From the Bullet to the Ballot: A Strategic Shift in the Palestinian Strugg

[Classical_Liberal]

From the Bullet to the Ballot: A Strategic Shift in the Palestinian Struggle

John A. Morrow*

After over 50 years of struggle, the time has come for Palestinians to make a strategic shift in their struggle, break the impasse, and move from the bullet to the ballot. Rather than fighting for a fractured Palestinian state, Palestinians should demand their rights as citizens of the single state of “Israel/Palestine” and wage their battle through the ballot....

Both sides will scream “sell-out”. The Zionists will insist on the concept of a Jewish state purged of Palestinians. The Arab nationalists will continue to demand their tiny piece of leftover pie when they can actually have the whole pie and eat it too. Islamists will demand the destruction of Israel and the creation of an “Islamic” state purged of Jews. Clearly, these positions have no place in a pluralistic society and can only lead to death, destruction and mayhem. Zionism is not palatable to Arabs while Arab nationalism is not palatable to Jews; Islamic fundamentalism is not palatable to either. While Palestinians may empathize with the despair that leads young men and women of Hamas and Islamic Jihad to perform “martyrdom operations,” they certainly would not want to be ruled by them. Unlike other Arabs who seem content with more or less dictatorial governments, the vast majority of Palestinians want a liberal democracy not unlike the one in Israel - minus the human rights abuses......

Israel has a population of 6,116,533 inhabitants, 20% of which are Palestinians. If we add these 1,223,306 Arab Israelis to the 3.5 million Palestinians living in the occupied territories we come up with a figure of over 4.7 million Palestinian Muslims and Christians along with 4.9 million Jewish Israelis. Instead of destroying “Israel”, Palestinians can easily coexist with Jews, Christians, atheists, polytheists, etc., in the same country. If the Palestinians demand the vote, the Israelis will be hard pressed to grant it to them. If they fail to do so, they will place themselves in the position of American segregationists and South African supremacists who denied the vote to blacks. If the Palestinians demand the vote, and the Israelis refuse to respect their rights, world public opinion will turn increasingly against the Israelis.

The Palestinian struggle would immediately be viewed as a struggle for universal human and civil rights. They can turn to marches, demonstrations and sit-ins demanding their right to vote. They can make the choice clear to the Israelis: “the Ballot or the Bullet”. If the Israelis decide to repress the democratic movement it would be to their own downfall, for in that case the Palestinians could move from a localized intifada to a full-blown civil war against an apartheid regime. The repression of Palestinians who wish to co-exist with Jews in a pluralistic democratic state would lead to widespread censure of Israel as well as economic boycotts as was the case with South Africa.

http://www.one-state.org/articles/2004/morrow.htm

[Muddleoftheroad]

1. LOL

Today's binational fantasy, brought to you by the same folks who bring the same topic to you every day -- the Palestinians. Of course, that most of them are NOT Israeli citizens and have the same non-rights that you and I share gets lost in the propaganda shuffle.

[Classical_Liberal]

5. Blacks were not citizens of this country at one time

What is your point. That is why Israel is being compared to Jim Crow and South Africa with complete justification.

Blacks in South Africa were once relegated to citizenship in the same sort of Bantustans the so-called Palestinian state as divised by Ariel Sharon is turning into.

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. The South Africa comparison remains bogus

South Africa was MINORITY rule. Israel is a democracy and all citizens vote.

If the Palestinians don't like the current situation, then I strongly suggest they choose leadership that will create peace.

[Classical_Liberal]

9. So then you're still left with Jim Crow and the Confederacy

.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. Huh?

Your logic is leaping all sorts of places willy nilly.

[Classical_Liberal]

14. Were black people citizens in the US before the civil war?

Were they able to vote before the civil rights act that enforces the 13 and 14 amendments, that ended Jim Crow?

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. You're probably going somewhere

God only knows where. The black people you speak of also lived IN the U.S. at the time. The Palestinians everyone keeps speaking of do NOT live in Israel.

[Classical_Liberal]

22. They did live in Israel

They currently live on the West Bank, which Israel has just approprated, settled and governed since 1967. The Palestinians aren't allowed to vote them out of office either. Yet they govern the place.

