Who's in favor of annihilating Israel?

[pistoff democrat]

cut
---

Sixty years after the attempt to wipe out the Jewish people in Europe, after which the countries of the world were kind enough to allow Holocaust survivors to build a national home for themselves, along comes a historian who specializes in Europe and proposes that the Jews commit suicide. That they once again become a minority, only this time a minority in a Palestinian nation-state wedged between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.

Can an idea be ludicrous and dangerous at the same time? Judt proves that the answer is yes. His article, which tries to conceal his hatred of Israel within the folds of scholarly analysis, does not explain how two peoples who have not been able to talk to one another for generations, except through bombs, will suddenly be filled with love and establish a warm and courteous neighborly relationship. Sheikh Yassin is probably laughing his head off.
---

There is no need for surveys to know that the overwhelming majority of Israelis and Palestinians reject the idea of a binational state. It is an amazingly bad idea for the Jews to become a minority under the wing of Hamas. As everyone knows, the Palestinians also want a state of their own - now, as soon as possible, not years from now when demography is victorious over the Apache helicopter gunship, as promised. But do we have a right to gamble with the future? Is it not better to snuff out the idea of a binational state before it flourishes?
---

It is easy to say to Judt and his ilk that they should experiment with binational states elsewhere - in Germany and France, for example - before they start forcing it on Israel and the Palestinians. But what will we say to ourselves when one day historians ask what we did to avoid waking up in a nightmare? Unless we go back to where we were in 1967, we may find ourselves back where we were before 1948.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/366106.html

[rini]

1. Does the phrase

Serbia/Bosnia ring a bell? How about the term Balkinization? Why are these terms not followed by the words " a great sucess"?

[bluesoul]

2. Then they should stop the wall

the occupation, illegal settlements and they won't have that happening. Simple as that..

[rini]

3. Terrorism

happened before the settlements, before the wall, and if you read the PA Charter, all settlement is illegal. Your turn...

[bluesoul]

5. No it's not my turn

it's Israel's turn. The occupation has been going on long enough

[Darranar]

7. No, you're talking about the PLO Charter...

and that's been changed by the letters exchanged between Arafat and Rabin.

And the settlmeents and the wall are only the current form of Israeli terrorism.

[MikeGalos]

10. No it hasn't

And anyone who has been here any length of time knows that.

There was a promise to change it but all that happened despite many, many request from Israel and President Clinton was sending to the document to committee. No changes have ever been approved, made or seen.

Funny how the PLO was able to change it quickly in 1967 when the decided that when Jews controlled the West Bank and Gaza Strip, suddenly those were traditional Palestinian Homelands. In the 1964-1967 version, written when those lands were illegally controlled by Jordan and Egypt, the PLO clearly stated that they had NO interest in the West Bank and Gaza and were only interested in the lands controlled by Jews. (See article 24 of the 1967 version if you don't believe me)

Below are both the current (1967) and original (1964) versions of the charter taken from the Palestinian Mission to the UN's website. Please read them before pretending the things you wish they said were what they really say.

---

Text of the Charter:
Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.

Article 3: The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny after achieving the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will.

Article 4: The Palestinian identity is a genuine, essential, and inherent characteristic; it is transmitted from parents to children. The Zionist occupation and the dispersal of the Palestinian Arab people, through the disasters which befell them, do not make them lose their Palestinian identity and their membership in the Palestinian community, nor do they negate them.

Article 5: The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian.

Article 6: The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.

Article 7: That there is a Palestinian community and that it has material, spiritual, and historical connection with Palestine are indisputable facts. It is a national duty to bring up individual Palestinians in an Arab revolutionary manner. All means of information and education must be adopted in order to acquaint the Palestinian with his country in the most profound manner, both spiritual and material, that is possible. He must be prepared for the armed struggle and ready to sacrifice his wealth and his life in order to win back his homeland and bring about its liberation.

Article 8: The phase in their history, through which the Palestinian people are now living, is that of national (watani) struggle for the liberation of Palestine. Thus the conflicts among the Palestinian national forces are secondary, and should be ended for the sake of the basic conflict that exists between the forces of Zionism and of imperialism on the one hand, and the Palestinian Arab people on the other. On this basis the Palestinian masses, regardless of whether they are residing in the national homeland or in diaspora (mahajir) constitute - both their organizations and the individuals - one national front working for the retrieval of Palestine and its liberation through armed struggle.

Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it . They also assert their right to normal life in Palestine and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it.

Article 10: Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war. This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution. It also requires the achieving of unity for the national (watani) struggle among the different groupings of the Palestinian people, and between the Palestinian people and the Arab masses, so as to secure the continuation of the revolution, its escalation, and victory.

Article 11: The Palestinians will have three mottoes: national (wataniyya) unity, national (qawmiyya) mobilization, and liberation.

Article 12: The Palestinian people believe in Arab unity. In order to contribute their share toward the attainment of that objective, however, they must, at the present stage of their struggle, safeguard their Palestinian identity and develop their consciousness of that identity, and oppose any plan that may dissolve or impair it.

Article 13: Arab unity and the liberation of Palestine are two complementary objectives, the attainment of either of which facilitates the attainment of the other. Thus, Arab unity leads to the liberation of Palestine, the liberation of Palestine leads to Arab unity; and work toward the realization of one objective proceeds side by side with work toward the realization of the other.

Article 14: The destiny of the Arab nation, and indeed Arab existence itself, depend upon the destiny of the Palestine cause. From this interdependence springs the Arab nation's pursuit of, and striving for, the liberation of Palestine. The people of Palestine play the role of the vanguard in the realization of this sacred (qawmi) goal.

Article 15: The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine. Absolute responsibility for this falls upon the Arab nation - peoples and governments - with the Arab people of Palestine in the vanguard. Accordingly, the Arab nation must mobilize all its military, human, moral, and spiritual capabilities to participate actively with the Palestinian people in the liberation of Palestine. It must, particularly in the phase of the armed Palestinian revolution, offer and furnish the Palestinian people with all possible help, and material and human support, and make available to them the means and opportunities that will enable them to continue to carry out their leading role in the armed revolution, until they liberate their homeland.

Article 16: The liberation of Palestine, from a spiritual point of view, will provide the Holy Land with an atmosphere of safety and tranquility, which in turn will safeguard the country's religious sanctuaries and guarantee freedom of worship and of visit to all, without discrimination of race, color, language, or religion. Accordingly, the people of Palestine look to all spiritual forces in the world for support.

Article 17: The liberation of Palestine, from a human point of view, will restore to the Palestinian individual his dignity, pride, and freedom. Accordingly the Palestinian Arab people look forward to the support of all those who believe in the dignity of man and his freedom in the world.

Article 18: The liberation of Palestine, from an international point of view, is a defensive action necessitated by the demands of self-defense. Accordingly the Palestinian people, desirous as they are of the friendship of all people, look to freedom-loving, and peace-loving states for support in order to restore their legitimate rights in Palestine, to re-establish peace and security in the country, and to enable its people to exercise national sovereignty and freedom.

Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination.

Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.

Article 21: The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aiming at the liquidation of the Palestinian problem, or its internationalization.

Article 22: Zionism is a political movement organically associated with international imperialism and antagonistic to all action for liberation and to progressive movements in the world. It is racist and fanatic in its nature, aggressive, expansionist, and colonial in its aims, and fascist in its methods. Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism placed strategically in the midst of the Arab homeland to combat the hopes of the Arab nation for liberation, unity, and progress. Israel is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world. Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence and will contribute to the establishment of peace in the Middle East, the Palestinian people look for the support of all the progressive and peaceful forces and urge them all, irrespective of their affiliations and beliefs, to offer the Palestinian people all aid and support in their just struggle for the liberation of their homeland.

Article 23: The demand of security and peace, as well as the demand of right and justice, require all states to consider Zionism an illegitimate movement, to outlaw its existence, and to ban its operations, in order that friendly relations among peoples may be preserved, and the loyalty of citizens to their respective homelands safeguarded.

Article 24: The Palestinian people believe in the principles of justice, freedom, sovereignty, self-determination, human dignity, and in the right of all peoples to exercise them.

Article 25: For the realization of the goals of this Charter and its principles, the Palestine Liberation Organization will perform its role in the liberation of Palestine in accordance with the Constitution of this Organization.

