and I'm sorry if the length of my post, with all its facts and such made you dizzy.

Someone is telling you that the European court of Human Rights made the following ruling on a case of Greek Cypriots vs. Turkey:

"It is not enough for an applicant to claim that a particular place or property is a 'home'; he or she must show that they enjoy concrete and persisting links with the property concerned. Some 35 years have elapsed since the applicants lost possession of their property in Northern Cyprus in 1974. Generations have passed. The local population has not remained static. Turkish Cypriots who inhabited the north have migrated elsewhere; Turkish-Cypriot refugees from the south have settled in the north; Turkish settlers from Turkey have arrived in large numbers and established homes. Much Greek-Cypriot property has changed hands at least once, whether by sale, donation or inheritance."

Now, I don't know who this person is that is telling you this... but that person is lying to you. They are going you false information. It's a non-truth. What they did was they took a portion of a ruling on one of the eight cases covered in Demopoulos et al v. Turkey, and tacked it onto an observation the court made with regard to the political situation in Cyprus. Seriously, you can look this case up, and this is exactly what your source did.

Think of the jackalope - someone took real antlers, and glued them to a real stuffed rabbit, and is passing it the result off as an authentic jackalope.

The European court of human Rights has consistently ruled in favor of Greek Cypriot claims, including their right to return to places on the "Turkish" side of the lines. It dismissed one claim of eight in Demopoulos et al v. Turkey due to a lack of documentation on the claimant's part, and remanded the remaining seven back to a Cypriot court. THAT was the decision of the ECHR with regards to the case you're attempting to fall back on (or rather, non-decision I guess?)

What I'm essentially saying is that you've been had.

If Shmuli lived over the green line in 1945, was expelled in 1948, and then returned right back to his home/business in 1967 he is supposedly an illegal settler according to that holy, mythical, nonexistent corpus of International Humanitarian Law you religiously subscribe to. But a Jordanian who may have squatted in his home for the 19 years b/w '48-'67 is legally there according to the same "IHL". Care to explain WTF is going on in your head?

Does Schmuli have documentation for that? If so, then I say he's welcome to his place, and it falls on Jordan (or if we're talking about modern times, the PA) to figure out what to do with the guy who was living there, and reparations for lost or damaged property Schmuli can provide documentation for.

You do understand that documentation is an integral part of all this, right? That Right of Return isn't "all comers, c'mon in, floodgates are open! but rather a pretty damn slow process of making sure everyone has the proper documentation, that their claims actually existed, figuring out compensation for those whose claims have been obliterated, dealing with hte fallout of the undoubtedly many people who don't have anything other than the key to a front door or something whose claims will be dismissed?

[shira]

13. Okay, I get it now. I'll look into that but in the meantime....

Where is this RoR enshrined in IHL for descendants of refugees? At best, 30-50,000 surviving refugees can return, right?

And I agree that documentation should exist, proving all claims to RoR. So why aren't you and yours rending your garments and gnashing your teeth at the thought of so many Palestinians who survive to this day under apartheid refugee conditions throughout the mideast? I'd bet that most of them LACK documentation. Therefore, they should be living normal lives in their countries, but they're being used as political pawns aren't they?

And of course Shmuli and many others have documentation proving ownership of homes in the territories. They shouldn't be considered illegals according to "IHL", should they? But they are considered that by the most obnoxious critics of Israel and, more importantly, "International Humanitarian Law". Why?

[Scootaloo]

16. I'm sure you'll get right on that

...And by that I mean I'm sure I'll see you copy/pasting that "ruling" again in less than a week. Goose with a head wound, I'm telling you.

Tell me. In Israel do the estates of the deceased forfeit automatically to the state? I don't think they do, but hey, I'm sure some nation somewhere has tried it, so it bears asking. With the assumption that Israel allows inheritance then, I have to guess that the concept would not be completely alien to you?

So, say we have this gnarly old dude who grabbed his family and the contents of the vault and hit it for whatever border was nearest in '47 when the civil war broke out and Haganah was rolling up the hill. Among what he managed to salvage are the deed to his property and maybe some tax documents or whatever. years pass, turn into decades, and Grandpa Ahmed and his family now life in let's say Spain (why not, right?) When Ahmed passes, his will is read, and that packet of documents passes to his eldest son, Samir. Hell of a life story, but in terms of inheritance, nothing the least bit unusual, right? So then, what's Samir's status? By any logic, the property so documented belongs to him. And he can bequeath it to his own son. And the person who owns the property has every right to demand that property.