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. They can make peace

And that would have the same impact. And as for how it happened, they can thank their Arab brothes for that.

[Classical_Liberal]

27. It didn't have that impact last time there was peace.

The settlements just expanded and expanded.

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. When was there peace?

That was a temporary limit on hostilities on both sides, not peace. I mean peace -- a permanent state for the Palestinians and permanent end to terror by the Palestinian terror groups.

That means a treaty, etc. The Geneva Accords are a thing to look at, though they have their flaws.

[Classical_Liberal]

34. Whatever

That was an opportunity to get out of the west bank and let them build their state.

[Jack Rabbit]

50. "The Palestinians everyone keeps speaking of do NOT live in Israel"

Neither do Israeli settlers. However, the settlers have far more rights in the Palestinian Territories than the Palestinians do.

As many have said, the comparisons with South African apartheid have nothing to do with Israel proper. It has to do with the occupied territories.

The comparisons to South Africa are not bogus. Israel has run the territories as part of Israel ever since Mr. Begin (who couldn't read a map) said they were part of Israel; the Palestinians have no rights in their own land. This discrimination is based on nationality. It is racist. If Israel were to formally annex the territories, there would soon arise a situation where the Jews in the Jewish state would be a numerical minority. Do we wait until then to call the comparison with South Africa valid? Is that when we can start questioning Israels' claim to be a democracy?

Or perhaps Israel will hold on their numerical majority somehow? Would the existence of second-class citizenship for Palestinians still assure Israel's right to be called democratic as long as the Palestinians are a minority? As long as they are a minority, will the GOI have the right to kick them out of their homes to make way for housing in which they cannot live accessed on roads on which they cannot travel?

White Southerners where a greater numerical majority over blacks after the civil war. Did that validate Jim Crow laws?

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. Israeli citizens remain Israeli citizens

They have rights even if they live in the U.S. Just as I have rights as a U.S. citizen even if I go to Botswana.

As we have discussed before, the disputed territories remain in a state of flux. That situation remains because the two sides can't reach a peace agreement to formalize any situation.

Israel has NOT annexed those disputed territories, so the demographic discussion remains bogus.

[Jack Rabbit]

56. Since Israel has not annexed those territories

Since Israel has not annexed those territories, the GOI is not free to do with them as it sees fit.

SInce they are occupied territories, they may remain occupied for Israel's security until such time as a peace agreement is reached. However, Israel may not use the land for her own purposes or violate the rights of the inhabitants of that land. To remove people from their homes in order to make way for housing restricted to Jews is a violation of the rights of the inhabitants of the territories. It is also racist.

Moreover, to call the territories "disputed" is sophistry. What does "disputed" mean? That Israel has the right to claim the land but take no resposnsibility for protecting the rights of the people living on it? That seems to be the Likud program. Every acre of land is either Israel or it is not. If it is Israel, then Israel is under obligation to give the Palestinians living there the rights of citizenship. If it is not, then Israel is obligated to respect the rights of those living there.

Either way, the construction of settlements violates the rights of the Palestinian people.

[Muddleoftheroad]

68. Disputed means the final border is unsettled

The Green Line is one border. The Israelis want another. And the Palestinians a third. Hence, a dispute.

While Israel has not annexed those territories, it is the state in charge or them and can do what is necessary to maintain them or provide national security.

[Violet_Crumble]

71. No, that's not what it means...

Darranar shot this one down in flames only a few days ago. I'll go find the thread if you like. A state that invades territory and then attempts to keep that territory doesn't make it disputed territory. It makes it occupied territory. Or else the Indonesian occupation of East Timor would have made East Timor disputed territory, which it never was. Attempts by some circles to paint the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as 'disputed' or 'contested' are nothing more than an attempt to give what Israel does there with it's building of settlements and bypass roads only for Israelis some sort of legitimacy. It also attempts to remove from Israel it's obligation as an occupying power to the occupied population. And Israel does have obligations that it's totally ignoring. Here's some info on occupations that you should read and think about. While it's about the US in *snicker* 'Disputed' Iraq, it applies equally to Israel in the Occupied Territories...