Article 26: The Palestine Liberation Organization, representative of the Palestinian revolutionary forces, is responsible for the Palestinian Arab people's movement in its struggle - to retrieve its homeland, liberate and return to it and exercise the right to self-determination in it - in all military, political, and financial fields and also for whatever may be required by the Palestine case on the inter-Arab and international levels.

Article 27: The Palestine Liberation Organization shall cooperate with all Arab states, each according to its potentialities; and will adopt a neutral policy among them in the light of the requirements of the war of liberation; and on this basis it shall not interfere in the internal affairs of any Arab state.

Article 28: The Palestinian Arab people assert the genuineness and independence of their national (wataniyya) revolution and reject all forms of intervention, trusteeship, and subordination.

Article 29: The Palestinian people possess the fundamental and genuine legal right to liberate and retrieve their homeland. The Palestinian people determine their attitude toward all states and forces on the basis of the stands they adopt vis-a-vis to the Palestinian revolution to fulfill the aims of the Palestinian people.

Article 30: Fighters and carriers of arms in the war of liberation are the nucleus of the popular army which will be the protective force for the gains of the Palestinian Arab people.

Article 31: The Organization shall have a flag, an oath of allegiance, and an anthem. All this shall be decided upon in accordance with a special regulation.

Article 32: Regulations, which shall be known as the Constitution of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, shall be annexed to this Charter. It will lay down the manner in which the Organization, and its organs and institutions, shall be constituted; the respective competence of each; and the requirements of its obligation under the Charter.

Article 33: This Charter shall not be amended save by a majority of two-thirds of the total membership of the National Congress of the Palestine Liberation Organization at a special session convened for that purpose.

---

THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL CHARTER (1964 version)
(Al-Mithaq Al-Kawmee Al-Philisteeni)*

INTRODUCTION

We, the Palestinian Arab people, who waged fierce and continuous battles to safeguard its homeland, to defend its dignity and honor, and who offered all through the years continuous caravans of immortal martyrs, and who wrote the noblest pages of sacrifice, offering and giving.

We, the Palestinian Arab people, who faced the forces of evil, injustice and aggression, against whom the forces of international Zionism and colonialism conspire and worked to displace it, dispossess it from its homeland and property, abused what is holy in it and who in spite of all this refused to weaken or submit.

We, the Palestinian Arab people, who believe in its Arabism and in its right to regain its homeland, to realize its freedom and dignity, and who have determined to amass its forces and mobilize its efforts and capabilities in order to continue its struggle and to move forward on the path of holy war (al-jihad) until complete and final victory has been attained,

We, the Palestinian Arab people, based on our right of self-defense and the complete restoration of our lost homeland- a right that has been recognized by international covenants and common practices including the Charter of the United Nations-and in implementation of the principles of human rights, and comprehending the international political relations, with its various ramifications and dimensions, and considering the past experiences in all that pertains to the causes of the catastrophe, and the means to face it,

And embarking from the Palestinian Arab reality, and for the sake of the honor of the Palestinian individual and his right to free and dignified life,

And realizing the national grave responsibility placed upon our shoulders, for the sake of all this,

We, the Palestinian Arab people, dictate and declare this Palestinian National Charter and swear to realize it.

Article 1. Palestine is an Arab homeland bound by strong Arab national ties to the rest of the Arab Countries and which together form the great Arab homeland.

Article 2: Palestine, with its boundaries at the time of the British Mandate, is a indivisible territorial unit.

Article 3: The Palestinian Arab people has the legitimate right to its homeland and isan inseparable part of the Arab Nation. It shares the sufferings and aspirations of the Arab Nation and its struggle for freedom, sovereignty, progress and unity.

Article 4: The people of Palestine determine its destiny when it completes the liberation of its homeland in accordance with its own wishes and free will and choice.

Article 5: The Palestinian personality is a permanent and genuine characteristic that does not disappear. It is transferred from fathers to sons.

Article 6: The Palestinians are those Arab citizens who were living normally in Palestine up to 1947, whether they remained or were expelled. Every child who was born to a Palestinian Arab father after this date, whether in Palestine or outside, is a Palestinian.

Article 7: Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine.

Article 8: Bringing up Palestinian youth in an Arab and nationalist manner is a fundamental national duty. All means of guidance, education and enlightenment should be utilized to introduce the youth to its homeland in a deep spiritual way that will constantly and firmly bind them together.

Article 9: Ideological doctrines, whether political, social, or economic, shall not distract the people of Palestine from the primary duty of liberating their homeland. All Palestinian constitute one national front and work with all their feelings and material potentialities to free their homeland.

Article 10: Palestinians have three mottos: National Unity, National Mobilization, and Liberation. Once liberation is completed, the people of Palestine shall choose for its public life whatever political, economic, or social system they want.

Article 11: The Palestinian people firmly believe in Arab unity, and in order to play its role in realizing this goal, it must, at this stage of its struggle, preserve its Palestinian personality and all its constituents. It must strengthen the consciousness of its existence and stance and stand against any attempt or plan that may weaken or disintegrate its personality.

Article 12: Arab unity and the liberation of Palestine are two complementary goals; each prepares for the attainment of the other. Arab unity leads to the liberation of Palestine, and the liberation of Palestine leads to Arab unity. Working for both must go side by side.

Article 13: The destiny of the Arab Nation and even the essence of Arab existence are firmly tied to the destiny of the Palestine question. From this firm bond stems the effort and struggle of the Arab Nation to liberate Palestine. The people of Palestine assume a vanguard role in achieving this sacred national goal.

Article 14: The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national duty. Its responsibilities fall upon the entire Arab nation, governments and peoples, the Palestinian peoples being in the forefront. For this purpose, the Arab nation must mobilize its military, spiritual and material potentialities; specifically, it must give to the Palestinian Arab people all possible support and backing and place at its disposal all opportunities and means to enable them to perform their role in liberating their homeland.

Article 15: The liberation of Palestine, from a spiritual viewpoint, prepares for the Holy Land an atmosphere of tranquillity and peace, in which all the Holy Places will be safeguarded, and the freedom to worship and to visit will be guaranteed for all, without any discrimination of race, color, language, or religion. For all this, the Palestinian people look forward to the support of all the spiritual forces in the world.

Article 16: The liberation of Palestine, from an international viewpoint, is a defensive act necessitated by the demands of self-defense as stated in the Charter of the United Nations. For that, the people of Palestine, desiring to befriend all nations which love freedom, justice, and peace, look forward to their support in restoring the legitimate situation to Palestine, establishing peace and security in its territory, and enabling its people to exercise national sovereignty and freedom.

Article 17: The partitioning of Palestine, which took place in 1947, and the establishment of Israel are illegal and null and void, regardless of the loss of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and its natural right to its homeland, and were in violation of the basic principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, foremost among which is the right to self-determination.

Article 18: The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate System, and all that has been based on them are considered null and void. The claims of historic and spiritual ties between Jews and Palestine are not in agreement with the facts of history or with the true basis of sound statehood. Judaism, because it is a divine religion, is not a nationality with independent existence. Furthermore, the Jews are not one people with an independent personality because they are citizens to their states.

Article 19: Zionism is a colonialist movement in its inception, aggressive and expansionist in its goal, racist in its configurations, and fascist in its means and aims. Israel, in its capacity as the spearhead of this destructive movement and as the pillar of colonialism, is a permanent source of tension and turmoil in the Middle East, in particular, and to the international community in general. Because of this, the people of Palestine are worthy of the support and sustenance of the community of nations.

Article 20: The causes of peace and security and the requirements of right and justice demand from all nations, in order to safeguard true relationships among peoples and to maintain the loyalty of citizens to their homeland, that they consider Zionism an illegal movement and outlaw its presence and activities.

Article 21: The Palestinian people believes in the principles of justice, freedom, sovereignty, self-determination, human dignity, and the right of peoples to practice these principles. It also supports all international efforts to bring about peace on the basis of justice and free international cooperation.

Article 22: The Palestinian people believe in peaceful co-existence on the basis of legal existence, for there can be no coexistence with aggression, nor can there be peace with occupation and colonialism.

Article 23: In realizing the goals and principles of this Convent, the Palestine Liberation Organization carries out its full role to liberate Palestine in accordance with the basic law of this Organization.

Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.

