Israel's Right to Be Israel

[QuietStorm]

6 hours ago OPINION PIECE

Last month, while welcoming Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to the White House, President Bush stated that "America is firmly committed to the security of Israel as a Jewish state." But sadly, many of Israel's neighbors and even our partners in peace are not yet willing to accept the legitimacy of Israel as the historical homeland of the Jewish people and the political expression of Jewish national self-determination.

snip

Of course, there are those who say that the refugee issue is a final status issue to be discussed only at the very end of peace talks. Yet, so, too, was the issue of Palestinian statehood. The international community has made a decision to move up the statehood issue to the interim stage, Phase II of the road map. Similarly, Israel is entitled to have this matter of existential importance moved forward.

The truth is that the Palestinian demand to return the refugees to Israel is without legal or moral basis. It must be remembered that the Palestinian refugee problem resulted from an Arab-Palestinian war of aggression launched against the newborn Jewish state. The Arab leadership refused to accept the U.N. partition and refused to accept Israel. Therefore, Israel's War of Independence in 1948 created the ensuing flow of refugees. Surely the Arab leadership has primary moral responsibility for these individuals.

snip

In a deliberate perpetuation of this tragedy, U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 has been repeatedly misused, misread and misrepresented as the legal basis to oppose practical steps designed to help the refugees.

Contrary to the myth that surrounds it, that resolution does not proclaim a "right of return." It must be remembered that the Arab bloc at the United Nations actually voted against the resolution. The Palestinian leadership rejected it precisely because it called for peace and reconciliation with Israel. After 50 years, retroactively selecting sentences from a dated U.N. General Assembly resolution, one that has been made irrelevant by Arab opposition, just to serve a specific position, cannot be allowed after everything else has been rejected.

The writer is Israel's ambassador to the United States.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34480-2003Aug22.html

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. Many places have shown little enthusiasm for invasion by Europeans

Europe has enjoyed a bumper crop of military power in recent centuries, and has not used it wisely.

Across the globe, those who accept the notion that Europeans are endowed with a divinely bestowed droit du seigneur regarding the rest of the world and its resources both human and otherwise, are becoming more difficult to find.

The chances of a reversal of this trend are slim to none.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I've heard

that Jews that were living in the area before the Zionists came in have been afforded second-class citizenship. Anyone have some article to back this up?

[Violet_Crumble]

3. That was an eye-opener...

I really liked this bit about Resolution 194 from the Israeli ambassador to the US: "Contrary to the myth that surrounds it, that resolution does not proclaim a "right of return."

Uh, really? That's news to me. The UN site is playing silly-buggers for me tonight, so I've gone to another site to get the text of the resolution to look at (disclaimer: by posting the link I'm not in any way saying I agree or disagree with whatever else is on the site, basically because I haven't had a look at anything but the resolution). So, what a surprise to find that the resolution does indeed proclaim a right of return...

"11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;"

http://www.mideastweb.org/194.htm


Violet...

[rini]

4. UN resolution

"11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;"

Refugees: from Webster's online Dictionary
one that flees; especially : a person who flees to a foreign country or power to escape danger or persecution

ok, that removes the vast majority of so called Palestinians, the majority of whom were not born in Israel and have never lived there. Then we go to "in order to escape persecution.......no they left in order to let the Arab armies kill off the Israelis and when that didn't happen their fellow Moslems allowed them to rot rather than absorbing them into their population.

Finally a key phrase live at peace with their neighbours

somehow I don't think Israel is the neighor they have in mind. As a matter of fact, the Palestinians call for the phased annihilation of Israel. So much for that piece of propaganda.

