Gaza suffering "massive" rights violations - U.N.

[Jcrowley]

Gaza suffering "massive" rights violations - U.N.
Mon 20 Nov 2006 6:33 AM ET

By Nidal al-Mughrabi

BEIT HANOUN, Gaza, Nov 20 (Reuters) - A senior United Nations official described Gaza as suffering "massive" human rights violations during a visit to the territory on Monday and urged all sides to be bold in trying to end the violence.

"The violation of human rights I think in this territory is massive," Louise Arbour, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, told reporters during a visit to Beit Hanoun, a town the Israeli army shelled earlier this month, killing 19 civilians.

"The call for protection has to be answered. We cannot continue to see civilians, who are not the authors of their own misfortune, suffer to the extent of what I see."

Arbour, on a five-day trip to the region, spent time at the house of a family who had lost more than a dozen members in a shelling on Nov. 8, when Israel says a mistake led to the barrage of artillery shells hitting the neighbourhood.

http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=L20575408

[Boston Critic]

1. The UN is pathetic

They won't condemn any of the obvious human rights violations in Arab countries. They even put some of the violators on their human rights commissions. All the more to demonize Israel.

The UN long ago betrayed its ideals. Now they are merely an arm of the Arab League.

[Tom Joad]

5. Nothing in this report that has not been repeated by any

Human Rights organization in the world.
Are they all "arms of the Arab League"?

Reminds me of the cold war... back then everything that did not promote the US policy objectives and its allies, no matter their brutality, was deemed to be mereley extensions of the communist plot against all that was good and decent.

'Course, we tend to laugh at that schtick now.

[Boston Critic]

8. Indeed, the bias agaisnt Israel...

...is well-documented and long-standing. Who can forget the bogus "Jenin massacre?" The UN human rights conference that turned into an Israel bashing jamboree (while conspicuously avoiding any actual human rights issues)?

So your attempt to change the subject just shows you can't deal with the present reality.

[Tom Joad]

10. I am dealing with the present reality.

And i said that every human rights organization on earth says the same thing as this report. Why? Because there is no other possible conclusion anyone can come to.

[Boston Critic]

12. Yes, if you're already made up your mind...

... you certainly can't come to any other but the pre-ordained conclusion.

Easy, isn't it? Sure beats thinking, huh?

[Tom Joad]

13. So is that why HRW, Amnesty International and so many others

say that Israel is committing massive human rights violations against the people of Gaza? You are accusing such groups of pre-judging the situation?

[Boston Critic]

14. Why yes, the bias is part of the problem

Only reluctantly will they then report on the "massive human rights violations" against the people of Israel by Hamas and Hezbollah, and how the PA and Lebanese governments are complicit in them.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Human rights groups HAVE reported on human rights violations against Israelis...

There's been nothing of a reluctant nature about it either...

But for someone who doesn't seem to believe that there's been human rights violations carried out against Palestinian civilians by Israel wouldn't it be impossible to then turn around and use a completely different set of standards to argue that there have been human rights violations carried out against Israeli civilians by Palestinian groups?

[Boston Critic]

26. yes, reluctantly and belatedly

But they're quick to beieve the wildest accusations against Israel without any proof whatsoever.

The Jenin "massacre" still gets cited long after it was disproven as a total fabrication.

[Tom Joad]

16. So it seems just about *everyone* is biased against Israel.

Amnesty International
United Nations
Human Rights Watch
Tom Joad (and the moderators you say "protect me")
a dozen or so other posters... also biased against Israel in your estimation.

What good company!

:)

[Boston Critic]

25. Sounds like a roll of shame...

... sure glad I'm not among them.

[Tom Joad]

36. Ya, those liberals...

[Behind the Aegis]

37. ...as if liberals are immune to bias.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. He also called those liberals a roll of shame n/t

[Boston Critic]

48. No, I called Arab stooges a roll of shame

I don't consider the UN to be "liberal" and when NGOs attacks Israel and remain silent or only reluctant criticize the terrorist groups attacking them, they don't deserve the name either.

Remember, liberals support Israel. From Truman to Clinton to the 2004 Democratic platform, there is a long record of support for a strong, secure, safe Israel.

You're the one outside the liberal Democratic mainstream, not I.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Joad]

70. Meanwhile, Palestinian children suffer undr one of the most brutal

and longlasting military occupations in modern times. Not only that, but Palestinians, under occupation, are the subject of economic sanctions imposed by Western fools like Bush/Blair. When has the world imposed sanctions on an occupied people? What sense is there to this???

[Tom Joad]

39. Call me one of the Amnesty International-types.

I wear the accusation proudly! I got membership cards to show you too. I got ACLU cards to boot.

I just have no shame.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. I'm a member of AI as well...

And I'm proud to be a tiny part of something that cares about the human rights of ALL people....

[Tom Joad]

42. It's worth the verbal abuse and personal attacks, the vile website

postings, the lies, and even threats, to say something for sanity and justice and the possibility of a future. Even if our efforts are incredibly modest and imperfect.

"Everything we do is futile, but we must do it anyway" - Gandhi
"Life is not meaningful to us unless serving an end beyond itself, unless it is of value to someone else."
Abraham Hershel

[Violet_Crumble]

60. I think the abuse is abjectly pathetic...

I mean what do these kind of people think their histrionics will achieve? That someone somewhere might take their hysterical and nonsensical rantings seriously and stop their membership to AI? Their knowledge of AI is so poor that they don't even seem to be aware of the many reports on the conflict that have been done or even read the ones dealing with suicide bombings etc. But just like an episode of Jackass, sometimes it's kinda amusing to watch people so intent on making complete fools of themselves :)

[Boston Critic]

49. But as an ACLU member...

... and former state board member, I am ashamed when someone associated with the group supports Palestinian terrorists.

[IntiRaymi]

92. As long as it has nothing to do with your sacred Israel?

Why does Israel specify religious affiliation on the national ID card?
I somehow doubt that such policies conform to ACLU ideas.

[Englander]

86. Liberal-bashing, now? n/t

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

57. How do you define 'support'?

I'd be curious to know coz it appears that to you 'support' means absolute 110% unbending acceptance of any action Israel takes, and a rising level of excitement and self-righteousness the more Palestinian deaths are caused. 'Support' appears to be a brazen belief that there are no such thing as innocent Palestinians or if there are they are so rare as to be negligible. Because if that's what you mean by 'support', this liberal does not support Israel. If yr talking about supporting Israel's continued existance as a state and (unlike you apparently) supporting a fair and realistic solution to the conflict that results in two independent and viable states, then I do support Israel - not that I think Israel gives a flying fuck whether I or anyone in this forum supports it or not. That line is as simplistic and mindless as the 'support the troops' one is...

[Boston Critic]

72. Your imaginative misinterpretations...

...have little connection to reality.

But yet, mainstream Democratic liberals continue to support Israel and do not rush to blame it as the primary cause of all the ills in the Middle East.

[Douglas Carpenter]

85. 54% of Democrats support neutrality not alignment

according to recent LA Times Blomberg poll:

"Overall, 50% of the survey's respondents said the United States should continue to align with Israel, compared with 44% who backed a more neutral posture. But the partisan gap was clear: Democrats supported neutrality over alignment, 54% to 39%, while Republicans supported alignment with the Jewish state 64% to 29%." LA Times poll 7/28 - 8/1/06

Since the article is more than a week old, it is only available through paid archives -- However -- the exact question and the responses with party affiliation breakdown is available at the bottom of this web page -
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/40171

[Tom Joad]

66. Human Rights Watch is "far leftist"?

Amnesty International?
DU Moderators (who you have said "protect me"), they are "arab stooges"?

What is your definition of support? You mean never call out Israel for human rights violations?

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nicoll]

68. The UN is not anti Israeli

Why did the UN recommend the plan partitioning Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state?

"By this time the United States had emerged as the most aggressive proponent of partition...The United States got the General Assembly to delay a vote 'to gain time to bring certain Latin American republics into line with its own views.'...Some delegates charged U.S. officials with 'diplomatic intimidation.' Without 'terrific pressure' from the United States on 'governments which cannot afford to risk American reprisals,' said an anonymous editorial writer, the resolution 'would never have passed.'" John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."

Was the partition plan fair to both Arabs and Jews?