Article 25: This Organization is in charge of the movement of the Palestinian people in its struggle to liberate its homeland in all liberational, organizational, and financial matters, and in all other needs of the Palestine Question in the Arab and international spheres.

Article 26: The Liberation Organization cooperates with all Arab governments, each according to its ability, and does not interfere in the internal affairs of any Arab states.

Article 27: This Organization shall have its flag, oath and a national anthem. All this shall be resolved in accordance with special regulations.

Article 28: The basic law for the Palestine Liberation Organization is attached to this Charter. This law defines the manner of establishing the Organization, its organs, institutions, the specialties of each one of them, and all the needed duties thrust upon it in accordance with this Charter.

Article 29: This Charter cannot be amended except by two-thirds majority of the members of the National Council of the Palestine Liberation Organization in a special session called for this purpose.

*Adopted in 1964 by the 1st Palestinian Conference

* "Al-Kawmee" has no exact equivalent in English but reflects the notion of Pan-Arabism

[tinnypriv]

12. LOL

And the Zionists changed theirs in response to the UN partition I suppose?

This shite was debunked in Israel a long time ago.

Give it up.

Oh, and unless you speak Arabic, please give links. Thanks.

[MikeGalos]

17. For someone who wants links...

you call things shite, and claim they were "debunked" with nothing to contradict official documents but your wishes?

Very sad.

Oh, and in case you don't know how to go to the PA UN Mission website to read the documents you apparently accuse me of forging, you find them on their site http://www.palestine-un.org in English.

[tinnypriv]

18. Glad you used "apparently"

Otherwise that'd be a piece of slander.

On the topic, the contradiction of this nonsense is common knowledge to anybody who knows a thing about Israel/Palestine.

Now, I could go and cite the relevant articles from the literature, but I won't bother, since I think it is highly unlikely you'd be able to check them for yourself.

This point you're pushing has been deplored by Israeli doves since the 80's. Here we are in the 21st century and you're repeating it, no doubt via something you found on google.

If anything is sad, it is that.

[MikeGalos]

23. Ah, new definitions again

Common Knowledge being used to mean "I don't have anything to back up what I'm saying" along with vague cites to mythical documents.

I provided actual text from the PA's own website with their official translation including all formatting.

You provide nothing and make up for it by being aggressive about fictitious citations.

Perhaps you should actually read documents rather than claiming that you have documents that you refuse to show.

As for slander, please, feel free to explain how claiming that I need to either speak arabic or provide a link to a quoted document which included the location of the original is anything other than an attempt to slander my post? Really. I'm curious how else it could be meant.

[drdon326]

24. Brace yourself, Mike

this should be real interesting answer.

[tinnypriv]

29. A few points

1. There is nothing mythical about them. I just didn't want to waste time on an obvious googler. But since you won't let it go, I'll do your research for you. Please see the end of this post.

2. That isn't the PA website, it is the Palestine representative to the United Nations website (technically the Observer mission). If you knew anything about the structure of the PA and the diplomatic component it has, you wouldn't make such an elementary mistake.

3. Please look-up the definition of "slander", since you are using it incorrectly. I, however, wasn't.

Moving on to the covenant:

"On the basis of personal contacts I have had with leaders of the PLO, in London and elsewhere, in meetings that were held openly .. I can say categorically that the idea that the PLO covenant is an obstacle to negotiations is utter nonsense"

(Elie Eliachar, former president of the Sephardic Community Council and former MK, also the first representative from Jerusalem to represent it at the Zionist Congress, lecture at Hebrew University, 1980, cited by FT, p69)

..

"(The PLO does not abandon the covenant) for the same reason that the government of Israel has never renounced the decisions of the Basle Zionist Congress, which supported the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz Yisrael - including transjordan. No political body would do this. Similiarily, the Herut and the Irgun never abandoned their map. We demand the ritual abandonment of the Covenant - a kind of ceremony of humiliation - instead of concerning ourselves with the decisions that were accepted by the PLO from 1974, which support the establishment of a Palestinian state in the territories evacuated by Israel"

(Mattityahu Peled, Hotam (a Labour party journal), 1983, cited by FT, p69)

..

I added the emphasis in both cases.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've wasted enough time on this ridiculous nonsense and do not wish to bother citing one of several thousand quotes just like this from all across the Israeli political spectrum from 1980-2003.

FWIW, try bringing up this crap on a progressive Israeli forum. Or, try proposing this to somebody like Aluf Benn of Ha'aretz, Ben Caspit of Ma'ariv or Shimon Shiffer of Yediot Aharonot.

[MikeGalos]

30. Ooooh

So, ignoring that you didn't answer most of the questions and that you continued attacks without content here's what your claims boil down to...

What "everybody knows" comes down to you citing some quotes from an uncited article quoting a couple of politicians statements from 20 and 23 years ago (both, interestingly a decade prior to anyone proposing to change the charter) and use that as a basis for claiming that the charter has been changed and that nobody takes this seriously anymore. I guess that two politicos 20 years ago not taking it seriously means Clinton taking it seriously repeatedly 15 years later was pretty foolish. And it never being fixed being a stumbling block as cited in the notes of the continuing Clinton talks was just foolish as well because 15 years earlier somebody said it shouldn't be...

Oh, and saying "cited by FT, pxx" is meaningless. Care to provide the original cites or where to find the article you quote but don't reference for context and date?

[tinnypriv]

33. This will be my last response

1. There was a question in each of your posts. Not questions. I responded to each.

2. You ignored points (1) and (2) which I provided. Unsuprisingly, given that (2) easily reveals that you lack the minimal competence to even attempt commentating on these matters.

3. You do not appear to know what citation is. I suggest you pursue the matter.

4. I did not quote from an article, I quoted from a speech and an interview. I gave the source where I first discovered them: Fateful Triangle, page 69. I used the abbreviation "FT" when citing it as I always do in this forum, assuming that anybody serious would know what I was referring to. It seems I was mistaken, but that says more about you than it does about me.

5. Before you google for counter-discussion of Fateful Triangle, I suggest you ask the moderator of this forum what 3 books would be a useful recommendation as background to the conflict. The third item will be illuminating.

6. There were proposals and demands for the PLO to change the charter before the 80's (and innumerous times since). Again, common knowledge. Now, if the only case against your argument was that you were unaware of this it would be illustrative. The fact that you not only do not know this but think you can simply invent the ridiculous statement that nobody proposed changing the charter until the 90's simply serves to remove any lingering doubt that you can claim any pretence of rationality.

7. You say "20 and 23 years ago", and yet two sentences later say "15 years ago". It seems internal contradiction is yet another thing you are unaware of.

8. Considering (3), this may not be all that shocking, but nowhere did I say the words "everybody knows". I find this amusing, considering your feeble attempts to berate my supposed lack of citations. Maybe I'm easily amused. :D

Now, as I said in the title, don't expect another response on this topic.

I don't say that often, but in this case I think it is more than warranted, given the time I've already wasted on these two posts which could have been better spent on more productive endeavours.

[MikeGalos]

34. Since you aren't reading

it's clear that I have no need to respond but I will, once again, for the benefit of anyone reading, point out that I provided verbatim documents that are current and didn't blow these documents out of proportion or cite 3rd and 4th person quotes as universal truths.

This is worth noting for future discussions since it has been a bit of a traditional way of dodging facts here from the anti-Israel side. Always demand real documentation rather than settling for somebody's opinion on somebody elses opinion of somebody's essay. It's the only way to gain any truth rather than just popular folklore and political religious fanaticism.

As Lazarus Long (a fictional character in several novels) is quoted, If "everybody knows" such-and-such, then it ain't so, by at least ten thousand to one.

[Violet_Crumble]

141. What do you mean by 'anti-Israel' side??

Excuse me, but how exactly are people who support Israel's right to exist and support a two-state solution 'anti-Israel'?

Violet...

[JohnLocke]

38. Ah..."common knowledge."

Well, in that case, you'll have some documentation to back up the stuff that you conjure up?

[Classical_Liberal]

19. The PA recongnizes Israel

said so just week ago. That they didn't initially is quite understandable.

[rini]

25. a verbal ok

means nothing, if it's not in writing it doesn't exist.

[Classical_Liberal]

27. It has been in writing since Oslo was negotiated

.

[bemildred]

31. Loud ignorant people are everywhere:

Letters of Mutual Recognition

[rini]

37. no.no

I want it in the charter please.