Question: What are the basic principles of international humanitarian law underlying military occupation?

International humanitarian law provides that once an occupying power has assumed authority over a territory, it is obliged to restore and maintain, as far as possible, public order and safety. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, the occupying power must also respect the fundamental human rights of the territory's inhabitants, including refugees and other non-citizens.

Four basic principles of international law underlie an occupation:
1) The occupying power does not, through occupation, gain sovereignty over the occupied territory.
2) Occupation is considered a transitory phase in which the rights of the population must be respected by the occupying power until formal authority is restored.
3) When exercising authority, the occupying power must take into account the interests of the inhabitants as well as military necessity.
4) The occupying power must not use its authority to exploit the population or local resources for the benefit of its own population and territory.

Question: What are the obligations of an occupying power towards the local population?

An occupying power is responsible for respecting the fundamental human rights of the population under its authority. All persons shall be treated humanely and without discrimination. This includes respecting family honor and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious and customary beliefs and practice. Women shall be especially protected against any attack, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. Everyone shall be treated with the same consideration by the occupying power without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion. Private property may not be confiscated. However, an occupying power may take such measures of control and security as may be necessary as a result of the war.

An occupying power is specifically prohibited from carrying out reprisals and collective penalties against persons or their property and from taking hostages. In general, no one can be punished for acts for which he or she has not personally committed.

All parties to a conflict are required to provide information on prisoners of war and "protected persons" (civilian nationals) in their custody. The occupying power is prohibited from forcibly transferring protected persons outside of the occupied territory for whatever reason. Foreign nationals in the occupied territory are generally protected by international humanitarian law, especially when they do not come under the protection of their own diplomatic representatives.

The Fourth Geneva Convention permits the internment or assigned residence of protected persons for "imperative reasons of security." This must be carried out in accordance with a regular procedure permissible under international law and allow for the right of appeal and for review by a competent body at least every six months. The Fourth Geneva Convention provides detailed regulations for the humane treatment of internees.

Question: What are the obligations of an occupying power to provide for supplies and healthcare to the population?

Generally, an occupying power is responsible for ensuring that food and medical care is available to the population under its control, and to facilitate assistance by relief agencies.

An occupying force has a duty to ensure the food and medical supplies of the population, as well as maintain hospitals and other medical services, "to the fullest extent of the means available to it." This includes protecting civilian hospitals, medical personnel, and the wounded and sick. Medical personnel, including recognized Red Cross/Red Crescent societies, shall be allowed to carry out their duties. The occupying power shall make special efforts for children orphaned or separated from their families, and facilitate the exchange of family news.

If any part of the population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied, the occupying power shall facilitate relief by other states and impartial humanitarian agencies. However, the provision of assistance by others does not relieve the occupying force of its responsibilities to meet the needs of the population. The occupying power shall ensure that relief workers are respected and protected.

Question: What obligations exist concerning the property and resources of the occupied territory?

In general, the destruction of private or public property is prohibited unless military operations make it absolutely necessary. Under the Cultural Property Convention of 1954, cultural property is entitled to special protection; the occupying power must take measures to preserve and safeguard it.

As a rule, private property cannot be confiscated. Religious, charitable and educational institutions are to be treated as private property. The occupying power may requisition food and medical supplies for occupation forces and administrative personnel so long as the needs of the civilian population have been taken into account and fair payment is made. Taxes and tariffs may also be imposed to defray the administrative costs of the occupation, including the cost of occupying forces.

Public properties are treated as either movable or immovable property. Movable government properties that may be used for military purposes (transport, weapons) are considered "spoils of war" and may be seized without compensation. Immovable government properties (public buildings, real estate) may not be appropriated; however they can be used and administered by the occupying power so long as their assets are maintained. Any loss of value from their use must be compensated. Oil is an immovable object and so cannot be removed for the benefit of the occupying power. Instead, the occupying power has an obligation to properly maintain oil wells and other facilities.

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/ihlfaqoccupation.htm

[Alex88]

58. Regarding Israeli citizenship

Actually, the Palestinian refugees became citizen's of Israel when the government of the State of Israel succeeded the British Mandate government and they have been ever since.