"Arab rejection was...based on the fact that, while the population of the Jewish state was to be Jewish with the Jews owning less than 10% of the Jewish state land area, the Jews were to be established as the ruling body - a settlement which no self-respecting people would accept without protest, to say the least...The action of the United Nations conflicted with the basic principles for which the world organization was established, namely, to uphold the right of all peoples to self-determination. By denying the Palestine Arabs, who formed the two-thirds majority of the country, the right to decide for themselves, the United Nations had violated its own charter." Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

Despite the steady arrival in Palestine of Jewish colonists after 1882, it is important to realize that not until a few weeks immediately proceeding the establishment of Israel in the spring of 1948 was there ever anything other than a huge Arab Majority. For example, the Jewish population in 1931 was 174,606 against a total of 1,033,314 Arabs. Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine".

How can you then call the UN has being against Israel when they award such a disproportionate allocation of land to the Jewish minority. This is important with reference to anything that has since happened in the conflict between the two. Surely if has you say the UN is biased against Israel then they would only awarded at a bare min the jewish people less than 10% of the land instead of 51%. This goes the same with the 1967 UN partition plan where the percentages are 76% forming the state of Israel and 24% forming the proposed Palestinian state. The partitioning plans can not be call disadvantageous to Israel and therefore shows that in my opinion the UN has tread ted the Jewish people more than fairly. In reverse it shows that the Un has treated the indigenous Palestinian people unfairly disrespecting their rights to self determination.

[msmcghee]

71. Dear Nicoll, that was almost 60 years ago.

You pretend to be a naive unbiased participant in these discussions. Yet, all your posts come down to the same biased slanders against Israel as the others here. And like the others, they don't past the simplest test of objectivity.

They also reveal you have little desire to learn. In 1947 Israel was making the case that it would be very difficult to survive as a democratic state surrounded by autocratic and violently antagonistic Arab states in the ME - without being given all the territory of Palestine. Their case was that the Arabs who lived there would be given permanent resident status and all citizenship benefits - except the ability to vote the state of Israel out of existence. That the larger state would be more stable and more defensible from enemies - and that more Palestinians would be able to enjoy citizenship in a forward-thinking egalitarian society and be then less likely to become embittered neighbors while they sat in poverty and Israel leapt ahead econmically. And of course, those Arabs who chose could always emigrate to any of the Arab states in the region if they wished.

The Jews did not have the option of emigration. In fact many future Israelis at that time (about a million eventually) were Jews purged from those neighboring Arab states.

This was at a time post WWII when the world was undergoing vast dislocations in all areas affected by the war. There was increased pressure to end the League of Nations mandates in post-Ottoman territories and turn them over to self rule. Still, the UN only gave Israel a little over half of the land they felt necessary to establish a viable state. Many Israelis felt bitterly deceived by the UN. Yet, they accepted the necessity to live by the rule of international law and make the best of the cards they were dealt. They did not attack anyone and set about establishing their new state.

The Arab states around them amassed a large Army and immediately attacked Israel with the stated purpose to kill as many of the Jews as possible and push the rest into the sea.

The UN sat there and did nothing to assist Israel and has done nothing since then except to publish the occasional hand-wringing resolution as Israel continues to defend itself in a succession of wars and armed attacks from most of the same Arab entities who were attacking Israel during the War of Independence.

You quote, "Arab rejection was...based on the fact that, while the population of the Jewish state was to be Jewish with the Jews owning less than 10% of the Jewish state land area, the Jews were to be established as the ruling body - a settlement which no self-respecting people would accept without protest, to say the least.." is as far wrong as you could get.

Arab rejection based on what their leadership said to their people and what the newspapers said at the time . . was that it would be an insult to all Arabs to allow Jews a state of their own in the Mideast - and that all Muslims and Arab nationalists must purge the ME of their presence. There was no talk from the Arab side about percentages or borders. The only Arab interest was killing all Jews who were there.

Like I say, do some reading of non-biased sources. John Quigley's appraisal of what he thought was motivating the Arabs is hardly an unbiased look into the Arab psyche at the time. There are hundreds or even thousands of anti-Israel intellectuals in the world. There are also hundereds of "human rights organizations" in the world who have the same simplistic views of right and wrong as many posters here, and I think you do as well - that if you are a powerful nation, then anything you do involving a weaker nation, including defending yourself from attack, is a form of aggression. Simply publishing the words of other simple-minded fools is not an argument.

You might try to read and understand some actual unbiased history. Next, form your own premise and then support it logically. If you do that then you will be far ahead of all the other anti-Israeli posters here and we all might learn something new in the process.

But, if you want your arguments to be credible you have to show some reasons why you believe what you do. Just because some ivory-tower intellectual some place who has never had anyone threaten his comfortable existence or try to kill his family says so, is hardly an argument.

Oh, and when you quote someone at length it is common courtesy to provide a link so we can read the whole context of their statement.

[nicoll]

88. yes I know it was 60 years ago

The information was taken from the following link http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html

How the land was partitioned in 1947 and 1967 are important to the whole conflict between Jews and arabs in the Middle East. The numbers and percentages of population levels of the partitioned land were just the figures at time and not meant to show a biased view. My argument was that this was one of many instance when the UN has shown that it is not against Israel. Just look at the number of UN resolutions that been made in connection to Israel and the fact that non have been completely unforced. The UN is like a lame duck with implementation of its own resolutions on Israel. If the UN was pro arabic and anti Israeli then surely UN international sanctions would have been used to make Israel comply with them. Take what the UN said about the Gaza Strip. Only words and no actual implementation of actual Un resolutions against Israel will be brought by the UN. Has I said a lame duck because of US influence.

You say that all my threads are anti Israeli. At the end of the day all I want is the partitioned land to be shared between Jew Arab on an equal basis. How can you say that is anti Israeli.

Do you have access to the following information then:
Number of Jews forced to leave arabic countries into Palestine - from 1880 to 1947.
Balance of Jewish and Arabic population levels in the partitioned land - from 1880 to present day.

[Lurking Dem]

89. cactus48?

Ooooooooooookay.

[msmcghee]

90. Yes, each of your posts, so far, reveal . .

. . no attempt at an even-handed look at the things you bring up.

For example, you go back to '48 and '67 to find stats that you would interpret as unfair to the Palestinians. And you start a thread based on an article that does the same thing.

Then you draw the conclusion that the whole conflict is caused by Israel asking for too much of the Territory. i.e it is all Israel's fault and if they could be forced to give back some portion of the land they control then the Palestinians would be happy and would want to live in peace with their Jewish neighbors.

When I point out that the Palestinian leadership has never once said that such a solution would satisfy them, you ignore that as if it did not have anything to do with the reality of the conflict. Usually, when a people are violently opposed to another nation, their leadership will publish statements and demands that reveal the nature of their anger.

Virtually every statement by any PA leader over the last sixty some years that discusses the broad underlying demands of the conflict has expressed their demand that Jews and their nation be eliminated from the ME.

Yet, you persist with your far-left anti-Israel talking points - that if the Jews would just give up more territory and be reasonable - then all would be peace and flowers.

You go back sixty years to try to make this point. Yet, right now, today, there is vivid evidence sitting in front of you that you are wrong. Why, when Israel left the totality of Gaza to the Palestinians - did they begin immediately firing Kassams into Israel - and continue to do so as we speak?

They could just as easily have elected a progressive leadership with a mandate to show the world how they are capable of living in peace with Israel and building a civil society for themselves when Israel releases the pressure of occupation.

You ignore the extraordinary proof of the Palestinian's actual intentions sitting in front of you - proof they provide every day as the Kassams continue to fall - the proof provided by their actual actions and statements . .

. . to destroy the state of Israel and the Jews who live there. To rid the mideast of Jews. That's what they say. It's what they have said for sixty years. That's what they try to do. That's what they have tried to do for sixty years every time they thought they had even a remote chance to succeed. Why don't you believe them?

Instead, you go back sixty years to find a concocted narrative that shows that the conflict is caused by Israel being unfair to the poor Palestinians about percentages of land enclosed by borders - an absurdity that the Palestinians don't even use themselves.

So, yes. You are biased.

[IntiRaymi]

93. I strongly suspect that they want to eliminate a European colony

I think that it is as simple as that.

[msmcghee]

95. Well, I think you are generally right.

However, they use the term "Jews" and "Jewish state" in their statements as the object of their intention to eliminate or purge - they say little or nothing about any "European colonies".