[bemildred]

40. Tsk, changing the rules when you lose.

You said "in writing".

If you actually read this stuff, it says that all
provisions of the charter that contradict the agreement
are revoked, and that has the force of law. It's like an
amendment to the Constitution or such.

[MikeGalos]

43. But, and it's a BIG BUT

who says what Arafat thinks is contradictory. That's the part that he has repeatedly refused to discuss in public either in the west or inside his own government.

By keeping it vague, everybody thinks what they want and he can claim whatever's expedient.

[bluesoul]

44. Some of us

trust neither Arafat nor Sharon...

[bemildred]

48. There is no but.

What was requested, and what is denied here routinely,
was written acknowledgement from the PA of Israel's
right to exist in peace. It has the force of law; you do
not rewrite the Constitution, you amend it.

Trust, of course, is harder to come by, that would require
integrity and courage and things like that. But that is not
what was requested.

[MikeGalos]

53. Um, the Palestininian National Covenant

is neither a constitution nor is it incapable of being rewritten rather than amended. Please note that it was drastically rewritten in 1967 to change the section which said that the Palestinians had no interest in the West Bank and Gaza. The NEWLY REWRITTEN (and not just amended) Covenant suddenly considered the West Bank and Gaza as tradtional homelands of the Palestinian people once there were Jews involved. You'd think that allowing Jews born since the 1890s to live for the first time between the Jordan and the Sea and with their own country would be as big a change.

[bemildred]

120. Blah blah blah blah ....

Duck and jab, duck an jab.

There still is no but.
I never said it is a Constitution, I said it can
be amended like a Constitution. All this other
crap has nothing to do with my point.

[rini]

125. Question

if it's not a Constitution, how can it be ammended like a Constitution? Can charters be ammended, what percentage of the people have to approve it. Is there a charter ammendment committee? Who's on it? Just curious?

[MikeGalos]

127. Actually

there is a committee. The Charter was sent to them years ago so that Arafat could say it was being revised. Of course, they only met once and didn't do anything.

It still stands as written in 1967.

[Violet_Crumble]

138. Are the PLO and the PA the same entity?

It appears to me that the Letters of Mutual Recognition that bemildred so kindly posted a link to trumps all else anyway, and anyone ignoring them and relying on something from the 1960's to support their belief that the Palestinians want to 'destroy Israel' makes me start seeing lots of red herrings splashing all over the place...

Violet...

[bemildred]

150. Do you really think only Constitutions can be amended?

Or was that some kind of joke?

[rini]

148. MOUs are pretty worthless

LOL, good try though.

[bemildred]

149. They are not MOUs.

They are what you asked for.
They do seem to have been worthless.

[rini]

36. Please tell me

where, give a site. I'd really like to know. Is it now official written policy?

[xchrom]

4. displacing large numbers of people

to the benefit of a smaller number of people hasn't worked so far -- i say give one state a try. to my mind anything less has the continuing disaster written all over it.

[drdon326]

6. LOL

I say go live in the west bank or Saudi Arabia and
let me know how you like it first.

[pistoff democrat]

8. There is not enough room for Israel!

If people would compare the Arab lands to the land of the State of Israel, everyone could see this for her/himself.

[xchrom]

32. LOL

i find the situation in the west bank to be the fault of israel -- and i simply don't care about saudi arabia.
but i do find racism ever so droll, and amusing -- in that way that i find trent lott droll and amusing.

[meti57b]

9. Advocating a bi-national state is an attack on Israel's right to exist.

The author of the article is absolutely correct on that.

Turning Israel into another Arab majority middle east state with only the name "Israel" ... is in fact the complete destruction of Israel.

Also well-said and exactly correct, "It is an amazingly bad idea for the Jews to become a minority under the wing of Hamas."

[pistoff democrat]

11. Place your bets here!

How long do you think it would remain with the name "Israel"?

[meti57b]

13. well, not long. ....

Also, there's at least one poster on the forum in the last day or two who wants to call it Israpal or Ispal or Paleal or some such. I don't recollect if he mentioned Israstein.

[pistoff democrat]

14. U R Kidding!!!

Please PM me as I know we are not to name names on threads.

Also, please provide the link or the thread title so I can look it up.

I don't doubt you, but I would THINK this should be brought to someone's attention...you know what I mean? Can you imagine if one of us bastardized the name of an Arab country? (Israstein? Oh, that's a baddie!)

[bluesoul]

15. Even worse things were mentioned here

by your pals, like the smell of Arabs, but don't that let get into your way

[pistoff democrat]

16. I dont' have any

Pals...oh, you wrote pals...don't have any of those either.

The smell of Arabs? Really? I'd love a PM on who said that where as well!

[newyorican]

117. "Scent of racism" thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=8819

[Classical_Liberal]

21. Ariel Sharon is the biggest proponant of a binational state

just the other day the settlers proposed it.

[Classical_Liberal]

20. Mr Hassan the right is doing this to you

not the left. The right are the people who are building a binational state.

[Classical_Liberal]

22. The Israeli Settlers

The last three paragraphs were the most important ones.

At the moment, it is thriving not because of
intellectuals and historians. Those responsible
for making it bloom again are people who are
actually appalled at the very thought. Ariel
Sharon and Avigdor Lieberman and Effie Eitam
and Yosef Lapid - they are the ones who are
watering the idea of a binational state and
bringing it back to life, by doing nothing to
advance the one solution that could stand in
its way: two states for two peoples.

The Israeli right and its government, along with
tens of thousands of extremists who have put
down stakes in the heart of Palestinian
population centers, are responsible for the
despair and hatred that have revived the debate
over Israel's right to exist. The tanks of
occupation have armed old-new anti-Semitism.

It is easy to say to Judt and his ilk that they
should experiment with binational states
elsewhere - in Germany and France, for example
- before they start forcing it on Israel and
the Palestinians. But what will we say to
ourselves when one day historians ask what we
did to avoid waking up in a nightmare? Unless
we go back to where we were in 1967, we may
find ourselves back where we were before 1948.

Also read that the settlers propose a binational apartied state.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=33849&mesg_id=33849

[Jack Rabbit]

26. The bi-national state is a non-starter

However, I wouldn't accuse everybody who advocates it of desiring Israel's destruction. Can't at least few of them just be wrong?

[Classical_Liberal]

28. This is true

Israel's right to exist was a creation of the UN. I don't know if any ethnic group has a right to live in a state it controls.

[MikeGalos]

39. Ethnic group rights to live in a state it controls

Please ask that of the:

French
Italians
Germans
English
Spanish
Portugese
Palestinians
Basques
Arabs
Tibetans
South Africans

etc., etc., etc...

Or is this only supposed to be questioned when it applies to Jews?

[Classical_Liberal]

45. Not good examples

since we look down on them for trying to keep out foreigners including Jews. The fact is Algerian born French people are considered french, yet they aren't of french ethnicity. English born Jamaicans are considered English though they aren't AngloSaxons. The fact that these modern states still have a majority of Franks and Anglo Saxons, only represents the fact that those are native populations. The Jews haven't been natives of Israel for 2000 yrs. The English, German, French and Spanish nationalities didn't exist then. France and Britan were Gaul and Britannia, and they both had celtic populations, unlike todays French and Britains who are decendents of German tribes called the Franks and the Anglo Saxons. What if celts declared the right to homelands in those countries? It has nothing to do with rights. It has to do with geography and history. I have no doubt that if Arabs were not a defeated and colonized people Israel wouldn't have happened. Those Jewish immigrants to Israel may have been persecuted in Europe but they took advantage of European domination of Arabs in order to create their state. Just as Puritans ran away from English persecution but took advantage of English subjegation of the American Indian.

The only example relevent would be South Africa under the Afrikanners,and I am sure that is an example you don't want to follow if you are any kind of a liberal.

[MikeGalos]

56. So you are saying

you oppose national movements by:
the Basque
the Tibetans
the Palestinians
the Irish
and every other people wishing for a homeland?

And you oppose the return of "traditional lands" captured in war from
the Egyptians
the Jordanians (or Palestinians)
the Syrians
the French
the Poles
the Czechs
the Chinese
and other peoples who had traditional lands taken from them in war?

Or does this, again, only apply when Jews are involved.