You know, sort of like all those "abandoned" works of art that were collecting dust in German and Swiss bank vaults. Surely you support returning that property to the descendants of the owners, Shira? I certainly do. Would you accept the Swiss going "No, this painting looks better in that museum in Zurich, so instead here's how much money we think it's worth to you." I mean I suppose if that's what the claimant wanted, fair enough, but if they want to claim the property, that's their right, correct?

And I agree that documentation should exist, proving all claims to RoR. So why aren't you and yours rending your garments and gnashing your teeth at the thought of so many Palestinians who survive to this day under apartheid refugee conditions throughout the mideast? I'd bet that most of them LACK documentation. Therefore, they should be living normal lives in their countries, but they're being used as political pawns aren't they?

Well, I'm glad you've suddenly decided to agree with the Right of Return even if you can't bring yourself to spell it out. Again I'm sure you'll find yourself screeching about what an abhorrent idea it is before the week is through.

And we've gone over your "concern" for refugees before. Much like your belief that Mohammed al-Dura is a Highlander, there's no need to rehash this territory.

And of course Shmuli and many others have documentation proving ownership of homes in the territories. They shouldn't be considered illegals according to "IHL", should they? But they are considered that by the most obnoxious critics of Israel and, more importantly, "International Humanitarian Law". Why?

Do they? Interesting you presume one way wit the Palestinians and another way with the Jews. Ah well, like I said, so long as the claim is legit and verifiable.

Do you assume that every last Israeli - or even most of them - staking claim all over East Jerusalem and the West bank (and Golan, and until recently Gaza, and back in the day, in Sinai) were all Schmulis? I think that's a bit of a stretch, to be honest.

[shira]

19. Descendants of refugees are not refugees themselves. There is no IHL....

...stipulating any such nonsense. So how are they eligible for RoR? Face it, they're not. They're absolutely entitled to monetary compensation, certainly with proof of purchase. I wasn't aware stolen Holocaust works of art were counted as domiciles that the Jewish owners had a right to return towards.

About the millions of refugees and hundreds of thousands in camps, it's hard for this observer to believe you and yours have only the best of intentions towards these people. Over 99% are descendants, not refugees...AND of those still alive, wouldn't it be nice to know they actually QUALIFY for RoR before locking them up in apartheid conditions for the past 7 decades? Can't help but admit that what I see is a VERY shameful example of racism that you and yours willingly practice WRT the refugees that are deliberately being used as political pawns to beat Israel with. Now we know the Arab regimes use them precisely for that reason, but western "progressives" and "liberals" like yourself? You should be the first to call BULLSHIT on that crap. I suspect racism here. These people are only useful to you when they're miserable and homeless & if Israel can be blamed. That's some rather ugly bigotry that you can't even accuse the Kahanists of. I'm not sure there's more than a handful of Kahanists who thrive on Palestinian misery and wish only ill to generations of them withering away in apartheid conditions. Where am I wrong? And don't pull that crap about my fake concern. You guys are the ones screaming racism, justice, peace for Palestine.... I'm calling you on that utter bullcrap.

All I'm saying is that there are many Shmulis out there. This doesn't apply to most settlers, but the problem is that you and yours tend to see all settlers as thieves who are illegally squatting on land that's not theirs. Just as you see all Zionists as racists. Not as bad as your stance on the refugees, all of whom deserve to rot in camps for 70 years.

[Scootaloo]

22. I don't think your line of argument works well for you

Descendants of refugees are not refugees themselves. There is no IHL stipulating any such nonsense. So how are they eligible for RoR? Face it, they're not.

If you accept the notion that a right to reclaim territory vanishes in a single generation... Then surely you accept that after a hundred generations or more, there is certainly absolutely nothing resembling a claim left to make.Ergo, you must argue that Jews have no valid claim whatsoever to the southern levant.

However since you constantly argue that claims from two thousand years ago are in fact valid for consideration, we have to come to the conclusion that you are making up special rules - either Jews get a special rule that they can lay claims over any number of generations, or you're making a special rule that only Palestinian Arabs are limited to the immediate generation.

Or of course you could adopt a reasonable stance that yes, descendants do get to claim these rights.