Again, why do you and the other anti-Israeli's here go so far to ignore their actual statements - and create new one's of your own that sound better to Western ears. It reminds of the several posts recently claiming that Almedinijad wasn't really calling for the destruction of Israel - he was just using a colorful metaphor.

That was a good one.

[IntiRaymi]

96. Israel defines itself as Jewish.

Does it not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

"Proclaimed independent in 1948, Israel is the world's only Jewish state, although its population includes citizens of many ethnic and religious backgrounds (see Israelis). According to the international data reported by Freedom House, the degree of political rights and civil liberties in Israel makes it the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, consisting of a multi-party system and separation of powers.<4>"

Too bad about that. It starts by proclaiming it to be the world's only jewish state, following it by a proclamation of it being a 'liberal democracy.'

Silly me, to think that democracies required a separation of church and state, as well no official stance on the matter of religion.

Israel is not democracy. At least not a democracy in the western style.

[Douglas Carpenter]

97. The Arab Peace Initiative

The Arab Peace Initiative
(translation by Reuters).

It was unanimously affirmed by the Arab League and immediately endorsed by the Palestinian leadership in March 2002 and very recently reaffirmed. However, more or less the same plan has been offered by the Arab League and enthusiastically endorsed by the Palestinian leadership going back much, much longer. In fact more or less the same plan has been proposed by the Arab League and supported by the Palestinian leadership going all the way back to January, 1976. I would mention that even Hamas has endorsed the plan. (BTW: I do not have any sympathy whatsover with Hamas) I will post the full statement below along with an excellent article by Seth Ackerman of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting regarding the offer presented by Israel to the Palestinian leadership at the Camp David 2000 talks.

"The Council of Arab States at the Summit Level at its 14th Ordinary Session, reaffirming the resolution taken in June 1996 at the Cairo Extra-Ordinary Arab Summit that a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East is the strategic option of the Arab countries, to be achieved in accordance with international legality, and which would require a comparable commitment on the part of the Israeli government.

Having listened to the statement made by his royal highness Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, crown prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in which his highness presented his initiative calling for full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967, in implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, reaffirmed by the Madrid Conference of 1991 and the land-for-peace principle, and Israel's acceptance of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, in return for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel.

Emanating from the conviction of the Arab countries that a military solution to the conflict will not achieve peace or provide security for the parties, the council:

1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.

2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:

I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries

5. Calls upon the government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighborliness and provide future generations with security, stability and prosperity

6. Invites the international community and all countries and organizations to support this initiative.

7. Requests the chairman of the summit to form a special committee composed of some of its concerned member states and the secretary general of the League of Arab States to pursue the necessary contacts to gain support for this initiative at all levels, particularly from the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the Muslim states and the European Union."

link: http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm
___________

And this is the offer Israel made at Camp David in 2000:

link:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

"The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region’s scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new “independent state” would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called “bypass roads” that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel"

snip:"In April 2002, the countries of the Arab League--from moderate Jordan to hardline Iraq--unanimously agreed on a Saudi peace plan centering around full peace, recognition and normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders as well as a "just resolution" to the refugee issue. Palestinian negotiator Nabil Sha'ath declared himself "delighted" with the plan. "The proposal constitutes the best terms of reference for our political struggle," he told the Jordan Times (3/28/02)."

read full article:

The Myth of the Generous Offer
Distorting the Camp David negotiations -- link: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

By Seth Ackerman

[msmcghee]

106. I have been studying you post . .

. . and learning more about "The Arab Peace Initiative", which I'll admit I didn't know much about until now. However, your post is very confusing. You start with a translation from Reuters that appears to be your own comments as they do not appear in the link associated with them.

Before I comment I'd like to know clearly what in there is actually your opinion and conclusions and what is the evidence that you are quoting.

It's too late to edit your post but could you offer a short cleaned up version of it for me to respond to?

BTW - I appreciate posts like this that focus on an issue and offer evidence and conclusions for a pov that is actually relevant to our discussions. I'm just asking you to clearly separate your conclusions from the supporting evidence so I can understand you better and respond more appropriately.

Also, it helps to write your post so that your opponents can easily see the main point you are making. Those few times here when someone actually posts on topic and to make a specific point - it helps the discussion if the post is focused on that one simple point, clearly stated at the start of the post. Thanks

[Douglas Carpenter]

111. well here is a very basic break down I found from the BBC

link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1844214.stm

snip: "Israel is required to withdraw from all territories seized in 1967 - the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
In return, all Arab states offer normal diplomatic relations - including a peace deal that recognizes Israel's right to exist and secures its borders.
The plan was formally announced at an Arab League summit in Beirut in March 2002."

snip:"Reports suggest that the Saudi plan allows for Israeli sovereignty over the Western or Wailing Wall in Jerusalem - one of Judaism's holiest sites.
The same reports suggest that the plan allows for the transfer of some areas of the West Bank to Israel in return for equivalent transfers to a Palestinian sate.
It is also suggested that the issue of the right of return for Palestinian refugees to Israel has been dropped or sidestepped. This issue is crucial because many Israelis see the Palestinian claim to the right of return as a fundamental demographic threat to the idea of Israel as a state for Jewish people. "

snip:"From the Israeli point of view, the plan as it stands has certain problems. The crucial sticking points may be:

Giving up all of the Golan Heights
A Palestinian political and administrative presence in Jerusalem
The dismantling of all Israeli settlements in Golan, West Bank and Gaza
The potential problem of the right of return for Palestinian refugees."

Here is a small article from Time Magazine announcing the reafirmation of the plan in September 2006. -- link: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1533444,00.html
____________

Having interacted with Arab and Palestinian people for a good deal of my life it has long been my conclusion that the vast majority of Arabs in particular the vast majority of Palestinians have long recognized that Israel is around to stay. Idealistically most would prefer to see a state that was not explicitly a Zionist state -- but they also recognize that they have to live with the reality of an explicitly Zionist state for the foreseeable future. Even the phrase "elimination of the Israeli state" in the vast majority of cases is not a call to "drive the Jews into the Sea" but a call to replace a system that most Arabs see as a apartheid order. But even that notion is viewed as passe and irrelevant given current realities. Although I would have to agree that there is a lot of hot air rhetoric coming out of the Middle East -- just as there are real calls from some demagogues in Israel and America who call for the expulsion of all Palestinians and the destruction of the Al Aqsa Mosque to rebuild a third temple.
__________

It is also my conclusion that although official Israeli statements about wanting peace -- these calls have been continually matched with increased settlement expansion, land confiscations, movement restrictions, water and resource confiscation and other on-the-ground realities that have convinced most Palestinians and the Arab world that Israeli government official pronouncements are disingenuous.
________

Thank you for your polite response.

Again here is the link to the translation of the Arab Peace Initiative of March 2002 -- link:

http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm

[msmcghee]

118. Thanks for your clarification.

As best I can tell this is a response to my assertion that, "Virtually every statement by any PA leader over the last sixty some years that discusses the broad underlying demands of the conflict has expressed their demand that Jews and their nation be eliminated from the ME."

Just previously to that I stated that, "Usually, when a people are violently opposed to another nation, their leadership will publish statements and demands that reveal the nature of their anger."

After reading your two posts and reading up on the "Arab Peace Initiative", I admit that I may have overstated my case but I don't think by much.

You still don't state your premise very clearly and that would have been helpful. You could be saying,

a) The Arabs in this case broke from tradition and did make a real peace proposal rather than just another call for the destruction of Israel. Or,

b) The Arabs have always accepted Israel and made such statements and this is just an example of such peaceful statements. Or,

c) Arab statements are always misinterpreted and given a violent spin by news organizations sympathetic to Israel. The Arabs have always wanted a peaceful coexistence with Israel and have been defamed by Israel's control of worldwide media. Or, whatever.

So, I have to guess at what your premise is.

I do know that the issues of "unlimited right of return" and Arab control of Jerusalem are not possible as far as Israel is concerned and that proposals that include those demands can not succeed. "Unlimited right of return" is obviously the same as destruction of the state of Israel.