[Violet_Crumble]

5. History - study it sometime...

Y'know, you popping up calling every FACT that *you* don't like propaganda gets really tedious and boring. What's fact is that those refugees are indeed refugees, even based on Webster online's rather simplistic definition of the term. Another fact is that the refugees who were forced to flee or were forcibly expelled from their homes during a time of war had been born there. Where the hell do you think they came from? Have you got some theory that all those people lived somewhere else and went: 'Oh goody! A war of Muslims against the Infidel non-muslims!! Let's all be good Muslims and go move there so we can flee our new homes and then become refugees!!'??

Aside from yr very telling and by now repetitive condemnation of Muslims and yr attempt to blame them for Israel's refusal to comply with Resolution 194 providing some light entertainment on a drizzly night, yr post didn't actually try to address the whole point (unless you think posting a rant not backed up with the slightest shred of evidence is actually addressing it), which was that the Israeli ambassador was lying when he said that Resolution 194 didn't address the right of return. I posted what it said, and it clearly did...

Violet...

[rini]

7. chuckle

So much for rational discussion. Amazing how riled you people get when proven wrong. BTW, I have never said anything against Muslems,just Islamists.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. Did I miss something?

The problem is that you didn't prove anything wrong. You in fact supplied a definition of refugee that proved yr argument wrong. As for not even talking about Muslims, yr post proves you wrong as you specifically mentioned Muslims, even though that war had zero to do with religion. It'd be the same as someone describing US finally joining WWII as 'the US decided to let their Christian friends to rot for a few years before joining in'


Violet...

[The Magistrate]

33. It Has Always Seemed Curious to Me, Ma'am

This passage down the decades by descent of refugee status, like enrollment in the Second Estate, or the debts of a peon in old Mexico. All but a small fraction of those Arab Palestinians today called refugees were born elswhere than the lands now part of Israel; in many cases, not even their parents or grandparents were born within those boundaries. These people, to my view, are in fact not refugees but exiles. There has been some definitional gerrymandering in the U.N. definitions for this particular case to set against the common usage of words, but it is not particularly persuasive to me.

Recognition of this does not in the least militate against proper compensation for lost properties and livelihoods: such debts may routinely form a part of an estate oweable to heirs. It does make the idea of repatriation as a right somewhat dubious, to my view, and particularly so where insistence on wholesale repatriation is certain to be rejected by one party to the conflict. It would seem to me that a good deal of progress could be made if the negotiators for Arab Palestine would conceed the point that repatriation would be forgone in exchange for compensation, just as a great deal of progress would be made if negotiators for Israel would conceed the necessity for ending the settlement program on lands overrun in '67. Both these steps would wreak such a change in the political climate of the opposing polity as to render the popularity of a violent policy marginal within it.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. What's the difference between exiles and refugees?

Don't the two words pretty much mean the same thing? I think I can understand why descendants of those originally forced to flee or forcibly expelled from their homes are defined as refugees. If their parents or grandparents had never had to leave in the first place, they would have been born in what is now Israel. If descendants weren't counted as refugees, wouldn't that tempt nations who don't want any refugees returning to hold out for decades on the issue of letting them return and then several decades later announce that there's no refugees to consider because they've all died of old-age?

When the term 'right of return' is used in negotiations, doesn't that include compensation? I thought the right of return was pretty much a symbolic thing anyway as I doubt that very many of the refugees would even choose to return if they were given a choice between that and fair financial compensation...

Violet...

[The Magistrate]

37. Indeed, Ma'am

It might be fairly argued the distinction is without difference, but it seems meaningful to me, and of use in drawing propagandist fangs. The very form of the words suggests it: a refugee being one who has sought refuge, in an acute condition of distress; an exile being one outside their native land, and unable to return, a chronic condition of estrangement.

Your point about encouraging intransigence speaks really to a relatively recent change in such matters, so that there is really little historical or customary precedent for guide. Prior to the last few decades, there was seldom any question of refugee return, unless their side won the conflict, and so not only refugees but their later descendants only accomodated themselves to their new locales, whether as citizens or resident foreigners. Greeks expelled early in the 1920s by Ataturk from Anatolia, where Greeks had been resident since the Classical period, for instance, somehow got on with their lives in Attica or elsewhere, and there was never any question of their returning to where their fellows or ancestors had been slaughtered.