All I'm saying is that there are many Shmulis out there. This doesn't apply to most settlers, but the problem is that you and yours tend to see all settlers as thieves who are illegally squatting on land that's not theirs. Just as you see all Zionists as racists. Not as bad as your stance on the refugees, all of whom deserve to rot in camps for 70 years.

Do you think it would make any difference if I made a point of saying "the overwhelming majority of settlers" instead, to acknowledge the couple hundred Schmulis amid the five hundred and thirty thousand squatters? I don't think it would. See, squatters have no right to be there. Schmulis (is this what we're going with? Really?) does have a right. Ergo Schmuli is neither a settler, nor a squatter, and is by definition excepted from such terms. Leaving the other five hundred and thirty thousand-odd people who do fit into that category.

Also, if we're letting Schmuli (and Schmuli's family!) back into Schmuli's property in east Jerusalem, then what's the problem with letting Ahmed (and Ahmed's family!) back into their property in Jaffa? Are we once again making up completely arbitrary rules?

[shira]

23. Wait.... You brought up IHL and the RoR.

First things first. Descendants of refugees are not refugees eligible for RoR under any type of IHL. True or False?

As to Jewish rights to the land, we can't even agree that the Jews constitute a nation or people deserving of self-determination. If we can't get past that, what's the point going into descendants of 2000 year-old Jews? The short answer is Jews have a right to self-determination in that part of the planet AND so do the Palestinians. What you're proposing would deny that ONLY to Jews. But to answer you...in a better world there wouldn't be a need for borders anywhere. Jews could live on their ancestral land with a billion other peaceful folks, and that would be great. Unfortunately, history shows that when Jews are dependent on the majority population, things don't work out too well. So until the world grows up, Israel is necessary. End of story. Palestinians can still have 80% of the original Palestinian Mandate, including Jordan which is already majority Palestinian. If that's not fair enough, too bad.

The problem with Shmuli (and it's good you no longer regard him as an illegal squatting thief) is that the IHL you believe exists treats Shmuli the same as it treats someone who just emigrated from the USA and became a settler. Ass-clowns from BDS don't distinguish either.

[Scootaloo]

33. Actually, no, you brought up both

And you've been struggling to argue against the very existence of right of return, and now here you are trying to nitpick the terms on something you insist doesn't even exist. I think you could benefit from taking a moment to sit down with a pen and paper and figure out exactly what your position is. 'Cause i have to admit, I'm getting a little tired of trying to explain logic and reality to someone who doesn't even seem aware of what's going on in their own head.

As to Jewish rights to the land, we can't even agree that the Jews constitute a nation or people deserving of self-determination.

What we disagree on is actually your asinine belief that Jews are a monolithic entity that have one history, one culture, one language, etc.

The short answer is Jews have a right to self-determination in that part of the planet AND so do the Palestinians. What you're proposing would deny that ONLY to Jews.

I'm not "proposing" anything Shira. I'm exposing the shitty logic behind your arguments. You believe that Jews get to claim ancestral property from thousands and thousands of years ago, while also arguing that Palestinian Arabs can't claim ancestral property from fifty years ago.

Unfortunately, history shows that when Jews are dependent on the majority population, things don't work out too well. So until the world grows up, Israel is necessary.

Zionism isn't racist. It just believes that all the goy in the world are filthy savages who want to kill and eat Jews!

Palestinians can still have 80% of the original Palestinian Mandate, including Jordan which is already majority Palestinian. If that's not fair enough, too bad.

Well, problem is we're talking about people who lived in the southern Levant, rather than people who lived in Transjordan. These people were displaced from their homes in what is now Israel. Not Jordan. For you to look at people driven from Ramla and tell them "hey, go to Amman" is a pretty scumbag thing, even for you.

Especially when - again - we can easily apply this same logic to Jews. Imagine if tomorrow the Czech Republic began dragging Jews out of their homes with nothing but the shirts on their backs and told them "You need to go back to Israel now." Under your logic, this is just Czech self-determination and is totally cool, because hey, Israel's there. it's not a horrendous display of hatred and brutality, it's the Czechs helping all those Jews make aliyah!

Unless of course we are again making special rules.