"By Uri Davis*
June 2001

Citizenship is a certificate representing a legal relationship between the individual and the state. Democratic citizenship is a certificate representing the recognition by the state of the right of every citizen to equal access to the political process of the state (e.g., to elect and be elected to all of the offices of the state); to the civil process (e.g., to equal standing before the law); to social and welfare services (e.g., religious services); and to the material resources of the state (e.g., land and water)."

"Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality and (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Unlike the US legislature, which recognizes, under a democratic Constitution, one universal citizenship for all US citizens without distinction of nationality, religion, language, tribe, sex, sexual orientation or any other social status - the State of Israel does not have one single universal citizenship for all of its citizens. Rather, informed by the dominant ideology of political Zionism, the Israeli legislator (the Knesset) legislated a schedule of four classes of citizenship representing blatant inequality in law, in other words, representing a new form of Apartheid."

"Also, subject to the said Absentees Property law of 1950, the Israeli legislator (the Knesset) determined in law a Class "D" citizenship, namely, the denied citizenship of some 750,000 1948 Palestine refugees and their descendants currently numbering according to UNRWA figures over 4 million persons. Under the terms of UN Resolutions 181 (Plan for Partition with Economic Union) of November 1947, the constitutive document of the State of Israel and the State of Palestine recommending the partition of the territory of British Mandate Palestine into a "Jewish State" and an "Arab State" - the 4 million 1948 Palestine refugees are entitled to the citizenship of the "Jewish State". Yet, the Israeli legislator (the Knesset), by force of the said Absentees Property Law of 1950, and in violation of the norms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the standards of international law, denationalized the mass of the 1948
Palestine refugees, denying their right to Israeli citizenship, thereby rendering them stateless.

Under the terms of the said constitutive document of the State of Israel and the State of Palestine (UN Resolutions 181) all Jews ordinarily resident in the territories allocated by the UN for the "Arab State" were entitled to "Arab State" citizenship and all Arabs ordinarily resident In the territories allocated by the UN for the "Jewish State" (including, of course, all 1948 Palestine refugees and their descendants) are entitled to "Jewish State" citizenship, let alone to the title to their properties inside Israel and to return."
-snip-

http://www.mideastjournal.com/israelsdemocracy1.html

http://www.one-democratic-state.org/articles/davis.html

[Jim Sagle]

2. The one-state solution is a blueprint for genocide.

If this bullshit "author" really wanted peace, he'd never offer such a bogus approach.

A majority-Jewish Israel isn't really up for consequential discussion - only for empty debate.

[Classical_Liberal]

4. nice sloganeering.

Try offering a rational instead of "Palestinians are evil" next time. You know something that a progressive would relate to.

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. He was just being honest

The binational fantasy hurts the Palestinians more than anything. They sit around and wait for it to happen and pass up opportunity after opportunity.

[Classical_Liberal]

10. What opportunity has been presented other than bantustan

?

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. That offer Arafat walked away from

And, as for imperfect offers, such worked well for Ireland.

[Classical_Liberal]

13. If you think such offers worked well for Ireland

you are insane.

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. I guess statehood is horrible, huh?

And all that freedom and those high tech jobs and that EU membership?

[Classical_Liberal]

28. Partition happened in 1919

The Irish tiger certainly isn't a result of it. Furthermore the area given to Britain is still a hell hole.

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. Partition happened and was followed years later by statehood

It was a gradual process. Most things in the world are.

[Classical_Liberal]

37. The Irish will eventually outnumber the protestants

and it will be a united state as well.

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. They are both Irish

I think you meant the Catholics.

And so far, they are united as part of the EU already.

[Classical_Liberal]

45. The Protestants are mostly British

Those calling themselves Irish are probably for a United State of Ireland. Anyway, the Irish tiger wouldn't have happened if the British had consigned all the Irish to a postage stamp, piece of shit land, like Donegal. Furthermore, in all likelihood the development of the tiger would have occurred much earlier if it hadn't been for British domination. Afterall, who is in more a geographic position to take advantage of trade with the Americas. England or Ireland. Look at the map. The Irish tiger happened despite colonialism, not because of it.

