Demands of a thief

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"The public discourse in Israel has momentarily awoken from its slumber. `To give or not to give,` that is the Shakespearean question - `to make concessions` or `not to make concessions.` It is good that initial signs of life in the Israeli public have emerged. It was worth going to Annapolis if only for this reason - but this discourse is baseless and distorted. Israel is not being asked `to give` anything to the Palestinians; it is only being asked to return - to return their stolen land and restore their trampled self-respect, along with their fundamental human rights and humanity. This is the primary core issue, the only one worthy of the title, and no one talks about it anymore.

No one is talking about morality anymore. Justice is also an archaic concept, a taboo that has deliberately been erased from all negotiations. Two and a half million people - farmers, merchants, lawyers, drivers, daydreaming teenage girls, love-smitten men, old people, women, children and combatants using violent means for a just cause - have all been living under a brutal boot for 40 years. Meanwhile, in our cafes and living rooms the conversation is over giving or not giving.

Lawyers, philosophers, writers, lecturers, intellectuals and rabbis, who are looked upon for basic knowledge about moral precepts, participate in this distorted discourse. What will they tell their children - after the occupation finally becomes a nightmare of the past - about the period in which they wielded influence? What will they say about their role in this? Israeli students stand at checkpoints as part of their army reserve duty, brutally deciding the fate of people, and then some rush off to lectures on ethics at university, forgetting what they did the previous day and what is being done in their names every single day. Intellectuals publish petitions, `to make concessions` or `not to make concessions,` diverting attention from the core issue. There are stormy debates about corruption - whether Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is corrupt and how the Supreme Court is being undermined. But there is no discussion of the ultimate question: Isn`t the occupation the greatest and most terrible corruption to have taken root here, overshadowing everything else?

Security officials are terrified about what would happen if we removed a checkpoint or released prisoners, like the whites in South Africa who whipped up a frenzy of fear about the `great slaughter` that would ensue if blacks were granted their rights. But these are not legitimate questions: The incarceration must be ended and the myriad of political prisoners should be released unconditionally. Just as a thief cannot present demands - neither preconditions nor any other terms - to the owner of the property he has robbed, Israel cannot present demands to the other side as long as the situation remains as it is."

more

[Boojatta]

1. When a government expropriates land, is it always stealing?

What exceptions, if any, might there be?

[LibertarianAtheist]

17. one exception i've seen here

is if the government doing the theft of land is Hugo Chavez's, then it isn't stealing, it's "nationalization of land being abused by big business".

But in reference to Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, it depends on whether one considers it actual theft. If one believes that Zionism and the existence of a Jewish state on land occupied for centuries as theft then, yes. However if some take a more nuanced view and looks at the existence and further expansion of Israel through the lens of history and realizes that land will always be owned by people other than the original occupiers, it will be seen simply as history's course continuing.

Now comes the question. What if Palestinian land becomes the property of a religious minority (the extra-fundamentalist Hamas) through militarism and electoral fraud (i have a hard time believing the majority of Palestinians think it'd be a good thing for the people representing them taking an approach to Israel which involves antagonizing the Israeli government with acts of violence and threats), is that theft?

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Tom Joad]

11. i get the trend here. anyone who supports human rights for Palestinians,

and therefore criticizes Israel, is, in your mind, guilty of "blood libel".

If i were not the object of your (and your friends) ridicule and hate Jim, i would feel terrible ashamed.
fortunately, of course, that is not the case.
And as we have seen here, Btselem, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and dozens of other groups are thrown into that grouping.. the vast imagined conspiracy to "defame Israel". all guilty, in some people's mind, of "blood libel".

What an honor to among those you so accuse.

[Jim Sagle]

18. Keep on keepin' on, Tom.

[Englander]

24. What, no "N*zi f*ilth"?

[Jim Sagle]

25. That would've been over the top.

[bemildred]

28. Yep, "a man has to know his limits". nt

[Tom Joad]

27. I am damn *proud* to be among the targets of Jim's profane

outbursts. aren't you?

anyone who has not been so honored... well, not interested in changing the status quo, not interested in a peaceful future for the people of the Middle East.

[breakaleg]

3. This says it all.

Security? We must defend ourselves by defensive means. Those who do not believe that the only security we will enjoy will come from ending the occupation and from peace can entrench themselves in the army, and behind walls and fences. But we have no right to do what we are doing: Just as no one would conceive of killing the residents of an entire neighborhood, to harass and incarcerate it because of a few criminals living there, there is no justification for abusing an entire people in the name of our security.

[Boojatta]

4. Before the occupation, was Israel a significantly safer place to live?

Could variation in the numbers of Iranian Jews or Russian Jews emigrating to Israel from year to year give some idea of whether or not, at least in the opinion of those people, Israel was safer before the occupation than it is now?

[breakaleg]

5. You seem like someone who's got a lot to say.

Unfortunately, it's not usually on the topic of the thread. Why don't you make your own?