[shira]

36. You're evading arguments you made that have been torn to shreds

You have insisted RoR is established in IHL. But at best it applies to the 30-50,000 refugees from 1948, not their descendants. Sure, their kids can get monetary compensation but that's all IHL will allow for. If you want to argue they deserve more, that's fine, but it's not IHL. You don't have a leg to stand on when you conjure up IHL to support some full RoR that millions of Palestinians are told they have.

What we disagree on is actually your asinine belief that Jews are a monolithic entity that have one history, one culture, one language, etc.

With some exceptions, that's mostly true as the vast majority of Jews can go back 2-3 generations to Orthodox ancestry, prayers in hebrew, same folklore, traditions, common history of being victims....

I'm not "proposing" anything Shira. I'm exposing the shitty logic behind your arguments. You believe that Jews get to claim ancestral property from thousands and thousands of years ago, while also arguing that Palestinian Arabs can't claim ancestral property from fifty years ago.

The world's Jews from 80-90 years ago had IHL on their side. They had every right to settle that area, whether you agree or not. But when it comes to Palestinians, children of refugees aren't considered refugees according to IHL. We can argue how shit isn't fair if you want but they were offered their own state too. 80% of Palestine was made into Jordan while half of what was left was offered to Palestinians. No one had to leave their homes. War didn't need to break out.

Zionism isn't racist. It just believes that all the goy in the world are filthy savages who want to kill and eat Jews!

Nah, not all non-Jews. Some of you white European types are okay. But you've gotta admit, after 2000 years of pogroms, the crusades, inquisitions, expulsions, and holocaust...what other option was there other than their own state, which they legally had every right to immigrate to and settle? The SS Struma saga goes to show Israel is vital to Jewish survival.

Well, problem is we're talking about people who lived in the southern Levant, rather than people who lived in Transjordan. These people were displaced from their homes in what is now Israel. Not Jordan. For you to look at people driven from Ramla and tell them "hey, go to Amman" is a pretty scumbag thing, even for you.

There were TENS of MILLIONS across the world displaced during the WW2 era. Population exchanges due to wars. Israel was no different. And actually, I don't really have a problem with Israel bringing in the original refugees. I've repeatedly stated that here over the years.

[aranthus]

32. They are two different rights.

[font color=blue]If you accept the notion that a right to reclaim territory vanishes in a single generation... Then surely you accept that after a hundred generations or more, there is certainly absolutely nothing resembling a claim left to make.Ergo, you must argue that Jews have no valid claim whatsoever to the southern levant.[/font]

You're conflating a national right to a homeland with the right of individual refugees. The Palestinian clam to RoR is not national. They claim the right to return as individual refugees. That right terminates with the generation of refugees. The claim of the Zionists is not the claim of a right to return. It is the claim that once legally there, they had the right to create a state of their own. The claim of the Palestinians to their own state is a similar claim, and it should be granted as long as it does not conflict with the right of the Jews to their state (which is the basis for the two state solution).

[Scootaloo]

34. Wait.

The claim of the Palestinians to their own state is a similar claim, and it should be granted as long as it does not conflict with the right of the Jews to their state (which is the basis for the two state solution).

Why the clause there? No, if Zionism gets to roll over Palestinians and establish a Jewish state over them - a notion you seem to regard as completely valid and acceptable - then by the exact same logic, you should accept that the reverse is also valid and acceptable.

[pelsar]

37. yes it goes both ways

the Palestenians, at this point (since they now have a society with a "history" and legends and culture) have the same right to create a state where ever they are......except for me that "right" includes the critical aspect that it has to be western democratic from its very foundation, from its very start.

do that and as far as I'm concerned they can make their state anywhere no democracy exists in the world. At the sametime they have zero rights, nada, to create any kind of dictatorship, theorcratic state no matter what "self-determination rights they may claim.

zionism isn't worth anything if the state is a non western democracy.

[Scootaloo]

38. Well, that's... different, I suppose.

I'll be honest, I don't know how to approach this. I'm going to have to tag out for this one.

[pelsar]

39. its a moral approach....not a racist approach (yours)

Last edited Fri Aug 16, 2013, 04:47 AM - Edit history (1)

western democractic states have the "superior rights." Dictatorships and all of their variations have no right to exist, no matter what fancy words are being used to make them "justified" and no matter what the history is or isn't, whats legend and whats real and whats not.

any group of people that are willing to risk life/limb and health to create a democratic society where non exists have the right to do so.