The deficiencies of the Arab Peace Initiative as listed in Wiki are:

The initiative does not address the following matters:

* The nature of the envisioned Palestinian state
* The nature of the "just solution" to the refugee problem
* The level of militarization of the Palestinian state
* The use of water resources
* Access to Jerusalem and its holy sites
* Access to other holy sites within the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine
* Access between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip
* The dismantling of non-governmental armed groups within the West Bank and Gaza Strip
* Border controls between Israel and the Palestinian state
* The fate of Palestinian prisoners

With all those things left out of the proposal it seems that the Arab Peace Initiative is mostly a PR project to make the Arab League seem reasonable and conciliatory - while the statements and actions of those who actually control the resistance, like Hamas and Fatah are quite the opposite.

The vast majority of Westerners have no idea there is any difference between the various Arab factions involved. Also, the Arab cause has benefited tremendously in the last few years by Arabs and non-Arab sympathizers who have been educated in the West. Think of the anti-Israel sentiments expressed by many on this forum - and imagine those strong emotions enlisted along with the marketing and PR skills of some of those opposed to Israel's existence in the ME - and I think it's easy to see where this initiative possibly came from.

I don't mean to be overly dismissive but the very real barrage of kidnappings and rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas, Hisb'allah and other factions recently bear little resemblance to any real desire by Arabs for a peaceful solution. This is especially true in Gaza where Israel left the zone to the Arabs and still came under attack almost immediately. That was a perfect opportunity for a demonstration of their peaceful intentions. Instead, they demonstrated just the opposite.

I'm not completely closed to your premise (if it's some form of the assertion that the Arabs really desire peace and coexistence with Israel) but I'd need more compelling evidence than the Arab Peace Initiative you offered as evidence - and a clearer statement of just what your premise is.

Some notes on posting here: Please understand that we see the ME through diametrically opposite windows in most cases. Despite that, I am really trying to be fair to your views. Since your posts will attract opposition it really helps to state right up front and clearly what it is that you believe is true. While your meaning may be very clear to those who basically agree with you - those who see the world through very different windows will have a hard time imagining what you really mean if you don't do that. Hedging on your assertions may make them harder to dispute but it causes a lot of misunderstanding and talking past each other. Let me know when I'm not clear. Cheers.

[Douglas Carpenter]

126. mutual terrifying fear is what fuels most ethnic conflicts around the world

and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is no exception. And then religious demagoguery complicates the matter all the more.

It would be intellectually dishonest on my part if I claimed that Palestinians and the broader Arab world have always accepted Israel. That is clearly not the case. However, to quote the noted Israeli historian (who I might add is an absolutely ardent Zionist) Benny Morris of Ben-Gurion University, "the fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism". (page 37 of Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict 1881-2001.) In the case of the Palestinians I think this fear was and probably still is legitimate. In the case of Israel's neighbors, the fear was grossly exaggerated. Only two decades ago it was commonly believed throughout most of the Arab world that Israel was actively planning to establish a massive Zionist empire extending from the Nile to the Euphrates. Fortunately this nonsense has now become passe and very few people among Israel's Arab neighbors believe it anymore except South of Lebanese Shiites. There it is still commonly believed that Israel has a claim on Lebanese territory south of the Latani River. I don't believe that myself. But to people living just north of Israel's northern border, given the history over the past thirty or forty years it would sound far from implausible to them.

So when we hear inflammatory rhetoric it is good remember that most of this rhetoric is born out of a fear of displacement and dispossession--not simply hatred or even ancient rivalry. If you truly believed--even if falsely-that someone was planning to destroy you and drive you from your ancient home, might you not welcome calls to drive them into the sea?

So as this unfounded fear of Zionist conquest of all Arab lands between the Nile to the Euphrates gradually decreased it should not be surprising that an acceptance of Israel's existence gradually increased.

However for the Palestinians; settlement expansion, road construction, closure and dramatic increases in movement restriction, water and land confiscation and of course house demolition--all of which massively accelerated after the signing of the Oslo Accord in 1993 --their fear and paranoia could only increase. Along with this there are real calls from a small but not insignificant minority of public and religious figures in Israel to expel all or almost all Palestinians and calls to destroy the Al Aqsa Mosque to make room to build the third temple on its site. These calls might be coming from a small minority of fanatics, but to a people freighted of their dispossession, they might sound like an alarmingly imminent concern.

It does appear that at the Taba talks in January 2001 an agreement came amazingly close to fruition. There is a tendency for the Palestinians to blame the Israelis and the Israelis to blame the Palestinians. Since there are no publicly available records we will probably never know. However, with Israeli elections only a couple weeks away, I suspect the time just ran out.

[pelsar]

130. let me interupt....

while the saudi iniative appears "good'... and reasonable and infact is what is generally accepted to be the "end game"..whenever that time comes. All of that is no more than mere paper when one looks at Gaza today.

its a mess and at this point virtually ungovernable....even hamas has admitted it. The idea of expanding that chaos to the westbank is simply absurd. Most Israelis today simply look at gaza and lebanon when we envision the future palestenain state...and thats not a very good vision. I suspect many palestenains (especailly the christians ones) also do.

the UN?....it seems under the UN hizballa is now fully armed once again......

The occupation may be bad.....but there is always worse, like the chaos of gaza......(the shah vs Khomeni government). My suggestion?...is to let the palestenians figure out how to govern in gaza first, stabliize themselves, figure out how to have a single security service loyal to the govt, get the israeli publics confidence and then the westbank will be easy and stable.....

a failed state as in gaza today, will not do the palestenains nor the region any good.

and Hamas threat today (if no state in 6 months another intifada)....sounds like nassralla, will only bring additional physical havoc on the palestenians and more bad PR for israel.....

btw, the latest is not a grandmother blowing herself up, but a teddy bear filled with explosives, so i guess now we'll have to "shake down the toddlers as well"....get ready for the pictures.

[nicoll]

127. Israel should have pulled out of the West Bank instead of the GS

No I am not biased, but I just think that both sides are wrong in the situation. Again I say how can you say I am biased when my governing principle is the sharing of the partitioned land between Jew and Palestinian on a equal basis. It is not like I am saying the Arabs have the right to drive the Jews into the sea and Israel does not have the right to exist. Israel does have the right to exist, but not to the detriment of a Palestinian state within the partitioned land. The Palestinians are being penalized for what they are doing in Gaza both by Israel and the world community as a whole and the firing of rockets into Israel is unacceptable. I do not dispute that the Palestinians are at fault for committing acts of terror. But to see the whole picture I wanted to go back to the original partition of the land. It is all linked and the past does have a direct effect on the present day. When I brought it up I did it to show two examples of when the UN did not act in a way that was unfair to Israel. You said that the UN was biased against Israel and I disagree with this.

The Gaza Strip was never going to work immediately after the Israel's pulling out. The West Bank is another matter though. Israel should have pulled out of the West Bank instead of the Gaza Strip. This would have been a better test to see if the Palestinians really wanted peace or not. But then it would have been allot harder to pull out over 380,000 Jewish settlers than the small amount in the Gaza Strip. Set them a real test in over 5,000sq km of land in the West Bank instead of the small 360sq km of the Gaza Strip.

One question for you?
If the Gaza Strip had passed the test and not committed any acts of terror against israel (rockets) would Israel have returned the rest of the territory in full to the Palestinian people. All the land given to them in the 1967 UN partition plan. It just does not look like they want to return the West Bank to the Palestinians in full when they have over 380,000 settlers living there.

This is where it all goes round in circles. I want the land given to the Palestinians in 1967 returned to them in full. This does not make anti Israeli or biased toward the Palestinians. You seem to want the West Bank to remain mostly under Israeli control and not be returned to the Palestinians in full.

[pelsar]

2. lets hope that

hamas and fatah agree to stop shooting rockets (and islamic jihad) into israel.....then at last the citizens of gaza will perhaps start seeing an end to their crises..

the shame of it all, is that they could have stop shooting year ago, when israel left and saved themselves such misery....

[Tom Joad]

3. Lets hope that Olmert and his accomplices are tried in the Hague

And those that justify their terrorism are somehow shamed into silence.

[pelsar]

4. you would have to add

all of those in hamas, fatah, their enablers, force 17, islamic jihad, etc......you do believe in a single standard for everyone correct?

[IntiRaymi]

34. Well, try those responsible for the greater misdeeds first.

So, back to the Israeli leaders we are.

[Tom Joad]

44. And only one is the occupier, the other is the occupied.

Is it not strange that the oppressor government pleads that the oppresed work for their freedom peacefully?