It's certainly odd that a "nationalist movement" by the Palestinians is right and proper but a "nationalist movement" by Jews is somehow evil. Why is that, do you think?

(Oh, and in case you are going to pick an arbitrary date of residence out of the air, the lands granted to Israel under international law had a majority Jewish population. Jerusalem has had more Jews living there than any other ethnic group for as long as there has been a census and a Jewish majority since well before the "zionist invasion" so often spoken of by Arafat's people - but you probably want to ignore those facts)

[bluesoul]

57. The Palestinians have as much right to the land they live

on as the immigrants that came from other parts of the world what became Israel. Seems to me you're denying them that right, even though they lived there long before Israel was even established...

Israel already has it's internationally recognized state and BORDERS, all the rest in land grabbing and ILLEGAL settlement building and occupation. Just like the occupied territories during WW2.

[MikeGalos]

59. Let's bring some fact into here for a change

The population inside the 1949 cease fire borders (probably the ones you think are "internationally recognized" although they're really not) has had a large Jewish population for over a century.

The "immigrants" you speak of are, given any equal census measurement, both Jews and "Palestinians".

The vast majority of "Palestinians" did not live nor did their ancestors live inside those borders prior to the 20th Century.

For example, the 1896 census of Jerusalem showed it's population as:

• Jews - 61.9%
• Moslems - 18.8%
• Christians - 19.3%

Are you saying that Jerusalem should be a Jewish city and that the Arab "immigrants" should be expelled in the same way that the Jews living in traditional Jewish communities in the West Bank were?

There's a reason the Palestinian Covenent has such a funny choice in who is considered to be a legal resident. The rules are:

• Non-Jewish men and their decendants and families who lived between the Jordan and the Sea as of 1947
• Jews who lived between the Jordan and the Sea before the "Zionist" invasion in the 1890s.

Besides limiting the Jewish population to men at least 110 years old or so (yes, they did specifically leave out the decendants part for Jews), it allows the vast wave of arab immigration in the 20th Century to claim to be "Palestinian". So, if your family moved from Damascus to Jaffa in 1930 to work in the nearby city of Tel Aviv, you are a "Palestinian" but a Jew born in Jaffa in 1910 is an "immigrant". Funny logic, yet again.

Of course, there was no such thing as an ethnic "Palestinian" prior to the 1960s (the "Palestinian" leadership of the time insisted that they were to be considered Syrians) but that's a commonly restated lie to bust another time.

[bluesoul]

60. Do you recognize the fact

that there are Palestinians and that they have the right to their land or not? I am not talking about what is recognized as Israel but the land beyond the green line. I would really like to know if you actually even recognize that or do you think they should all move to Jordan and Syria as some extremists among you imply?

[GabysPoppy]

61. extremists among you imply

Do you wish to be a little more explicit with this accusation sir?

[bluesoul]

66. Those extremists in Israel

and elsewhere that deny the right to Palestinians having a state and land they live on...

[MikeGalos]

70. so "Among you"

means in "Israel and elsewhere"?

Guess that means that by "you", you meant everyone on the planet except yourself?

Try again.

[bluesoul]

72. No I was very clear

Apparently even some here, according to the statements I have been reading lately...

"What Palestinian land?"
"There is no "ethnic" Palestinians" and quotes like that. That to me are pretty much extremist views held by the RW on sites like FreeRepublic. Certainly not something I would expect here..

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[bluesoul]

76. Look who's talking

There is nothing more I have to say to you. Just because there is more of you here at the moment propagating your cause doesn't make you right and I don't have the time to answer all those posts either. I am sure when others come they'll do it gladly.. I am certainly not taking any of this patronizing BS..

[drdon326]

77. "MORE OF YOU" ??

Who is "you' ??

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[drdon326]

79. Well....hold on.....Muddle will be here in 5 minutes.

.

[Violet_Crumble]

139. Who "you" are...

*You* would clearly be those who call themselves 'supporters' of Israel. Why? What did you think it meant?


Violet...

[MikeGalos]

82. More of you?

Again, what do you mean by "you"?

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[bluesoul]

88. Nice try

I am very much liberal, probably more then most of you. It was clear I ment the "pro-Israel" team here, as I noted in the post above

[drdon326]

90. No , Lurking had it right the first time.

.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[drdon326]

92. Careful Mike....with all the Liberal talk

he might hit the ALERT button.

[bluesoul]

97. For someone posting continuously

from Rw sources as JPost and the likes you certainly are one of the last to judge who's actually a liberal here. I never post from RW sources, because I know their agenda and the fact that I am here and not on some RW anti-Muslim site...

[drdon326]

101. No my liberal credentials are set.

i SUPPORT the only democracy in the ME.

[rini]

124. I also support

the only democratically progressive country in the ME......Israel for those who do not know this.

[bluesoul]

126. It's policy

is not very progressive. Occupation, settlements, what Palestinians have to put up daily (IDF) YOu have low standards for it if this is how you imagine a democracy and progressive ideas. Israel is far from it at this moment. When they start respecting international law and pull out of the OT then we can talk. Until then...

[Darranar]

137. Many of its domestic policies are progressive...

though that's changing a little under Netanyahu's Finance Ministry.

Its policy in the West Bank and Gaza is another matter. Criticizing one is not criticizing the other.

[Violet_Crumble]

142. Sorry, but that's not a liberal credential...

You'll find many hardline right-wingers who will say they SUPPORT the only democracy in the ME, so that's really no indication of whether someone's a liberal or not. Of course for anyone to say it at all means they have to ignore the fact that Jordan's a democracy and it's also in the Middle East. And if that gets pointed out to them, many times they'll reappear and start redefining the word 'democracy' so it can be twisted not to apply to Jordan at all...

Violet...

[Darranar]

98. Attacking Israel's policies in the OT is not attacking Israel's...

domestic policies.

That is a very common ploy to distract attention from the real issue.

We know that Israel has good to it as well as bad, but why should that good stop us from criticizing the bad as well?

I think we can all agree that the US has some good policies - should that stop us from criticizing Bush and his cronies?

[tinnypriv]

106. Amazing really

Considering how Israeli journalists are actually attacking the lack of freedom of the press at the moment (or, more accurately, the proposed new constraints, which have been partially backed off from) :D

[MikeGalos]

108. Amazing how

there are complaints about proposed and cancelled restrictions as though they are horrible but the totally controlled press in virtually every other part of the region remain a quiet secret.

Or did I miss your posts on media manipulation and control in the PA, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, etc.

I'm sure you aren't actually saying with a straight face that Israel doesn't have them most free press in the Middle East! That would be so ludicrous that it could only be stated with malicious intent or out of amazing ignorance.

[Jack Rabbit]

112. Irrelevant, sir

Mr. Galos, we know the press is controlled in Arab countries. We know that the best Arab state, as things are today, is an authoritaian regime.

Those who most loudly support Israel on this board like to assert that Israel is the ME's only democracy. It is a fact that she is. Many of us who question Israel's current policies without questioning her right to exist would like to see Israel remain a democracy. Raising issues about press restrictions by the Israeli government, even proposed and not not enacted, is a to raise a legitimate concern.

Moreover, press restictions in one country do not justify press restrictions in another. Your objection to Mr. Darranar's post is a red herring.

[tinnypriv]

113. I believe that post was directed at me

For some reason on long threads the formatting goes screwy...

[MikeGalos]

115. And that double standard insults everyone

When a minor problem on one side is loudly decried but huge problems on all others are quietly ignored, the claim of partisan hypocrisy should always be raised.

I'll happily discuss Israel's faults when those discussions are balanced with equal discussion of its neighbors and other states in the world. To do otherwise is to say that Israel and thus Israelis and thus, perhaps, Jews must be held to a different standard. This is often the cause of questions of both anti-Semitism and questions of a colonial condescension toward Arabs.

In the first, the charges come about when Jews (or members of the only Jewish state) are condemned for things that are accepted in the case of virtually every non-Jew (or non-Jewish state). While the intent may not be anti-Semitic, it is obvious how this can raise suspicions. If there were two Jewish states, perhaps that would solve the problem but that's unlikely.

In the second, it is the worst kind of colonial condescension to, in effect, say "we hold Israel to a high standard because they're civilized people like us but we can't hold the Arabs to that standard because they're just ignorant savages". An attitude that I'm sure we all agree is offensive to everyone.