Given that its a very risky business, few tend to do so and only after much suffering, but if they are, then they have the right. No society has the right to create a non democratic state......no matter what the excuse.
____________

The arabs of Palestine lived under various occupations, the jews came made a democracy. If israel refuses to make a democracy out of the west bank, they have to leave, if they make it into a democracy with full rights for the arabs living there, then they can stay.

western democracy is simply the only moral way to govern, its the only present system that grants rights to all of its citizens within its foundation. (apparently arab israelis refusal to have their villages incorporated into a future Palestine agree)
______

creating or supporting the creation of a dictatorship, that by definition takes away rights from its citizens is immoral from its very foundation....and the excuse that "its a process" or the "people have to decide" is nothing more than an excuse to support an immoral govt.

the best excuse for supporting the creation for a dictatorship from the right/left (its alway confusing where its coming from) is "national rights"....which translates to no civil rights...and thats an immoral position

[aranthus]

41. Wrong.

The Jews didn't roll over the Palestinians. They legally came to the land and settled it at a time when there not only wasn't a Palestinian sovereignty; there probably wasn't a Palestinian people yet. Now there's a sovereign state called Israel. The Palestinians may have a right to their own state, but that doesn't mean that they get to deny that same right to the Jews. But that's why you're the problem. You deny to the Jews the same right that you demand for the Palestinians. Keep it up and they'll never leave the camps.

[sabbat hunter]

7. If all the palestinians

and their descendents returned it would destroy Israel and in the end you would wind up with one state, an Arab majority Palestine. (I believe that if Israel became Arab majority, they would vote to merge with Palestine and become one state).



What should happen instead is that the original refugees who were forced out of Israel should be monetarily compensated for their loss of land. At the same time any Jews who were forced to leave Muslim countries since the founding of Israel should be compensated as well. (btw not all palestinians who left israel during the war for independence were forced out. Some were forced, some fled on their own and some fled at the behest of local arab commanders on the ground)

[Scootaloo]

9. And of course, the desires of Israel should be the sole and solitary concern, right?

I'll bet you don't even think about the frames you put yourself into, do you? Let me ask you Sabbat Hunter (V:tM player?) what's your angle on this? I mean what's your motivation for your utter and complete dismissal of the interests of the Palestinians here? I mean I get Shira's angle, she's made it cross-burningly clear. But what about you? What is it that drives you to completely disregard the Palestinians as anything other than objects for Israel to act upon as it wishes?

[shira]

15. The vast majority of Israelis are for peace and 2-states....

Meanwhile, almost all Palestinians insist on a RoR that has no legal basis. Some 99% of all "refugees" are actually descendants of refugees and are, therefore, not entitled to RoR. There's probably only a small percentage who actually hold deeds to property within Israel. But none of this stops you guys from your wet dreams of millions of Palestinians descending into Israel to start the MUTHA' of all wars. RoR = War, and anyone honest with a shred of common sense knows that.

[Scootaloo]

18. Wow.

But none of this stops you guys from your wet dreams of millions of Palestinians descending into Israel to start the MUTHA' of all wars.

You know, I could have sworn I was just talking to you on this subject. Eerie.

[sabbat hunter]

21. do you want peace?

do you believe in a two state solution?

If yes to both, then you would realize that allowing all the Palestinians back in to Israel would destroy Israel.

I am not saying we ignore what happened, but that is why Israel should give them monetary compensation for homes lost. At the same time Jews who fled from Islamic countries should be compensated as well.




I am not being dismissal of the interests of the Palestinians at all. I am looking for a compromise that will ensure Israel's continuance while acknowledging that some Palestinians were forced out during the war for independence.

The Palestinians should then either be offered full citizenship of the nations they have in since 1948/67 or be allowed to live in what would be the Palestinian state.

If you want all the Palestinians who currently to have refugee status to return to Israel proper, then you are basically going to have a one state, arab majority country.




(yes I am a V:tM player and also V:tR player)

[Scootaloo]

35. Well, here's the problem with "compromise"

Name some other situation where the victim of a crime must compromise with the person who violated them.

If someone steals your car, does the court force you to reach an agreement where the thief gets to have the car on weekends? That guy really needs a car!

If someone assaults you, do you have to pitch in for their doctor bills because they busted a knuckle on your head? His pain and suffering counts too!

If someone kidnaps your child, do you have to agree to pay the ransom they would have demanded for the kids? He's in desperate financial straits!