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IntiRaymi]

54. Thusly flying in the face of history?

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IntiRaymi]

55. Simply Amazing!

The callousness exhibited here!

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

62. And I think

people on DU should stop calling posters who they disagree with trolls. Not only is it against the rules, but it's a weak form of argument.

[Behind the Aegis]

46. It appears the answer is "no."

[lumpy]

6. Maybe the Palestinians would stop shooting their

rockets if Israel would decide to do the right thing and get over their lust for more territory.

[pelsar]

7. maybe a history lesson?

its only been a year since israel left gaza, left it with greenhouses so the palestenians would have work....an access point to egypt and the world, as well as access to israeli markets via karni....

its a shame the palestenians just had to attack israelis after they left, attack karni and try to blow it up, attack the egyptians and kill 2, attack the greenhouses and destroy them....and attack themselves as well.....

who knows, maybe they might figure it out....violence isnt doing them very good, in fact it seems to make their lives more and more miserable, they might want to try changing tactics....

[Violet_Crumble]

11. The invisible West Bank...

When talking of the Palestinians, it's impossible to ignore the West Bank as a factor because yr not giving an accurate picture at all of things....

[pelsar]

17. i dont forget it...

i'm very aware that doing everything at once is suicidal.......the palestenian society has a lot of "restructuring to do, if its ever going to make something of itself.....that is precisely what gaza represents. It should have been the start of their revising their society.

It shows not just the failure of it, but the long road it has to go to become a productive member of the world. The fact that instead of taking advantage of israel leaving gaza, their access to egypt etc, they did the exact opposite is simply hard to comprehend, yet that is exactly what they did......

and more than anything....it was the absolute worst possible decision (or lack of) that could have been made....(and they proved that the israeli right and netanyho were correct, even though most of us were not surprised, just disapointed.....)

[Violet_Crumble]

18. You never mention it in those sorts of posts though...

And it's pretty clear that the continued occupation of the West Bank has got something to do with what happened after the disengagement. Things like continued settlement building and expansion in the West Bank is of course going to play a factor in what happens in Gaza. Gaza and the West Bank are both Palestinian territory and I feel it's unfair to expect that people look solely at Gaza and claim that removing settlers from Gaza has addressed all the outstanding issues to do with the occupation...

[pelsar]

21. i never get any responses....however...

now that you mentioned it.....no gaza is not in a vacuum...and the problems in the westbank are still "active.' One of the major complaints of pregaza was the "cycle of violence".....and its there where all the credit goes to israel and the palestenains get all the blame.

this one is black and white (which is why i like it). Nothing will be perfect and no single move will satisfy everyone, but a move was made. Real settlements were removed.......there really was access to Egypt (though egypt kept it limited), there really were greenhouses where even the israelis who built them offered their services as consultants to the PA...and they really were destroyed.

it was a first step.....and i would argue that the palestenians need "baby steps" to reorganize their society. A little bit at a time, from being occupied to having free choices, from seeing the fighter as the most honorable to changing that to the engineer. That is what the kassams are all about, they havent been able to make that change. In that respect the westbank is irrelevant.....let the war continue in the westbank, but its a chance for their society to start modifying itself in gaza. They got to start somewhere, and this is an ideal place. If israel were to pullout of the westbank tomorrow, the only thing that would acomplish would be to expand gazas chaos to the rest of their society.

hamas is now talking of a cease fire as is islamic jihad.....today the rate is 10 kassams a day.....i really hope they stop.....i really do.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. I think yr expectations are unreasonable and conflicting...

You argue that you know that the Palestinians need 'baby steps' to rebuild their society. Yet you then complain about greenhouses being destroyed as a sign that they aren't capable or interested in rebuilding their society. I think yr timing of baby steps might be a bit wrong. I know I've mentioned East Timor a few times today, but yet again their society after the end of the Indonesian occupation is an interesting case of how long it does take societies to recover from occupation. Even today years after the occupation ended there's violence and chaos in Dili...

And the West Bank is not irrelevent at all. You keep on talking about the West Bank and Gaza as if they're separate entities where the problems of one shouldn't be affecting the other, but they're not separate at all and both are Palestinian territory. Where Israel could make a start is in stopping all settlement expansion in the West Bank. It's a small step but it's a start in the right direction...

Well, I'm sharing yr hopes that the Qassams stop and that there is a cease fire soon recognised by all parties where both sides stop firing at each other. I'm not exactly feeling confident it'll happen any time soon though unfortunately...

[pelsar]

24. It's a small step but it's a start in the right direction...

so why wasnt gaza "a small step in the right direction"

its not that the westbank is irrelevant in the big picture, but in terms of steps in the right direction, gaza was precisly that.

as far as the greenhouses, i'm sure the 4,000 ex employees are pissed, the university they are building on the ex settlemen of neve dekalim is a sign of "nation building"....so its hardly everyone, but there are simply too many loose cannons out there, that they cant bring in...society pressures.

as far a violence goes: even now there is an occasional attack from the egyptian and jordanian borders. The reason you dont hear about it is because those countries guard their borders in good faith, so when something happens its considered "local'. The same would be with the palestenians, the occasional mortor round etc wouldnt disrupt the relations as long as the palestenians guard in good faith. No one is expecting perfect peace in the beginning, just some good faith moves.


(and i plead ignorence on E.Timor.....)

[Violet_Crumble]

41. Why I don't think Gaza was a small step in the right direction...

I think with it being totally unilateral with no cooperation with the Palestinians, it was a big step into a direction of chaos. It should have been coordinated and it should have been accompanied by at the least (something which Israel has agreed to do already but hasn't) by a cessation of settlement activity in the West Bank. More than likely the Qassam attacks would have happened, but there would have been more of an incentive for some real efforts to be made to put a stop to them. When it comes to the greenhouses, that sort of destruction happens immediately after something big happening like the disengagement. The thing now is to hope they get repaired/rebuilt and that there is some normalcy starting to creep into things...

If you get some spare time, you might be interested in reading about what's been happening in East Timor since the end of the Indonesian occupation and the start of independence. There are some striking similarities between both occupations and the struggle to emerge as a state for the Palestinians will likely be similar given that both the Palestinian territories and East Timor are heavily dependent on foreign assistance and both are among the poorest dollarwise of states/territories in the world...

http://www.politicalresources.net/east_timor.htm

[pelsar]

43. and how we see it....

if gaza wasnt a step in the right direction...than we really have nothing more to offer:

of course if wasnt perfect, no move will satisfy everyone involved, but such simple facts like destroying settlements, moving out, giving the palestenains access to the world without israeli oversight (which is why the kassam are now reaching ashkelon, better smuggling) cannot be ignored.

i'm afraid you claim of no more settlements would mean no more kassams is dubious at best, islamic jihad (who does much of the kassams) has its goal on haifa and Tel Aviv.

and unilateral moves (though it was coordinated with the PA, and there was negotation over access to egypt, israel gave in) is how things go sometimes, but thats just an excuse, any negotiation would have ended up simaler: israel out, access to egypt, karni open depending upon security....not much else to discuss.

if gaza wasnt a right step, surly your not saying it was a bad thing to do?.....If leaving gaza wasnt enough, i would assume that stopping the settlements wouldnt be enough..there will always be something thats "not enough"....

and the real question is: why couldnt the palestenians take advantage of it, though the answer is not in israel nor the way israel left, its within Palestenains politics/society, both internal and external...and there lies the problem.

[pelsar]

45. i miss read....

More than likely the Qassam attacks would have happened, but there would have been more of an incentive for some real efforts to be made to put a stop to them

i read it as the kassams would have stopped.....sorry....

[Boston Critic]

9. Lust for territory...

... which they demonstrated by making peace with Egypt and giving back Sinai, withdrawing from UN approved borders with Lebanon, and unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza.

Egypt made peace and there's been no seriously problems between the two countries since then. Lebanonan and the PA refused to do anything about disarming their terrorists and allowed them to operate bases in which to launch attacks against Israeli civilians.

Yet, somehow, this is all Israel's fault and their supposed "lust for territory."

Maybe if people would stop making excuses for the Palestinian terrorists, they would more quickly realize they aren't succeeding in helping their cause.

[breakaleg]

28. you keep using Egypt as proof about Israels lack of interest in stealing land,

yet they are expanding settlements in the West Bank to this day. Why would they do this, if their eventual goal was to dismantle them and pull out?