In either case, it is clearly not in anyone's interest to hold this kind of double standard.

Human rights are universal. The worst offenders should be focused on the most. To do otherwise insults everyone.

[Jack Rabbit]

121. Wrong

The issue raised was about Israel's press restrictions, not those of anybody else. I would prefer more press freedom everywhere, as would you. However, that doesn't make another country's standards relevant to a discussion about standards in Israel.

The issue is Israel and press freedom there. It is not necessarily meant as an assault on Israel's security to criticize shortcomings in the policies of the current regime, any more than it is anti-American to criticize the assault on civil liberties by the Bush administration. Nor is it necessarily a question of anti-Semitism or even the suspicion of it. The fact that Israel is a Jewish state should not open Israel to any special citicism that would not otherwise be directed at another nation or society, but neither should it shield her from criticism.

It is not a matter of raising a double standard. It is a matter of what is relevant to the discussion. To raise the issue of the lack of press freedom in Syria or Saudi Arabia -- or Communist China, for that matter -- is simply not relevant to restrictions on the press by the Sharon ministry. Sharon's restictions or proposed restrictions are not undertaken in raction to those of Assad or the House of Saud -- or of the Chinese Communist Party, for that matter. The issue may be duscussed entirely without reference to other offenders, even though those offenders are worse.

Human rights are universal, as you say. I regard a citizen's right to be able to access a free and independent source of news and information to be a fundamental right. Therefore, when a nation such as Israel that gives constitutional guarantees of such press freedom moves to restrict them, it should be a matter of concern.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

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

[Jack Rabbit]

123. It is a red herring

I don't know what part of that you don't understand. It is a red herring, also called an irrelevant thesis. If I've done that before, then that's another red herring.

The fact that press freedom may have never existed in nation X has no bearing on press restictions being imposed in nation Y, which has a rich tradition of freedom of the press. If the subject of the discussion is nation Y, then it is a red herring to bring up nation X's lack of freedom.

[MikeGalos]

129. Very simple and not tied specifically to herring

If you care about an issue then you discuss that issue no matter where it comes up.

Your statements don't show any concern on press rights for anywhere other than Israel. They also show the same lack of concern for other issues except when they involve Israel.

If there's anything fishy, it's claiming to care about press rights while ignoring or excusing the worst violators and screaming loudly about only one country with one of the best records.

Now that's fishy.

[bluesoul]

130. This IS I/P mr Galos

Why we should be focusing on other non-related matters is beyond me. THere are other sections for discussing those matters. This is about Israel/Palestine, nothing more...

[MikeGalos]

131. In context, blue, in context

Without context, the message is both deceptive and a flat out lie.

[Jack Rabbit]

134. And why would I not care about press restrictions elsewhere?

I am not discussing press freedom elsewhere because it isn't the subject here. Mr. Tinnypriv alluded to restrictions on the press by the Israeli government. You responded with how Arab governments are worse. In general, that's true. However, it has no bearing on whether Israel is restricting the press in the first place, let alone whether the restrictions in Israel are worse than those in some other country, or even whether Mr. Tinnypriv's remarks were justified.

To be honest, I don't know whether Mr. Tinnypriv's remarks are justified or not. However, the point I am making is that you won't prove it or disprove it by citing the lack of press freedoms elsewhere. It's an irrelevant thesis, also known as a red herring.

It is the same red herring as when the cold war liberal bristled at the excesses of Senator McCarthy and McCarthy's defender suggested he should go live in the Soviet Union. The fact that the Soviet Union was a totalitarian state where freedoms were almost nonexistent had nothing to do with whether McCarthy was assaulting Americans' civil liberties.

Now, let me make a couple of friendly suggestions. First, perhaps you and Mr. Tinnypriv would like to discuss exactly what he meant by Israel restricting the press and perhaps you would like to justify Israel's behavior, if you in fact feel such behavior is justified. Second, perhaps you would like to start a thread about attacks on a free press in an Arab nation by the government of that nation. It wouldn't even have to be started in this forum, since the relative freedom of Israel's press probably would not be relevant to the discussion.

If you do start a thread on an Arab government's attacks on press freedom, I may even dig up some material of my own to support your position. You see, in spite of your insinuations to the contrary, I do care about it.

[Violet_Crumble]

145. Well said, Mr Rabbit...

It gets a bit wearying to see any criticism of Israel in this forum greeted with 'well, so-and-so does it worse!!!' as if this somehow justifies Israel doing it, and accusations and implications made that the person making the criticism of Israel doesn't oppose the same or worse actions by other governments. This is a forum to discuss the Israel/Palestine conflict, so of course for someone to pop up and say that another poster's words seem a bit fishy because they've never been seen complaining about press restrictions in other countries IS a red herring, because of course if people are following the guidelines and using this forum for the purpose it's intended, it's only I/P related discussion they'll see here. To imply that anyone supports or quietly ignores abuses carried out by other governments because they don't criticise them here, or if they do, not at the same level that they criticise Israel, is really quite silly....

I'd be much more impressed if someone could come along and dispense with the 'look over there! they're much much worse!' tactic, and actually try to refute the original criticism, hopefully by bringing up some reasons for why there are press restrictions in the first place....

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

143. I agree with most of what you said...

However I'd be interested to know why you don't see Jordan as being a democracy, because I thought it was....

Cheers...

Violet...

[Darranar]

144. It has a King...

who exercises much power over its Parliament.

[Violet_Crumble]

147. And the Commonwealth has a Queen...

who can exercise varying degrees of power over the Parliaments of states that no-one would dare deny are democracies. Wasn't Australia a democracy back in 1975? That's when the Queen's representative here sacked the democratically elected leader of this country. I don't think that a constitutional monarchy with a monarch who has some power over its Parliament counts that state out as being a democracy...


Violet...

[dai]

116. Israel doesn't have to most free press in the ME...

...according to Reporters w/out Borders, Lebanon does by a significant margin (Kuwait and the PA rank higher as well):

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=4116

Must be "malicious intent", everybody is out to get Israel...

[Gimel]

119. A measure

The site rsf.cog defines this as the freedom reporters have, not the quality of the media.

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=4118

[rini]

128. Please name another

liberal/progressive country in the ME that has as much, no correct that to any country in the ME whose reporters/populace have the freedom to visciously (sp?) critize their governments as Israel?

[dai]

136. Probably none...

...if you are referring to domestic rights only. If you read the analysis of Israel's treatment of the press, virtually all the violations of press freedom take place in the occupied territories. This is why Israel is ranked 92, which is much closer to ME autocracies than Europe or the U.S. Similarly, my country (India) is given a poor ranking because of press treatment in Kashmir.

And this is representative of what many people on this board are saying. Nobody is criticising about Israel's democracy, labor laws, women's rights, or any other domestic policies which are not related to Palestine. These are all admirable, but they don't justify the occupation any more than America's domestic freedoms justify Bush's world-stomping policies.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[drdon326]

95. Bluesoul.... the cavalry has arrived.

.

[MikeGalos]

96. Feel free to cite even one case

out of my several thousand posts.

There aren't any but feel free to waste your time.

In the meantime, please apologize immediately for your false claim that I've called anyone here an anti-Semite.

[Darranar]

99. Never said that...

you have not called anyone here anti-semitic, but you have insinuated that some are - see your reply to CL above.

On edit: "Or does this, again, only apply when Jews are involved.

It's certainly odd that a "nationalist movement" by the Palestinians is right and proper but a "nationalist movement" by Jews is somehow evil. Why is that, do you think?"

[MikeGalos]

102. You may believe whatever paranoid interpretations you choose

Do NOT claim that somebody made a claim of anti-Semitism without serious documentation.

We have VERY clear rules about that here and you've been on long enough to know them.

I stand by my demand for an apology.

[Darranar]

105. I did not claim that...

I claimed that you insinuated it - which is a different thing. the implication of your post was clear.

It was certainly no worse then bluesoul's.

But that is really not the point. This has degenerated into simple point-scoring.

I apologize for any offense I may have inflicted upon you.

And I apologize to all here for joining in.

[MikeGalos]

107. Thank you

I didn't want to let this add to the mythical "He called me an anti-Semite" stories that appear here without solid clarification.

While you may have a "clear" interpretation of what implications I may have had, it is wiser to ask for clarification than to attack with the "they called me an anti-Semite" banner.