At about the same time many Arabs fled Palestine, countless numbers of persons were in flight from or driven out of their homes throughout the world. Great numbers of people in 1945, for instance, fled eastern Prussia, which was largely absorbed by Russia and Poland (the city now known as Kaliningrad is old Koenigsberg, the Prussian capital). No one made any great fuss about either their repatriation or their compensation, and a Prussian is as distinct from a Bavarian or a Rhinelander or a Hannoverian as a Palestinian is from a Syrian or an Iraqi or a Saudi. The partition of Pakistan was accompanied by a tremendous flight and murderous driving out of religious minorities displacing millions: again there was no great fuss about repatriation or compensation, and no one considers the descendants of these people refugees today. In more modern times, though it is proclaimed, say, that Bosnian Moslems driven from their homes in Serb areas of that place, or Serbs driven from their homes in Croatia, have a right to return, and many desire to do so, damned few have dared make the attempt, and it seems likely these demographic changes will remain permanent.

Right of return, in my view, certainly includes compensation, but it is very difficult to find clarity in the various pronouncements of Arab Palestinian political leadership on the question. There was, indeed, a recent attempt at polling the opinion of Arab Palestinians on whether they would prefer compensation to repatriation, and though this was roundly denounced by radical elements, its results seemed to indicate the great majority would prefer, as you suggest, compensation. That is just one reason it seems to me it would be helpful if the political leadership of Arab Palestine stated explicitly it would settle for compensation instead of insisting, even as a mere symbol, on repatriation, in this question.

[mike_c]

6. oh boy....

ok, that removes the vast majority of so called Palestinians, the majority of whom were not born in Israel and have never lived there.

This convenient bit of history is the direct result of Israel having been in violation of the UN Resolution for 50 years. Fortunately, it's not true-- the refugees descendents are refugees too.

[rini]

8. I love it

You guys should take this stuff on the road.

[Equinox]

17. Are you aware that the Arab Leaders actually told the Palestinians...

...to stay put?

I just wondered if you knew any history besides the stuff you are making up in defense of Israel.

[The Magistrate]

40. In Some Cases They Did, Sir, In Some They Did Not

It is certainly true that young men of military age were ordered not to leave in many places, and were subject to punishment if caught at departing by guerrilla formations.

In Haifa, after the defeat of Arab irregulars about the city and the entry of Jewish forces into the place during early April 1948, after some negotiation with the Jewish leaders, leading Arab citizens there consulted the Mufti, and Arab League representatives in Lebanon, who instructed them Arabs must not live for an hour under rule of Jews. These instructions were obeyed by the departure en mass of the city's Arab populace. Departure from this city alone accounted for about a tenth of the total number of Arab Palestinians who fled in 1948.

[Darranar]

43. That is correct...

and sometimes the Arabs were forcefully removed by the IDF, and sometimes not. It varied greatly, which is why there is so much debate on the topic.

[Violet_Crumble]

157. Where did you read that?

Unfortunately the only sites that repeated what you said about the flight of Palestinians from Haifa were those rabidly 'pro-Israel' ones that go on to use that claim to support their argument that people fled out of sheer hatred and an urge to assist in destroying Israel and therefore shouldn't have been allowed to return after the war. I've seen a lot of claims in this forum that radio broadcasts urged Palestinians to flee so that the Arab forces could push Israel into the sea, but I've been reading some stuff and it seems that this claim is yet another myth. Both Benny Morris and a US author called Dan Kurzman searched the Israeli military archives and the BBC's radio monitoring files and found nothing....

Violet...