That's what most posters mean when they talk of lust for territory or stealing land. It's what they are doing today, in the West Bank.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[breakaleg]

35. The information I read stated they were also keeping settlements

farther into the territory in order to cement their water supply and control of the border with Jordan. And they planned to keep their Apartheid roads running all up and down the region.

And they aren't entitled to East Jerusalem so don't use that as if it's a given.

[Boston Critic]

52. Incredble

You read lies about Israel and expect that everyone must defend them against the lies. I suggest you widen your reading.

And Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel. That isn't going to change. So you better get used to it. Israel will *never* give up access to the holy places that were desecrated during the Jordanian occupation.

It's telling that only under Israeli rule are ALL the holy sites under the protection of their respective faiths.

[Violet_Crumble]

58. I suggest if yr going to call things lies, you start backing it up with FACTS...

Worn out talking points aren't making the grade. Neither is shrieking that something's a lie without making the slightest effort to refute it. This is a discussion forum, in case you haven't noticed, not some platform to try out the latest sound-byte macro that has zero to do with the post yr replying to...


East Jerusalem is not part of the undivided capital of Israel. Israel cannot just take what it wants and keep it when it's violating international law. Hopefully Israels leaders are a fair bit more rational than you and the status of East Jerusalem will be included in future negotiations...

[Boston Critic]

74. I have, repeatedly...

... brought out the facts. They've been ignored.

East Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel. That debate is over.

Those who support the Palestinian terrorists (or merely hate Israel) can whine all they want. It's not going to change the facts.

[breakaleg]

81. Why is that debate over? The UN said it should be an international city.

And why are the holy sites meant to be controlled by Israel? Who the fuck put them in charge?

[Tom Joad]

67. I can't understand that either. If there were a plan to move all of them

why let them settle there in the first place? People don't like to be uprooted from their homes.
In the Israeli govt philosophy, however, these don't seem to be people, only pawns on a chessboard, to be used only to defeat the Palestinian people. Tossed aside if unneeded.

[nodular]

122. Any references for this?

"yet they are expanding settlements in the West Bank to this day."

I'm not aware of it. Sharon did make a few pullbacks in the West Bank before his stroke---albeit, they were very small gestures and only consisted of dismantling settlements that were illegal under Israeli law. Still, it was a slight pullback.

I cannot recall any recent Israeli expansion in the West Bank, but am open to hearing about it, if true.

[Scurrilous]

125. There are several links on this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x126084

[nodular]

129. One link on that thread: it is no longer operable.

Anything else?

[Scurrilous]

131. Regarding expanding settlements in the West Bank ...

From the thread provided:


Israel Begins Building New Settlement Deep in West Bank

http://wcbs880.com/pages/42306.php?

PM didn't know in advance of tenders for West Bank houses

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/758516.html

Peace Now: Building in illegal outposts stepped-up during war

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/769617.html

The settlers are not resting

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/770058.html

Settlements grow on Arab land, despite promises made to U.S.

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/778767.html

West Bank exodus on hold; The Jewish settlement movement is suddenly flourishing again

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1162162210258&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

A sector above the law

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/784601.html

You need more?

[nodular]

133. That's enough, thanks.

Your point is made and I concede it. I had not heard about this and I appreciate you pointing it out.

I'm very sorry to see this is going on and I oppose these actions. This undermines the original plan to unilaterally extend the border by a specified amount (approximately 1/7 of the West Bank by my personal eyeball estimation of the map I have seen) and evacuate Jews from the rest of the West Bank.

I originally supported this plan (agreed to by Sharon and Bush), but the whole thing has collapsed from so many directions I don't feel like going into a general analysis of what happened.

Your point however, is well made and certainly bolsters the argument of those who would say that the Jews have not operated in good faith in regards to their renunciation of further expansion in the West Bank. Referring to a vague "strategic need" to defend against Iran etc. by settling this particular valley is completely unconvincing even to me---a Jew who is extremely sympathetic to Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. While I agree that the rockets must stop...

I doubt that would end the human rights violations against the civilians in Gaza - after all, hasn't Israel said that some of the measures it takes are done because of Hamas being in power? Regardless, neither an undersirable govt nor militants firing rockets into Israel justifies human rights violations against the civilian population...

[pelsar]

22. i think its more "frustation"

as far as going after the hamas govt. One cant get the missle teams so one goes after the people above. I would assume (hope?) that once the rockets stop, israel should be "out of there" and gaza will be in palestenain hands and they then will have their human rights violations to deal with (and if hamas gets their way, i would not want to be a liberal Palestenian in Gaza...)

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jcrowley]

19. Maybe

the US and the worldwide community should institute sanctions against this nation that is in gross violation of human rights. That would be the ethical thing to do.

[Boston Critic]

27. We already have...

... we've got off all support from Hamas until they change their ways.

[breakaleg]

29. And as soon as they cut Aid to Israel, we'll have something to talk about.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[breakaleg]

33. Because they are oppressing the Palestinians. I know that doesn't mean

much to you.

[Boston Critic]

53. No, they aren't

It is the Palestinian leadership that is opporessing the Palestinians. They are the ones who looted the international aid. They are the ones who have walked away from every peace agreement ever made. They are the ones who repeatedly declined the opportunities for a peaceful two-state solution.

Get you head out of the sand. The Palestinians are responsible for their own mess. They are the perpetrators, not the victims.

[Violet_Crumble]

61. Of course Israel is oppressing the Palestinian people...

There's that little matter of the occupation, remember? Y'know, those checkpoints where palestinians are humiliated, the homes they're removed from, the settlers that Israel allows to attack them. Instead of blindly blaming the palestinian people for everything, please try and look at the conflict with even the slightest of an objective focus...

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

63. Sorry, but to deny that

an occupation is oppression, is absurd. Yes, the Palestinians bear a share of responsibility for the situation they're in, but Israel bears an even greater responsibility.

[Boston Critic]

76. Sorry, to pretend there is an "occupation"...

...is to repeat the same tired Arab propaganda.

Bet you weren't calling it an "occupation" when the land was held by Jordan and Egypt.

[cali]

87. I was too young to be calling it anything,

at the time, but I have nothing but scorn for Jordanian and Egyptian policies toward the Palestinians, and I think it's a perfectly legitimate to excoriate Jordan and Egypt for that, and to bring up the question of why those countries didn't aid in forming a Palestinian state during the 19 years that they occupied the WB and Gaza.

Sorry, you're gonna have a hard time pigeon holing me.

[Violet_Crumble]

91. I'm sure they'll manage just fine with the pigeon holing...

They have with everyone else...

[nodular]

123. Fair enough, you are unbiased here.

"I have nothing but scorn for Jordanian and Egyptian policies toward the Palestinians, and I think it's a perfectly legitimate to excoriate Jordan and Egypt for that, and to bring up the question of why those countries didn't aid in forming a Palestinian state during the 19 years that they occupied the WB and Gaza.

Sorry, you're gonna have a hard time pigeon holing me."

But can't you see how unfair the bias of the rest of the world is in this regard (Egypt and Jordan were never condemned by the U. N. for their actions.)

In addition, the realize that over the past ---I believe it is a year, year and a half---the UN Commission on Human Rights has failed to to condemn the massacres in Darfur, failed to condemn the Palestinians, failed to condemn other horrible massacres going on in Africa and in fact, failed to condemn anyone in the world except Israel!

Since you seem fair minded I presume you will admit this shows bias, correct?

[breakaleg]

65. If you don't believe that, then what is the point of any discussion?

[Boston Critic]

77. Setting the record straight

I don't suffer fools gladly, especially when all they do is trot out the same old anti-Israel canards.

[breakaleg]

79. At least I can say that your posts make me laugh.

I mean some of the things you say, are about as truthful and rational as those people who deny the holocaust. You are a victim of Israeli propaganda and it shows in everything you say.

[Boston Critic]

80. Your posts make me weep...

... that people are so gullible that they will be taken in by the anti-Israeli propaganda line your routinely and unthinkingly espouse.

[breakaleg]

82. good one! LOL! oh, and right back at you!

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[breakaleg]

116. where do you get this from? If you can read, then you didn't read it in my posts.

[Boston Critic]

128. Better take another look

Because that's certainly how you come across here.

[Douglas Carpenter]

69. every credible & independent human rights organization on the face of this

earth disgrees -- especially the Israeli ones.