Now, if you care to discuss whatever it was you questioned in whatever post that was, I'd be happy to discuss it rationally.

[GabysPoppy]

104. Want to be more specific in your charge

I fail to see the insinuation you are referring to.

[Violet_Crumble]

140. Psst, Mike. You forgot to answer the question you were asked...

And seeing I'm also interested in seeing yr answer, I'll repost it for you.

"Do you recognize the fact that there are Palestinians and that they have the right to their land or not? I am not talking about what is recognized as Israel but the land beyond the green line. I would really like to know if you actually even recognize that or do you think they should all move to Jordan and Syria as some extremists among you imply?'

Now, if you want to continue on the 'What do you mean by 'among you' mean???' tangent, I'll clear that up quick-smart for you. Amongst those who call themselves 'supporters' of Israel, a number exist who don't believe that the Palestinian people existed in Palestine prior to the early 20th century, believe that Israel is entitled to the land the Palestinians live on, and suggest that the Palestinians should make things easy and just go live in some other Arab state (the logic there being a racist one that all Arabs are the same, while Caucasians etc are completely different as they'd never suggest that when it comes to other groups). The worst of the extremists advocate ethnic cleansing in the form of forcibly expelling Palestinians from the Occupied Territories. That sums up what an extremist is, and to deny there's not extremists among the 'pro-Israel' camp, especially in the US, is to be honest, as incredibly ludicrous as someone claiming there's not any anti-semites among the 'pro-Palestinian camp'. If you disagree, feel free to eplain how you define a 'pro-Israel' extremist, or even if it's possible for such a thing to exist...


Violet...

[MikeGalos]

63. First off

I'd like some clarification of "among you".

[MikeGalos]

64. Secondly

I'd need to see the definition of "Palestinian" before I answer that question.

There are a lot of definitions that float around and the answer to your question for most definitions is yes, for a few is no, and for a large number is "huh?" since the term is often used to mean multiple and contradictory things at the same time.

Tell me what YOU mean by Palestinian and I'll let you know. Be prepared, however, to explain how you came to choose your definition.

[bluesoul]

69. you know very well what

Palestinians I am talking about. Or did you forget the UN conventions, resolutions and the right for Israel and Palestine

[MikeGalos]

73. Really

So now you know what I know about what you mean.

I'm guessing you haven't got a clue about what defines a "Palestinian".

Please, feel free to define your terms but don't tell people that they know what you mean when, clearly, you don't even know what you mean.

[drdon326]

58. No.... it only applys when Jews are involved.

different rules for them....just ask the UN.

[MikeGalos]

118. An FYI

Jews have lived constantly in Israel for more than 2000 years. The population at some times was small but there has been a Jewish presence there since before the Greek conquest. There are quite a few towns that have had a Jewish majority for quite a few centuries.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[durutti]

42. You're probably right.

A binational state is the most appealing solution (to me, anyway). But neither side will ever agree to it, at least not in the foreseeable future.

So I favor a two state solution. I'd like to think that someday, when all the animosity is put aside, Israel and Palestine will merge willingly.

[durutti]

41. Israeli Jews will eventually be a minority regardless.

Of course, I have a feeling that some of the people on this board wouldn't be opposed to "transfer".

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. That is a wild charge

Care to be specific oh swami?

[Classical_Liberal]

47. It is a demographic fact that in 10 yrs if Israel keeps the west

bank they will be a minority, unless there is a transfer. Those who call Jordan the Palestinian homeland are advocating this. There are posters here that do precisely that.

[Muddleoftheroad]

49. Not the demographic bit

The charge that people here would support transfer. Calling Jordan the Palestinian homeland DOES NOT advocate transfer. Calling Israel the Jewish homeland does not advocate the transfer of American Jews to that land.

As for the demographics, you are counting areas such as the West Bank and Gaza, not what even the pro-Pal side considers to be Israel.

[bluesoul]

50. Jordan is NOT Palestinian homeland

Palestine is. And the more you talk about it the more I suspect you have little problem with "transfer" of Palestinians

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. I didn't bring it up

Nor do I support it. However, I am allowed to comment on it. And you can suspect what you like. I could fill a book about what I "suspect" about some folks around here.

As I have said hundreds of times, I support a Palestinian state -- whenever the Palestinians decide to pursue peace, not terror.

[bluesoul]

52. Ditto for Israel

and their terror...

[tinnypriv]

110. I support a Palestinian state regardless

Otherwise, I'd be denying Israeli self-determination since the State of Israel has killed far greater numbers of people in terrorist acts.

[MikeGalos]

54. Nonsense

Jordan was formed when the British separated the British Mandate of Palestine into two parts. The eastern part, then TransJordan and now Jordan, was to be the Arab country and Jews were not only blocked from citizenship (as they still are) but were expelled to the western part which roughly corresponds to the current Israel, West Bank and Gaza.

If the vast majority of the Mandate of Palestine - complete with a majority Palestinian population - isn't a "Palestinian homeland", please explain what the requirement for a "Palestinian homeland" is. From your posting and the revisions to the Palestinian Covenant in 1967, it appears that the only real definition of "Palestinian Homeland" is "a place where there currently are Jews".

[bluesoul]

55. It is very clear

what is Israel and what is not. West Bank, Gaza and anything beyond the green line certainly ain't Israel. And you can wishwash as much as you wan't it won't change the fact that Israel is occupying land and building ILLEGAL settlements that they will have to stop and retreat as hard as it is for you to imagine or acknowledge mr Galos...

[MikeGalos]

62. So for some arbitrary reason

you are throwing out:

• The mandatory borders
• The proposed 1936 borders
• The 1947 treaty borders
• The UN Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967
• The UN Security Council Resolution 338 of 1973
• The Oslo negotiated borders
• The Geneva proposed borders

But, somehow, the 1949 cease fire borders are sacrosanct despite them not being recognized as permanent by the UN for over 35 years or recognized at all by virtually any state in the region to this day.

Care to explain how you came to this "interesting" determination of what is and is not legal?

(as an aside for you, why is proposing kicking Jewish immigrants out of the West Bank a good thing and proposing kicking Arab immigrants out of Israel evil? - just curious how you'll explain that...)

[bluesoul]

65. Because ones are

ILLEGALY there. They aren't called ILLEGAL settlements and settlers for nothing you know...

[MikeGalos]

67. Wow - that's stunning logic

The anti-Israel people call them ILLEGAL (apparently in all caps) so therefore they are ILLEGAL because there must be a reason for them to be called ILLEGAL.

Care to try again without the amazingly circular reasoning?

[bluesoul]

68. Anti Israel people?

LOL, the UN and international law defies them as such. But you clearly don't give a damn about international law as far as Israel is concerned. They can do whatever they wish until it's them violationg UN conventions, international law...

[MikeGalos]

71. I'm guessing you've never read any

international law.

Perhaps you'd care to clarify which law you're talking about since I listed multiple cases of international law and proposed international law that contradict you and you've just kind of sputtered on with no facts.

Please. Take a breath and try to present a meaningful case. We'll wait.

[bluesoul]

75. You just copy paste the

parts you like and forget those that go against you which is common tactic when avoiding the things going against you. This has been posted here numerous times, dig it out. Or ring up the UN and ask themselves about the the status of the OT, the settlements. Maybe you have missed all those resolutions and convention in the UN that demand from Israel to respect the things I talked about and vetoed by the US. Don't you watch the news?

[MikeGalos]

83. In other words

You don't know and are hoping somebody will bail you out?

Here's a simple homework assignment for you so you won't confuse a speech with a binding law.

Learn about GA vs SC resolutions and their binding nature under international law.

[Jack Rabbit]

80. Settlements and Internationl Law

EDITED to add link to original post

(Reposting from about ten days ago.)

The territories are occupied; the only dispute rests in the minds of Israel's rightwing and their friends abroad. The settlements are illegal under Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949); more importantly, they're simply a roadblock to any meanignful peace agreement.

We will take first the issue of the legality of the serttlements. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention reads:

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

The last paragraph is the relvant one in this case. If I am wrong, then I am in good company. In 1978, a US state department opinion held that the settlemests were illegal under Article 49. The Mitchell Report says:

(C)ustomary international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, prohibits Israel (as an occupying power) from establishing settlements in occupied territory pending an end to the conflict.