[The Magistrate]

158. Haifa Is A Well-Known Instance Ma'am

Its total population of about 150,000 was divided about equally between Jews and Arabs, with the Jewish population in newer suburbs in hills, and the Arabs in the old port. Arab departures from the place occured in several waves, and began before there was much fighting near the city, while it was still garrissoned by English troops. In February, the Catholic prelate, Arch-Bishop al'Hakim, arranged evacuation to Beirut of many children, and there was also a general departure of the well-to-do: by the end of March some 25,000 persons had departed the city for Syria and Lebanon. As fighting intensified in the Galilee, though still without involvement of Haifa, the flight continued, partly, at least, spurred by rumors of impending aerial bombardment by Arab air forces of its Jewish quarter, which never materialized.

The English garrisson departed over April 18 to 19: at this time the remaining Arab population totaled about 30,000 persons. With English departure, fighting broke out in Haifa, with irregulars of both sides shooting into the other's neighborhoods. Neither side had more than a few hundred armed men. Arab attempts to truck weapons into the city were successfully ambushed, and on April 21 the Jewish fighters advanced into the port, meeting little opposition. Lurid reports were carried in newspapers in Syria and Jordan at the time that this was accompanied by stupendous massacre, numbering more than 20,000, but these were wholly false; it is doubtful more than two hundred persons were killed on both sides during the fighting.

Negotiations commenced on the 22nd between leading Jewish and Arab citizens: the Jews felt the departure of the city's remaining Arabs would be a tremendous political blow. The Arab spokesmen, while discussions were underway, declared they could not make any final undertaking without consulting national and Arab leadership, and sent couriers to consult representatives of the Mufti and the Arab League in Beirut. The direction they received was that Arabs ought not to live under rule of Jews, nor cooperate in any way with Jewish governance, which had been consistent Arab Nationalist policy throughout the Mandatory period. They obeyed these directives, and over the next thirty-six hours the remaining Arab residents departed the place.

None of this relates to propaganda broadcasts, or similar inventiveness: any standard history of the period ought to incorporate at least the outlines of this tale. It is, granted, an inconvenient one from some points of view, as its most instructive feature is the sizeable proportion of departures occuring before there was any local fighting at all. The political considerations of the Arab Nationalist leadership are not wholly without merit in the instance, though as matters turned out, they were disasterous.

[Cassandra]

159. Some things never change

"Lurid reports were carried in newspapers in Syria and Jordan at the time that this was accompanied by stupendous massacre, numbering more than 20,000, but these were wholly false; it is doubtful more than two hundred persons were killed on both sides during the fighting."

Lurid reports about massacres that never happened. Hmmm..... Sounds like Jenin.

"The direction they received was that Arabs ought not to live under rule of Jews, nor cooperate in any way with Jewish governance, which had been consistent Arab Nationalist policy throughout the Mandatory period."

This certainly makes a one-state solution, beloved of some here, a very iffy proposition on both sides. And why is the Arabs' refusal to live under Jewish rule not equated to racism by those here that like throwing that word around?

These are, of course, rhetorical questions. Thank you, Sir, for your excellent history lesson. You do a good job at making all of this digestible.

[The Magistrate]

160. In All Fairness, Ma'am

It is not wise to read too much into events so long ago, in circumstances much removed from the present day.

The Arab Nationalists, in the weeks before the declaration of Israel, still harbored not unreasonable hopes of un-doing the Partition. One tactic was to demonstrate in all conceivable ways that it simply was not feasible, and the directive given the leading citizens of Haifa seems to me a species of boycott aimed at doing so. The long policy of Arab Nationalists of refusing any cooperation with governance under the Mandate that even included Jews could be regarded as bigotry, if one chose, but also as reflecting a principled stand that the land was Arab, and the view that such cooperation would weaken that claim. That in the event, it proved a sorely misguided policy cannot be denied.