Basically Britain supressed the economy for years then gets credit for it when it let's go. Don't think so.

[Muddleoftheroad]

52. If I were born in Scotland, I will still be Scottish

Even if I called myself British.

The Celtic tiger happened after Ireland gained statehood. That arrangement happened after a similar long running combat between a state and representatives of a would-be state who didn't get everything they wanted in a peace.

[Classical_Liberal]

59. They already compromised by giving Israel 1948 land

Taking more creates a Bantustan unsustainable state, not the Irish Tiger.

[Muddleoftheroad]

64. They didn't give squat

They lost a war -- started by their Arab buddies.

[Classical_Liberal]

72. How can the lose a war they didn't start?

. Anyway the spoils of war argument is the thinking of stereotypical Vikings not civilized people.

[Muddleoftheroad]

73. Not the spoils of war

Even the UN recognizes the need for self defense.

And one doesn't have to start a war to fight in it or pick sides.

[Classical_Liberal]

78. They didn't take part in the war at all unless as individuals

which don't count.

Furthermore settlements aren't self defense. They are just land theft.

America didn't settle Japan or Germany.

[Muddleoftheroad]

81. If enough individuals do something

It is a collective act.

Settling land is indeed defensive in nature. America didn't WANT to settle Germany and Japan, it simply left a ton of soldiers there. Hell, they are STILL there.

[Classical_Liberal]

83. Never the less those places are self governing

and they have consented to those bases. Never the less there are no settlers.

[Muddleoftheroad]

89. Of course, those areas also don't blow up babies deliberately

So the comparison disappears.

[Classical_Liberal]

96. The holocaust. The rape of nanking?

come on? They were way worse than the Palestinians. We allowed them to form governments and have their countries back. We didn't occupy and govern them directly for 37 yrs.

[Muddleoftheroad]

97. They surrendered

They stopped fighting. They made peace.

[Classical_Liberal]

100. If after they had surrendered we had governed it for 37 yrs

and even worse settled our people there who were granted rights and privlages they weren't they would be acting like Palestinians.

[Jim Sagle]

15. Show me where I said Palestinians are evil.

I said this was an evil proposal. I'll say it again: It's an evil proposal.

As progressive as I wannabe...

[Classical_Liberal]

16. Why is the one state solution a "blueprint for genocide"?

This is like playing Jeopardy!

[Jim Sagle]

17. Because the Palestinians will end up the majority and vote the Jews out of

the country.

But hey, you knew that.

[Classical_Liberal]

18. So you must think Palestinians are evil.

If you think they would vote Jews out of the country, or engage in ethnic cleansing, just because they are a majority that sounds pretty evil to me. BTW presuming they did vote jews out of the country that wouldn't be genocide necessarily unless you think transfer(advocated by the majority of israelis) is also genocide. Though it would be ethnic cleansing.

I don't believe they would vote jews out of the country. Even if they do outnumber jews in a couple of years it won't be by that much for a very long time. By the time they did, I would bet the Jews and the Arabs would learn to live together. The Afrikanners thought the Blacks would committ genocide if the allowed "one man, one vote". It didn't happen.

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. The Arabs ethnically cleansed the Jews elsewhere

So did the Europeans.

It's not a good record and no sane Jewish person would chance it happening again.

BTW, the lives you bet would not be your own.

Again, why should a majority state allow itself to be conquered by a minority? It's lunacy.

[Classical_Liberal]

23. Arab ethnic cleansing of Jews only happened as a response

to Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Anyway Palestinians will be a majority in a couple of years, so demographics will take its coarse, if you want to take the dog eat dog attitude.

I think your views paranoia. I am a desendent of indians and irish people and I don't presume the right to take land from other because of the history of ethnic cleansing my people have suffered.

I do have a right to say something to Israel about how they act so long as their hands are in my pocket.

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. I think my views are based in 2,000 years of activity

And abuse of the Jewish people. Why they would willingly sacrifice their nation after all that is beyond me.

No sane person would do so.

Given that reality, you would think the Palestinians would work for an accommodation. They aren't.