If someone poisons your pet, do you have to reimburse the money they spent on the strychnine? it's not cheap!

If someone rapes you, do you have to agree to monthly conjugal visits at the prison? The guy obviously has needs and is interested in you!

If someone butchers your spouse, do you have to chip in for the electric bill out of pocket when they execute them? I mean you're part of this situation too!

If someone invades your country, are you obligated to grant them at least some of the lebensraum they wanted? They're not asking for that much, really!

If someone vandalizes your home, are you obligated to never clean it up? it's artistic expression, man!

[aranthus]

40. You are a classic example of the problem.

The Jews did not commit a crime against the Palestinians. The Palestinians aren't innocent victims. That you can't see another side to the conflict is why there won't ever be peace.

[Scootaloo]

42. That's fucking hilarious

You're denying the existence of any criminality on the part of Israel, and you're telling me I'm part of the problem.

(of course instead of "Israel" you say "THE JOOOOOZ!" because people like you can't really tell the difference, I suppose)

I see people who inhabited a territory, who were displaced, and are now being told they have to "compromise" with the people who displaced them. Part of the reason I'm not a Zionist is because I have a sense of ethics, and ethics tells me that a wronged party does not have to compromise with the party that wronged them. This does go both ways, I don't expect Israel to reach a compromise with Hamas on the subject of rocket attacks - "Okay, you can fire rockets, but only on tuesdays between two and four PM!" "Two and six!" "Two thirty and five thirty" "Done!"

[pelsar]

43. your denying conflicting morality....

whereas the refugees who lost their homes were wronged....the jews who did not leave europe in the early 1900's because of anti-semitism were also "wronged" (as were the jews in the detention camps post WWII because no one else would take them as all of the worlds quotas for refugee jews were filled)

Some here believe that the moral thing for the jews of europe to do was to quietly go to their deaths in the death camps as opposed to trying to live and eventually create a democracy where not existed before.

from you posts apparently you believe those who stayed and were gassed because they were jews, and those who survived should have stayed in the detention camps.... those were the moral paths that the jews should have chosen.

sorry....we didn't know that walking into gas chambers was the right thing to do

[sabbat hunter]

45. false equivalency

so in essence you are for a single state solution then, with an Arab majority. Is that what you want? Because that is what you will get.

Because that is what the result will be if all the Palestinian refugees and their descendents are allowed back to Israel proper.


Not to mention the fact that not all of the Palestinians that are in refugee camps were forced to leave Israel. only about a third were.

The other 2/3rds either left on their own or left at the behest of arab commanders on the ground.

[yurbud]

27. I wish I could rec your reply. It's dead on.

[aranthus]

31. Yes, but you're completely missing it.

[font color=blue]"Now, i know your UN-phobic arguments and all, I see them every time a Paulbot starts positing on other discussion boards."[/font]

This is just hysterical! I have seldom seen such a clear inadvertent admission that one's argument and ideology were utterly bankrupt. So those of us who are not deluded in our beliefs about the international world; those of us who don't believe that the UN is the source of international moral values; we are merely UN-phobic? In all seriousness, that one sentence of yours so totally destroys your credibility that there is little else to say.

Except then you top it with this one, [font color=blue]"But tell me, for real and true. Do you think that Israel's insistence on the abandonment of international law is going to work out well for Israel in the long run? Do you think Israel's demand that its ethnic cleansing be respected as a right and legal move, is going to result in good things for Israel's future?"[/font]

Talk about completely missing the irony! So tell me. Do you really think that the Palestinians' deluded reliance on international law and the UN have worked out well for them over the last sixty some years? Do you really think that their insistence on non-existent rights, and seeking Israel's destruction has made them better or worse off?

[font color=blue]Third... Pretty much everything you said could just as easily be applied to Israelis and Zionism as a philosophy.[/font]

Okay, this one isn't quite as big a howler, but still very wrong. There is a huge difference between being anti-Zionist and being anti-Right of Return ("RoR" from now on to save space. Happy?) Anti-Zionist Jews, other than the religious minorities in Neturei Karta and the like, believe that way for the traditional anti-Zionist reason that they don't think the Jews have national rights. Denial of Jewish nationhood is per se antisemitism, so of course any Jew who engages in it might be considered a national (never race) traitor. In contrast, Palestinians are considered traitors merely for wanting to normalize relations! Seeking real peace with the Jewish state would likely get Abbas killed. Denying RoR does not deny the national existence or identity of the Palestinians.