In addition, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Committee for the Red Cross all support the position that the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories violate this clause. The commentary from the ICRC on Article 49 is most instructive here. It reads:

Article 49 is derived from the Tokyo Draft which prohibited the deportation of the inhabitants of an occupied country (2). As a result of the experience of the Second World War, the International Committee of the Red Cross submitted this important question to the government experts who met in 1947. On the basis of the text prepared by the experts the Committee drafted detailed provisions which were adopted in all their essentials by the Diplomatic Conference of 1949 . . . .
(Paragraph 6) was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (13). It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.
The paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words "transfer" and "deport" is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power.
It would therefore appear to have been more logical -- and this was pointed out at the Diplomatic Conference (14) -- to have made the clause in question into a separate provision distinct from Article 49, so that the concepts of "deportations" and "transfers" in that Article could have kept throughout the meaning given them in paragraph 1, i.e. the compulsory movement of protected persons from occupied territory.

It would seem from this that the situation that the authors of the Convention wished to prohibit is one where an occupying allows parts of its own population to colonize the occupied territory or supplant the population of the occupied territory. While the word transfer in the other five paragraphs of Article 49 definately has a meaning of forced transfer, the meaning of transfer in paragraph 6 may be either voluntary or involuntary transfer.

The fact that Israel has not forced any individual settler to move to the territories is irrelevant to the legality of the settlements. The fact that the Government of Israel has done nothing to discourage the growth of these settlements, and in fact has promoted them and continues to promote them, is in fact what makes them illegal. Were these in fact settlers moving independently on their own without the GOI subsidizing their housing and if the settlers were providing their own infrastructure and security, rather than the Israeli taxpayer, the case for the legality of the settlements might be a better one. As it is, the settlements are illegal.

How did this situation come about?

Israel fought a war against her Arab neighbors in 1967. Although some on this board will dispute the matter, I hold that Israel's posture was defensive in this war. By the end of the war, Israel had seized much territory from her adversaries. Among these was the West Bank and Gaza Strip, areas that were designated to become a Palestinian state in the late 1940s when Israel was born.

The convention since the end of the second World War has been to reespect national sovereignty. Resolution 242, passed by the United Nations Security Council in the wake of the 1967 war, speaks of "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". In short, Israel could use the territory taken from her adversaries to bargain for peace agreements, but winning a war, even in a defensive posture, gave her no right to make any permanent claim to one square centimeter of land beyond her recognized borders.

However, not everybody wanted to abide by a land-for-peace formula when it came to the Israel and the Palestinian Territories. Jordan had annexed the West Bank in 1950 and didn't reliquinsh its claim on the Palestinian Territory until 1988. The Palestinians themselves refused to recognize Israel and sought to destroy the Jewish state and replace it with what would have been at best a secular Palestine. Arab nations also rejected Resolution 242 after it was passed in 1967.

Nevertheless, the relevant part of our story begins in 1977 with the Likud victory in Israeli elections, bringing Menachem Begin to power as Prime Minister. Until this time, Israel held the land captured in the 1967 for the purpsoe designated. A few sparse settlements were constructed, including one at Ekon Moreh in the West Bank, but nothing that could not be easily dismantled should a peace settlement with the Arabs about. Begin, however, considered the West Bank and Gaza to be an integral part of Israel. He referred to the West Bank by it ancient names, Judea and Samaria, and soon after his election as Prime Minister traveled to Ekon Moreh to call it part of "liberated Israel."

Begin's plan, announced before the Knesset in December 1977, was for Israel to extend its soveignty over the West Bank and Gaza while granted Arabs living in the region a degree of autonomy. Begin allowed Israelis to purchase land in the Occupied Territories and settle there and began the program of encouraging such activity.

One of the biggest supporters of this program was General Ariel Sharon, Begin's Minister of Defense. Sharon shared Begin's vision of a Greater Israel stretching from the River to the Sea. He has in the past expressed his intransignece on matters concerning peace with the Palestinians on nationalist rather than practical grounds.

[bluesoul]

81. Thank you Jack

Something for Mr Galos to read...

[MikeGalos]

84. I've read it

It's a nice essay on various organizations interpretations and wishes about the law (I'm not sure where it's from and a cite would be nice for context) but it hardly answers the questions we were actually discussing.

Still, at least it's better than the usual name-calling.

[bluesoul]

85. It's as much of "interpretations" as

the stuff you post about being "facts"...

[MikeGalos]

94. No. Try to read

The article has lots of "x organization interprets this as..." kind of wording. Those are opinions. The posting of actual documents is not opinion.

I posted just documented facts. Really. It isn't hard to tell the difference. Now, perhaps you could actually read the posts and comment on their content. I realize that facts often get in the way of a good religion but this should be about facts and not what you wish were true.

[Jack Rabbit]

87. Why, thank you, Mr. Galos

The work is my own.

I should also add the Israeli human rights organization, BTselem, holds the settlements to be in violation of Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convension.

[MikeGalos]

103. You're welcome

While I may disagree with many of the agencies' interpretations (as many do), at least it's nice to see intellegent discourse.

[TimeLord]

146. Give up MikeGalos.

The settlements are clearly illegal yet you are trying to spin your way out of this. Why don't you just admit that the WB and Gaza are occupied territory?

Do you really believe that Jordan is the real Palestinian country? If so, why are you posting at this website?

You can be Pro-Israel without having to fight tooth and nail that the settlements are not illegal, you know. I suggest you go back and re-read the thread and look at how desperate your argument has become even in the face of univeral definitions of what constitutes illegal settlemnents and occupied territory.

You'd do yourself a great service to admit that you are wrong.

[tinnypriv]

93. Bear in mind

That this sort of reactionary response happened over Yamit. Wailing over ethnic cleansing of Jews, numerous Rabbis pretending the Sinai had a connection to Eretz Yisrael etc.

That sort of "support for Israel" actually led to a disasterous war which was very bad for Israel too.

[MikeGalos]

100. You mean the Sinai

that Israel returned to Egypt complete with new cities and Israel's only oil supply?

The huge amount of territory and "settlements" that were abandoned happily by Begin's government in exchange for a peace treaty?

That Sinai?

[durutti]

109. One thing about the binational state idea...

I wouldn't want it (nor, do I think, would most on the left) unless it was supported by most Israelis as well as most Palestinians.

The two-state solution is really the only viable option.

[tinnypriv]

111. Well said

Though it is worth stating that a bi-national system (or perhaps a federation) will be supported in time, after the two-state solution has been established.

Or maybe not. As you say, it is up to the various peoples on both sides to decide what they want. Though given the geography and common links, one-state does seem a sensible long-term goal to me.

[MikeGalos]

114. Then you're pretty safe

since it is a really, really fringe notion no matter who proposes it.

And it's been proposed by most fringe groups on the left and right, on the pro-Israel and anti-Israel side, at one time or another with all kinds of odd restrictions to make it appeal to their followers.

In fact, both versions of the Palestinian Covenant call for it. Their particular fringe restriction is that they limit citizenship for Jews to those who lived there since before the "Zionist invasion". (Not their decendants, mind you, just those 110+ year olds...)

[MikeGalos]

132. Funny thing

I was trying to think of any time/place combination in the history of the Middle East where equal rights were guaranteed by the government no matter what ethnic group or religion you belonged to since that's a key part of this single nation theory (at least for any not quietly using it as a way to eliminate Israel).

I thought about a lot of times and places:
Lebanon in the 1960s?
Egypt in the 1800s?
Arabia in the days of the Caliphate?
The Ottoman Empire?
The Roman colonial period?
XVIII Dynasty Egypt?

And then I realized... There has only been one government in the history of the region that has guaranteed equal rights to all no matter what they believed, no matter what ethnicity, no matter their skin color, no matter their gender, no matter their religion.

The State of Israel from 1948 to the present is the only example.

Funny thing.


(The Helenistic colonial period 2500 years or so ago was close, but missed out on gender and had a problem with slaves)

[bluesoul]

133. The Palestinians living

could tell you a bit about those supposed right. Can they vote? Do they have full equal rights as Jewish Israelis? Are they not discriminated?

[drdon326]

135. And that is why it must be driven into the sea.

who the hell wants all those progressive freedoms.

give me a ethnically pure thugocracy anytime.




eosarcasm.