[Classical_Liberal]

29. I wouldn't move just because a desendent of a persecuted wanted

my house. Sorry. Your empathy skills are lacking. Furthermore if they went back to the green line that would be accomodation. They have never done it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. The Green Line is a dead issue

The final border might resemble it, but it won't be the exact Green Line. Heck, the Palestinians want land on the Israeli side of that line, so the border is definitely in flux.

[Classical_Liberal]

35. I think the two state solution itself is dead because of it

Sharon has waht he wants and has no incentive to negotiate land for Palestinians. Their bargaining chips are gone, so long as the look to the US to help them. They should just help themselves and let demographics take the coarse. Nobody will recognize Israel as an aparthied state.

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. Demographics are no threat

The non-Jewish CITIZENS of Israel are only one million. Those in the disputed territories are not Israeli citizens.

[Classical_Liberal]

38. So long as they govern the West Bank they are a

threat. Likud thinks the West Bank is Israel. It governs the country,. If Israel wants two states it will get the hell out. Otherwise it is something the Palestinians need not concern themselves with.

[Muddleoftheroad]

53. Israel has no motivation to "get the hell out" without peace

It surrenders all of its cards with negotiation still ongoing. That is foolish.

[Classical_Liberal]

60. It had a period of peace, no terrorism, it didn't leave.

. I am not concerned with this circle jerk. I actually wish Yasser would retire, and stop giving the Israelis a foil, so they can work on boycotts and civil disobedience. Unconditional surrender to Israel should not happen however, and I don't even think negotiations are worth it. Israel will either grant citizenship, a state, or be damned by the international community as Aparhied.

[Muddleoftheroad]

65. So basically, you seem to think all options are equally bad?

[Classical_Liberal]

74. Number 1 and 2 are ok with me.

I would hope Israel wants to avoid aparthied.

[Muddleoftheroad]

76. It has

Israel is a nation where the government is an elected democracy.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

70. Why does ethnic cleansing onlymatter when it happens to the Jewish people?

Surely if someone is opposed to ethnic cleansing, they'd oppose it no matter who it happens to or who carries it out? Because I've noticed that every time it's pointed out that ethnic cleansing took place of the Palestinian population in what is now Israel, you respond by talking about the ethnic cleansing of Jews from other countries. The argument appears to be that it's okay for what is now Israel to have done it because the Palestinians 'Arab buddies' did it, which as an argument makes no sense at all. Ethnic cleansing is wrong, end of story, and the ethnicity of a people doesn't make it any worse or better...

Violet...

[Jim Sagle]

26. No skin off you if you're wrong, huh?

[Classical_Liberal]

30. It's also no skin off my nose if the Israelis ethnically cleans

Palestinians. I would bitch and moan to high heaven if they take money from me to do it.

[Jim Sagle]

39. The Palestinians take our money too.

[Classical_Liberal]

40. I don't approve of that either

even still they don't take as much. I think the Palestinians ought to dedicate all there time to getting the EU and Asia to economically boycott Israeli products, until they offer citizenship or a real state, which the current plan is not.

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. Yeah, because that will bring peace

Encouraging an economic boycott would only make Israel strike back the way it could -- militarily.

[Classical_Liberal]

46. I doubt that

It isn't like the Europeans are defenseless pissants. They have military might and nukes. Besides if Israel starts threatening those who arem't acting violently, it will definately be an eye opener to those who have in the past been sympathetic to it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. Now you assume Europe will intervene for the Palestinians?

Hell, they barely intervened in EUROPE. It took American military might in the Balkans.

[Classical_Liberal]

61. yes, most of them will if the effort is placed there

economic boycotts don't require a military committment, and are relatively easy to do. Countries that won't do it, have citizens that will.

[Muddleoftheroad]

66. Well, the U.S. won't

And we will make up for what other nations don't trade.

BTW, boycotting Israel is actually illegal in the U.S.

[Classical_Liberal]

75. The US can't force me to buy Israeli products

so I don't see how they are illegal. Anyway opinions changed on the war. They can probably change on this.

[Muddleoftheroad]

77. It can force businesses NOT to boycott

And it can stop calls for such boycotts.

[Classical_Liberal]

80. How can it force businesses to buy israeli products

How can my government stifle freedom of speech. I'll go to the Supreme Court with such a fight gladly.