International Committee of the Red Cross/Palestinian Territories:

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/palestine?OpenDocument



http://www.btselem.org/english/About_BTselem/Index.asp

Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions:

http://www.icahd.org/eng

The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel

http://www.stoptorture.org.il/eng/background.asp?menu=3&submenu=3

Physicians for Human Rights - Israel

http://www.phrusa.org/healthrights/phr_israel.html

Amnesty International/Israel and Occupied Territories:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/israel_and_occupied_territories/index.do

Human Rights Watch/Israel and Occupied Territories:

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/israel/

Machsom Watch (Monitors abuse at checkpoints)

http://www.machsomwatch.org/eng/homePageEng.asp?link=homePage&lang=eng

[Boston Critic]

78. Thanks for agreeing...

...that Israel is a democracy where even those who make wild accusations against the government are allowed to go and speak freely.

Compare that to any other nation in the Middle East -- including the Palestinian territories, where speaking out against the leadership can get you marked for death by your Arab "brothers."

[Douglas Carpenter]

83. many of these "wild accusations" that you speak of are attested to

by every single credible human rights organization on earth that deals with this issue--without exception--along with thousands of observers and many more thousands of eye witnesses.

I would definitely agree that Israel has some strong democratic institutions. Now if this franchise of democracy could only be extended to everyone living under Israeli state sovereignty including those arbitrarily locked up and brutalized for nonviolent political activity.

[breakaleg]

84. That's like saying....

I may have committed assault but that guy committed assault AND battery.

How does Israel compare to other democracies is the real test.

[IntiRaymi]

94. I ask you again:

What democracy would find it necessary to segregate its members on the basis of religion first, and nationality second?
I am aware of the 2005 decision that eliminated the mention of nationality from the ID Card, but religion is still implicit on it.
Israel is not a democracy, since in Israel all animals were (supposedly) created equal, but it is blatantly obvious that some animals are more equal than others.

[pelsar]

98. not israel...wrong country...

where is there segregation based on reigion?...i cant say i ever walked into a place where my religion was questioned...or my ID was requested for that purpose......

name the place where they do that, and i'll go and check it out.....

(btw an example you might be intereted in, is the fact that the arab legislators are against civil marriage.....)

or is this one of those: make a claim, hope it gets spread, dont back it up..and make another false claim elsewhere?

[IntiRaymi]

121. The segregation is bureaucratic.

If the government is placing statements concerning your religion on your ID card, then it using that information for something. This sort of thing is antithetical to the principles of a democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teudat_Zehut

" There have been some fierce legal battles about identifying the nationality of the bearer in the Israeli Identity card. As of 2005, the nationality has not been printed; a line of eight asterisks appears instead. In the past, the nationality of Jewish Israelis was indicated as "Jewish", rather than "Israeli". In 2002, the Supreme Court of Israel instructed the Interior Ministry to indicate the nationality of people who underwent a Reform conversion as Jews. The Minister at the time, Eli Yishai, a member of Shas, an Orthodox party, decided he would drop the nationality category altogether, rather than list as Jews people whom he considered non-Jews. In 2004 the Supreme Court denied a citizen's petition to reinstate this indicator, stating that the field in the document was meant for statistical collection only, and not as a declarative statement of Judaism. Currently, the only way to determine whether an Identity card belongs to a Jew is to check whether the Hebrew date of birth appears in addition to the civil date. "

Prior to 2005, your provenance figured on your card. This could not have been for 'security reasons' since it would say if you are Russian, or whatever. Currently, according to the wikipedia article, the card will inform the cops if you are jewish or not, and nothing else.
And how the hell does the system know you are jewish to begin with, anyways? Is there a rabbi poring over birth records?
I have always wondered about these sort of things, especially concerning the Saudi ban on non-muslims in Mecca. No such thing as a card-carrying muslim.

[pelsar]

99. I cant resist.....(hope this doesnt stop the thread)

I am aware of the 2005 decision that eliminated the mention of nationality from the ID Card, but religion is still implicit on it.

where on my ID card (I use either my drivers license or reg ID) does it "imply" my religion.


please please please answer this one.....and i promise not to have a coffe cup in my hand when i read the answer.

[Violet_Crumble]

100. Just curious...

..but what sort of information is on yr ID card? What's on it that's not on a driver's license, for example? Here we don't have ID cards even though every now and again there's attempts to bring them in, so I'm kind of curious...

[pelsar]

101. i never actually compared the info...

so i am now comparing the differences:

ID card: has my place of birth, moms and dads first names, hebrew date of birth (optional)*

drivers license: what i can drive (car, motorcycle) etc..blood type, etc

both have my ID number

______

interesting note: the ID is both arabic and hebrew

the drivers license is hebrew on one side which is the ID information, while on the back the title is in French and english, while the catagories are in english (blood type, permit number etc) neither hebrew nor arabic.


When one is ask for ID either one is acceptable; official ID or drivers license
*if once chooses to show the official ID for those who are jews, who have the hebrew date, it will be obvious, as the hebrew date is for jews only, this was agreed upon by both arabs and jews (the arabs dont want a jewish calander date on their ID, and the religious jews do....everyone is satisfied, but it is now optional-so i have to 'backtrack and say it can be implicit).

[Boston Critic]

104. Separate discussion

Of course we have official ID cards in the US. Just try to board a plane, take a job, or open a bank account without one.

Since driver's licenses are held by most people, they don't think twice about it, but if you don't drive, you quickly find out how important an official ID is.

[Violet_Crumble]

132. I didn't ask you and I didn't ask about the US...

I asked pelsar coz he's an Israeli and I wanted to know about Israeli ID cards. No offense, but I don't really give a shit about yr ID card...

[Boston Critic]

103. Israel IS a Democracy

...and the notion that non-Jews are second class citizens in Israel is absolutely false.

But perhaps it's the very idea of a Jewish state that is a problem for you, in the way saying a "Judenrein" Palestinian state is not?

[Douglas Carpenter]

105. I definitely agree that Israel has some very strong democratic institutions

as evidenced by the numerous active human rights organizations. However, the entire land management system within Israel makes it extremely difficult for Palestinians with Israeli citizenship to live outside of designated communities even if it is not specifically stated in law. Palestinian communities within Israel seldom are allowed to extend their municipal borders and permits for new housing for so-called Israeli-Arabs are extremely difficult to come by. Under very dubious pretext land owned by Palestinian-Israeli communities, families and individuals is very frequently confiscated and ends up in the hands of the JNF who manage the lion share of available land within Israel. Unable to secure permits for building or extending housing, a great deal of housing built by Israel-Arabs is demolished. In 2003 a total of more than 500 Palestinian homes were demolished within Israel itself. Tens of thousands of homes within Israel face possible demolition orders for this reason. They build without the unavailable permits and face possible later demolition later. They have no choice.

Opportunities in education and employment are equally restrictive. The Israeli state on average spends about one fourth as much on an Israeli-Arab child's education as it does for other Israelis.

It is clear that this is not just a matter of typical prejudice that any minority might face in any society but is systemic and systematic throughout the entire system.

None of this even touches on the question of the Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories.

The plight of the Palestinian with Israeli citizenship is often completely overlooked.

Susan Nathan is one Jewish-Israeli author who in 2005 wrote a very good book on the subject. Susan Nathan, a few years ago took it upon herself to move into the Arab town of Tamra in Northern Galilee and to live as the only Jewish person in a Palestinian-Muslim community of 25,000. Ms. Nathan who had at one earlier point in her younger years lived in apartheid South Africa does indeed use the word apartheid to describe the situation of the Palestinian with Israeli citizenship. Her book is titled: The Other Side of Israel: My Journey Across the Jewish/Arab Divide.