[Boojatta]

6. I doubt that I have a lot to say.

However, I did omit some more basic questions.

1. Is it possible to change the occupation or must it be ended?
2. A government has the right to use what methods to provide security to its citizens?

Reading this thread provoked my questions, so I ask them here. In any case, threads in this forum must begin with a news article.

[breakaleg]

7. If you read what I posted, this person admits that what Israel is doing is not

improving its security.

[Boojatta]

8. "admits"

The author is opposed to the occupation. Wouldn't one expect bias to manifest itself in the form of a claim that the occupation is not improving security? Alternatively, was the author a highly sought-after and apolitical security expert who eventually concluded that the occupation harms security and who therefore adopted a position of opposition to the occupation?

[breakaleg]

9. And living in the heart of the place, he certainly should be respected for forming his opinions

through first hand knowledge.

[Boojatta]

10. I respect Edison, but I am not convinced that alternating current is significantly

more dangerous than direct current for ordinary household applications.

[breakaleg]

14. Most pro-Israeli opinion would have us believe that all of the IDF's actions are fully defensive

and absolutely necessary, and that the occupation is not such a big deal. Here is a guy who lives there and believes otherwise. I'm simply suggesting that before writing his opinions off, we should take a closer look. After all, there will be no peace until the occupation ends and everyone on both sides wants peace right? Fighting their way through it - both sides, that is - hasn't gotten either side anywhere.

[Tom Joad]

16. IDF's actions are absolutely necessary in order to disposses Palestinians of their land and homes

for them, nonviolence is not an option, it is the only option and means to achieve that end result.
the only hope is that the objective must be changed.

Gideon Levy represents the progressive and peaceful option for Israel, and therefore will not be heeded here by many in these parts. not from people more prone to quote Daniel Pipes than Uri Avnery.

[cali]

21. ah yes, that must mean you respect Pelsar n/t

[Englander]

23. I respect peaceniks.

Ultranationalist thugs, not so much.

[LeftishBrit]

26. I suppose that must mean that you don't have much time for Hamas?

[breakaleg]

29. It's hard to find respect for a person who doesn't give a shit about the suffering his country

inflicts on millions of people.

[Tom Joad]

12. who is "apolitical"? No person is apolitical.

[Boojatta]

13. Not even a few Amish people?

[Tom Joad]

15. Certainly not Amish people. since they refuse to participate in

wars, they make a political and religious choice. Even if is not consciously "political" it has political ramifications.

[Boojatta]

32. Regardless of how you categorize Amish people...

Suppose that an Amish person who is also a security expert were to spend a fair amount of time in Israel/Palestine to determine whether or not the occupation harms security. If that Amish person were to give a private opinion on that question, with the opinion not to be published, and some organization backing up the agreement that it would not be published with a very tough nondisclosure agreement signed by all parties privy to the Amish person's opinion, then I for one would be inclined to give considerable weight to the Amish person's opinion as to whether or not the occupation harms security.

[eyl]

22. No

He doesn't admit it - he asserts it. And frankly, I think he's full of it (then again, I have rather little regard for Levy in general, so YMMV)

[breakaleg]

30. The ladies at Machsom Watch also say that suicide bombers are born out of the checkpoints.

That they turn to violence while witnessing the humiliation of the parents, grandparents and others at the hands of the IDF. Are they full of shit too?

[eyl]

31. No, they're not

OTOH, I diagree with them, at least partially. While the checkpoints (etc) may increase the motivation for attacks, attacks occur regardless. Since the limiting factor on Palestinian attacks has generally been materiel rather than personnel - AFAIK Hamas has never lacked recruits to the point it had to cut down on its operations - IMO while the checkpoints ARE a contributing factor, their effect in diminishing the capability for attacks more than offsets the additional motivation they create.

[stranger81]

19. how about looking at what the Israeli public thinks?

According to today's Haaretz, public confidence in the IDF and security services is at a seven-year low:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/928104.html

[pelsar]

20. that would no longer be relevant...

pre 67 there were also attacks on israel, for those (and that includes some here) who believe israels mere existance is "an occupation". Israel was not a "safer place in terms of attacks on its population.

the relevant question today relates to the last 20 years of pre wall, pre checkposts. Was israel safer when there were no walls and no checkposts?

does withdrawl make israelis safer?...for that you have 5 borders to look at: Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Gaza. Looking at them all together gives israel an idea of what to expect from a withdrawl from the westbank;

[mystikiel]

33. Statistically, it was safer

Byrne: : Martin, just personally... can you bear the thought of living in Jerusalem behind a wall – as the only way to be safe?

Van Creveld: Quite to the contrary – I came to live in Jerusalem in 1964... three years before the 1967 war. There actually was a wall, and life was wonderful. Nothing ever happened. Jerusalem was the quietest, safest place on earth. More than that, between 1957 and 1967 the number of Israelis who lost their lives as a result of enemy action was just thirty-five.