Show me this unconstitutional law.

[Muddleoftheroad]

91. Case a little while back

Company said it wouldn't sell to citizens of Israel. They got in trouble for it. So openly boycotting will get you in trouble if you are in business.

[Classical_Liberal]

93. Can you provide a citation?

?

[Muddleoftheroad]

98. I saw it here in I/P but can't readily find it

Sorry, I tried.

[Classical_Liberal]

3. n/t

n/t

[buddy22600]

6. nice post

[number6]

41. Classical_Liberal, I salute you ...

one man, one vote.. the Likudnics killed the 2 state solution.

:toast: :smoke:

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. It's still there, the Palestinians need only agree to peace

Not terror.

[number6]

47. I believe, you believe that ...but I'm skeptical..

about Israel giving up land for a Palestinian State.

I would love to be prov-en wrong ...

[Classical_Liberal]

49. Muddle admits they won't give them land for it

. Go figure. He just dislikes Palestinians in general and thinks they should be non persons in Israel.

[Muddleoftheroad]

55. Not at all

I say they won't give everything the Palestinians want. No state would. Negotiations are made up of mutual compromise.

[Classical_Liberal]

63. The Palestinians have already compromised

on the 1948 lands. It is a two way street.

[Muddleoftheroad]

67. What compromise?

The 1948 lands were UN ordered, not Palestinian ordered. Nor, for the record, do I see the Palestinians lining up in support of that.

[Classical_Liberal]

84. I guess you slept through Oslo as well

.

[Classical_Liberal]

48. They won't get anything from peace or war

They haven't in the past and won't in the future. Civil disobedience and economic boycotts are the key.

[Jim Sagle]

57. Tell them, not us.

[Classical_Liberal]

62. They can read

. This isn't an Israelis/American only board. Besided the boycott involves everyone who consumes Israeli products.

[Jim Sagle]

69. Genocidal boycott - like killing for peace.

[Classical_Liberal]

82. How is a boycott genocide?

?

[Jim Sagle]

85. it could lead to the total destruction of a small nation that is basically

just trying to survive.

That's how.

[Classical_Liberal]

86. The course Sharon is taking is more likely to do that in my view.

. Not every action done in the interst of survival is justified. Paranoid people often do some pretty nasty things they think contibute to their survival. They over-react to perceived threats that don't exist. These actions actually do more harm than good. Xenophobia is just paranoia on a grand scale.

[Jim Sagle]

87. You're half right, I think. But Sharon didn't happen in a vacuum.

Without Arafat, Sharon would be playing chess on a hotel balcony.

[Classical_Liberal]

88. nothing happens in a vacuum

The question is how do you deal with the present situation. We can go back to the beginning of this whole affair. While it is understandable Jews would want to get the hell out of Europe after the holocaust, it is also understandable that the Palestinians wouldn't be amiable to the plan etc.. etc... yadda...yadda... yadda.

[Muddleoftheroad]

90. You have a funny sense of "beginning"

Jews would go back a little earlier -- about 2,000 years or so.

[Classical_Liberal]

94. That's nice

Palestinians and no living government did that to them.

[Muddleoftheroad]

99. So? You cited a beginning

In the U.S., the troubles of slavery began under governments that no longer even hold sway on the continent.

[Classical_Liberal]

101. I don't think Israels claim is more legitmate that the Palestinians.

which is why I want two completely independent states. Creating a Palestinian diaspora won't improve matters. I believe that Palestinians are just as important as jews whether you like it or not,.

[Muddleoftheroad]

102. I also want two independent states

But I also recognize that one already exists. For the other to exist, its supporters must give up on terror. If they don't, they won't get a state.

[Vladimir]

92. The Palestinians tried to push

for a one-state solution right up until the late 80s and got nowhere if my memory serves me correctly. The only group still actively promoting a one-state solution is, I think, the PFLP. I do not think the one-state solution is politically viable anymore, whatever its merits (and I think there are many) and faults though...

[Classical_Liberal]

95. I'll except either one, though I am down on the two state

solution, because like the fence it just gets manipulated by the right and turned into a nightmare. This third way stuff always smothers life.