[font color=blue]In fact isn't the original thesis of Zionism that the Jewish people have a right to return to and claim the territory of the southern Levant?[/font]

In all seriousness, I have never heard a Jew state it this way. Instead I have heard Jews proclaim their national identity, and right to a separate national existence. I know of no movement at any time where the Zionists claimed the right to return to Palestine. They always spoke in terms of obtaining permission from the sovereign; either the Turks or the British. It was not until the 1939 White Paper and the obvious desperate need to get Jews out of Europe that they turned to large scale smuggling. And remember that Palestine was originally only one of several possible sites for the future Jewish homeland. So not at all equivalent to the RoR.

[font color=blue]And isn't your position - your personal position, that is - one that calls for absolute surrender from the Palestinians - cease your struggles, cease your protests, cease your movements and demonstrations and maybe we'll think about going easy on you? Exile yourselves to Jordan and maybe we'll something something? Isn't it a call for suicide among the Palestinians?[/font]

I'm pretty sure that Shira's answer would be no. As for me it certainly is no. I don't know where you get this stuff most of the time. The position is 1: Stop trying to kill us and negotiate in good faith; 2: Accept the right of existence of a Jewish state as we accept the right of existence of a Palestinian state; 3: Be reasonable; 4: Accept a two state solution.

Now explain to me how asking the Palestinians to renounce RoR is a call for Palestinian suicide?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

44. Very well said. nt

[parkia00]

12. This goes both ways you know...

For every Palestinian you point out that has the mentality that prevent peace, there exists their Israeli counterpart that is just as stubborn. If you know what you demand cannot be given or accepted by your counterpart to peace, you will never get anywhere.

[shira]

14. Nah, most Israelis are for 2 states...

Hell, most rightwing Israelis support 2 states...
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/poll-most-rightist-israelis-would-support-palestinian-state-dividing-jerusalem.premium-1.490926

Problem is, almost all Palestinians are for a full right-of-return, which means 1 Palestinian state next to another Palestinian state in their 2-state dream. About 7% would waive RoR for a 2-state solution....
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=54337

Try again.

[parkia00]

17. Unfortunately What I Said Just Went Above Your Head.

I'm not talking about 1 or 2 states. I'm talking about insisting that your demands must be met and to hell with the other guy and his demands. When this happens there is no room for compromise because both sides feel it is of paramount importance that they get 100% of what they want. If two people are sharing a pizza and both parties demand 2/3 of the pizza for what ever reason they feel entitled to, there will be a problem.

Insisting the full right of return for the Palestinians and insisting on the pre-1967 map as borders is unfeasible for the Israelis and they will never accept to it. Insisting for uncontrolled settlement activity where and when any settlers deem fit for them to "liberate" additional land will never be accepted by the Palestinians side.

Two sides of the same bloody coin that leaders of both sides keep tossing hoping it will land on both the head and tail to get what they want.

[shira]

20. What is unreasonable about the 2 Israeli offers in 2000 and 2008?

What is demanding about that? The Palestinians would've gotten almost everything they asked for.

And you're damn right that full RoR is unfeasible. But only 7% of Palestinians are willing to drop that demand.

[parkia00]

24. If you say so Shira

I'm sure you are right as always. The Palestinians are to be blamed by default.

[azurnoir]

25. shira what kind of 2 states are "most Israeli" for on the Palestinian side

would most Israeli's be willing to evacuate the W#est Bank? or are most Israeli's for a truncated Palestinian state something that is little more than a Palestinian only island surrounded by greater Israel, completely and totally dependent on Israel's good will for any all movement of goods or people in or out, much like Gaza?

[shira]

29. You can read it at the site I just linked to....

...about Israel's rightwingers supporting 2 states. Turns out 2/3 of Israelis back the following:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/poll-most-rightist-israelis-would-support-palestinian-state-dividing-jerusalem.premium-1.490926

Look at the subheading under the title.

[azurnoir]

30. well that's nice and all but here is a much more recent poll like from last week

Last edited Thu Aug 15, 2013, 07:00 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4414452,00.html

seems that when 'negotiations' were only theoretical and there for the reality was just an idea shall we say the polls could be read one way, however now that negotiations are a hard reality the polls read another way