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385514565/104-5144719-0603152?ie=UTF8

I might also add most Israeli-Arab communities did not have shelters or warning sirens at the time with of the recent war. This in part explains why 40% of the deaths within Israel from the rocket attacks were among Israeli-Arabs. Democracy Now did a report on this shortly after on 14 August--
listen/watch/read transcript:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/14/1358258&mode=thread&tid=25
______________

One Israeli organization that monitors discrimination against Palestinians and other minorities within Israel is Adva -- link:

www.adva.org/
___________

Another book dealing largely with the issue of the Palestinian community inside Israel is---Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State by Jonathan Cook (who lives in Nazareth and is married to a Palestinian Christian) -- Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Religion-Unmasking-Jewish-Democratic/dp/0745325556/sr=1-1/qid=1164376090/ref=sr_1_1/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books

[breakaleg]

107. Thanks for posting that. I look forward to the replies. nt

[pelsar]

108. of course their is predjudice....

whether its acceptable or not is something else...which given the reports from within israel its not.

if one assumes that jews are normal human beings, then it would be reasonable to take a look at the world and check out the context.....and if we do that we can then grade israel on the states relationships to its minority citizens....sound reasonable?


more so since this is the I/P conflict, if were going to take a look at israels internal society it would be reasonable to compare that to the palestenains........

sound reasonsable?

two things to note:
israeli would come out very good compared to the world

if we compare israel to the palestenain society in terms of civil rights etc, the palestenian society would be even get close
_____

conclusion: despite its warts, israels democracy not only shows constant improvement, it remain a very very civil place to live, a place where the israeli arabs would not trade to live within the palestenain society by a long long long shot. (90% according to a poll The Arab Center for Applied Social Research)

[Douglas Carpenter]

109. it would not be surprising that most Palestinians with Israeli citizenship

would not want to trade a much stronger economy and a viable state for a nonviable state and a nonviable economy.

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians like many others have chosen to liven and work in Saudi Arabia and the other authoritarian gulf states not because they like the governments or societies but it was simply a matter of largely economic survival.

Admittedly anecdotally and frankly in response to a post you made a few months back on this matter I asked an acquaintance I know who is now a U.S. citizen and is originally from Haifa and who visits his family in Haifa at least twice a year how Palestinians within Israel view their situation. While acknowledging that the situation was far, far better within Israel than in the Occupied Territories he made it clear that they (Palestinians within Israel with Israeli citizenship) feel deeply discriminated against in a place where they are not wanted. I asked him if any Palestinians within Israel he knew actually felt favorable toward the Israeli state. Frankly, he thought that was a ridiculous question.
The major practical complaints involved extremely brazen discrimination in matters of housing and employment. Usually this is accomplished not by rules that specifically deny Palestinians, but by much more carefully worded somewhat complicated rules that expo facto deny them access. Also Palestinians within Israel feel strongly that the law enforcement agencies frequently treat them with a great deal of hostility and suspicion when there is clearly no threat.

[msmcghee]

110. That sounds a lot like how I was treated as a hippy in the 60's.

I was discriminated against on job interviews because of my long hair. The cops would stop me just because they "thought they saw a tail-lite out". Sleeping in my van (that I lived in with my dog for a year that was labeled with anti-war messages) I'd often get "rousted" early in the morning by bored cops out for some fun harassing the hippies. Often people would not rent to me - and there other slights too numerous to mention.

I was correctly identified by "straight" people as anti-war. They saw me as a threat to America - and therefore to them. I chose to remain anti-war and suffer the consequences of having the majority in my country and some in my family think I was a pos and often treat me that way.

From what I've read some Israeli-Arabs despise Israel and are there only for the benefits and probably because they refuse to leave what they see as their land - temporarily in the hands of an illegal government of Jews. Those who feel that way seem to make no secret of that - seeing as how they live someplace where they can express such ideas and cheer on Israel's enemies without being tortured and having themselves and their families shot.

That doesn't mean that Israel has an overt policy of discrimination. It means in a free country those who push strongly against the grain will be seen as self-identified outcasts and will be treated poorly by many other citizens. Also, while we hippies were against the war, some of us were ex-draftees and most of us had friends who were currently serving. I never had any friends who cheered when a US unit suffered casualties - like some Israeli Arabs apparently do.

That's my impression. I could be wrong and I'd like to hear from some of our Israeli members - what's the real story is on this?

(Hey this new inline spell checker is really cool. Thanks DU ):toast:

[IntiRaymi]

112. You are making a bad analogy

You CHOSE to be a anti-war counterculture type, in the 1960's. Arab-Israelis did not choose their situation in life - it was imposed on them.

[msmcghee]

115. I could be wrong about this too . . .

. . but it is my impression that some Israeli Arabs have assimilated totally into the dominant culture and think of themselves as Israelis, though not Jews.

You say they have no choice. Then why is it that they can disguise themselves so easily as Jews, even orthodox Jews, and use that disguise to walk onto buses and into discos with explosives strapped to their bodies.

It is my impression that they do have the choice to set themselves apart or not - but that many choose to remain visibly Palestinian in dress and manner as a statement of protest and solidarity with their cause - as I chose to wear my long hair and bell-bottom pants.

Again, I'd like to know if I'm off base on this from someone who actually lives there or has lived there - like Douglas Carpenter.

[Douglas Carpenter]

113. I might suggest that to get the real story one need to listen to both sides

unfortunately there don't seem to be any Palestinian posters on this forum and frankly I don't believe most would feel welcome here. However, if you don't know any in your community I am sure that with the Internet you could find such conversations.

As I mentioned above, if you have time to pick up a book by Susan Nathan; a Jewish woman who grew up a passionate Zionist who had made numerous trips to Israel throughout her life. In her 50's with her children grown-up and her husband gone she finally executed her lifelong dream to make Alya and enthusiastically arrived in Israel proudly wearing her badge as she stepped off the plane, "I have come home".

Over the course of her first couple of years certain events in her life disturbed her. She took it upon herself to live as the only Jewish person in the all Palestinian-Muslim town of Tamra in Northern Galilee.

Here is a link to a BBC interview with Ms. Nathan:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/2005_34_wed_01.shtml

Here is the link to the book on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385514565/104-5144719-0603152?ie=UTF8

[msmcghee]

114. People sometimes make dramatic changes in their belief systems.

Such changes don't necessarily speak to the underlying reality. In fact they seldom do as they are always the result of very subjective and powerfully emotional experiences. We seldom change our most fundamental beliefs without such life-changing events.

They do serve however, as dramatic testaments to the views of one side or the other.

[pelsar]

117. i'm afraid i cant help a whole lot....

I've no muslim friends to speak of and via the army have had friendships with druz and Bedouin who have a very different take on Israel than the Muslims (they dont like them).

Hence my knowledge of the muslims is limited to work relationships, viewing as an 'outsider" and what i read/see in the local media: TV interviews, TV exposes etc.

At best its mixed. They get screwed out of many jobs that require a "security clearance," their education has been rising (at the universities) which in turn causes culture conflicts at home. The state gives them less per pupil etc.

I wouldnt know if they're "in love" with the state or not, i would assume not. At the same time I get the impression that they are "in love" with not just its economic stability but the very freedoms that the democracy offers them.

But they are caught up between opposing pressures. A couple of years ago the Egyptian film festival wouldnt let an arab israeli director participate because he was considered "a traitor" for being an israeli....meaning his family had "stayed" to protect arab land (as opposed to be coming a refugee), and was considered a "traitor'. Egypts many professional societies boycott anything israeli.

No, the arab-israelis dont have it easy as being part of a minority...while the country is at war with many of their brethren, while many of the surrounding arab countries support wiping israel out...

and if and when israel gets accepted in the region, no doubt they will have it better, but given the situation.....its shows constant improvement.

as far as being welcomed here, it would be great to have either a palestenain and israeli arab, but it would be very embarrasing to many of the posters here.....

[breakaleg]

119. Why would having a Palestinian or Israeli-Arab poster be embarrassing to posters here?

[pelsar]

124. because of the false information that is written in their names....

i've read tons of stuff here over the time that i've been here that is simply not true....especially when it comes to the status of israeli arabs and other non jews in israel. They are written as if they want to show how evil the jews are and are simply wrong (i dont save the posts, but many are simply preposterous) and their done "in their name".

Also, about the palestenains as well.....for example, palestenian wife beaters have been defended here.....i would think that any intelligent person would have a hard time with that if it was done in "their name"..but then i admit, its just from a liberal perspective (not the left)

They could help explain that when the HAMAs spokesman writes articles critical about the internal social situation in GAZA and blames the palestenians...hes not doing if for israel (as has been claimed), nor is he doing it as a "private" opinion (also claimed)......that type of info, would cause certain embarrasement amongst some here.

but what he/she could ad would be more than welcome from my point of view.

[newyorican]

134. I can think of a few reasons...

...

[IntiRaymi]

120. Thanks for all the links, Douglas nt