Haifa was allocated to the Jewish zone by the partition, but just barely; only a few miles north at Acre began the Arab portion of west Galilee. The Arab population of Haifa contained several elements particularly prone to flight in unsettled times: it had a large number of well-to-do persons, of Christians, and of men who had migrated in from the countryside to work in the docks and factories for cash. Both the first groups tend to flee troubled times in the region for self-protection, and many of the others may well have desired to return to their native villages to protect the families they supported on remittance.

The real problem is the attempt to present events at that time as something unitary, whether it is dubbed the miracle of independence or the catastrophe. The thing was not unitary: different policies and motives applied at different times in different locals. Jewish policy towards Arabs in Haifa, in the Jewish zone, before the declaration of Israel, was very different than Jewish policy towards Arabs in, say, Lydda, in the Arab Zone, after the end of the first U.N. cease-fire. Similarly, Arab Nationalist policy before the declaration of Israel, concerning Arabs in the Jewish zone, was different than Arab Nationalist policy concerning residents of the villages round Jerusalem, in the Arab zone, whether before or after the declaration of Israel.

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. Question

Why is it that Israel embraced its own refugees from around the world, including many from the Arab world, yet the Arab world never did the same with the Palestinians?

[drdon326]

10. Muddleoftheroad....

To quote Hershel.....

"i think you know the answer."

[StandWatie]

18. because the Palestinians want to stay

They are respecting the wishes of the vast majority of Palestinians.

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. Or they are cheap and manipulative

Particularly the latter as they have used the Palestinians and mistreated them far worse than Israel has ever done.

[StandWatie]

21. how could that even be possible?

Diaspora Palestinians have since 48 married within their own communities, and when I say that I don't mean wherever they wound up at, I mean Haifa, Khiyam al-Walid, Dayshum, whatever familys were living in their different places before the war even if it requires an international marriage to try and keep the communities together.

I know it's traditional to try and blame the different Arab countries and it's exacerbated by an Israeli PR campaign that pretends that all Arabs are just Arabs but there would be incredible opposition from Palestinians if the different nations with camps tried to nationalize them.

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. I'm not talking about nationalizing

You will recall that many Palestinians ended up in Jordan before they were purged and thousands killed. I'm talking about encouraging them to move out of the camps, finging housing and jobs. Any self respecting nation would do that for those it considers its own people.

[StandWatie]

25. you are talking about third world countries

I don't know how Syria or Jordan or Lebanon could be expected to help much of anyone.

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. Oil money

What about all of the oil countries? Saudi Arabia? Qatar? Bahrain? Libya? Iraq? (Pre-war obviously) Most of them seem to find ways to finance terror, just not aid.

[StandWatie]

41. there are no Palestinians there..

[GabysPoppy]

42. Ever ask yourself why not?

[StandWatie]

45. why should they be?

:shrug:

[GabysPoppy]

47. Maybe something

Like being your brother's keeper.

Let us work together and help our fellow Arabs when they are in need.

Something progressive like that.

What a silly concept. Gee, these countries must have paid close attention when the bushies gave classes in how to screw the have nots.

[StandWatie]

48. They aren't just "Arabs"

I know this isn't going to penetrate anywhere, but as I tried to illustrate with the example of using marriage to try and retain community, they are Palestinians, this goes beyond what land they are on, and Israeli propaganda aside: Yes, Golda Meir, there are Palestinians, if you know what you are looking for you can tell what clan a Palestinian belongs to by the way he folds his keffiyeh, what village he was from and most importantly just by color and pattern that they are Palestinian and trying to aid Israel in trying to assimilate the remains of it's cultural genocide would be criminal in itself.

[GabysPoppy]

49. And this is your justification?

"They aren't just Arabs"

What the hell does that mean? They are unworthy of help from other Arabs by the way they fold their keffiyeh?

Tell me again why this isn't a racist comment.

Seeing I answered your question wouldn't it be nice if you tried to answer mine.

[StandWatie]

50. it's entirely useless

It's like trying to explain to a Hamas member that Israeli Jews aren't just Europeans who should bugger off back to Europe.

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. But the Arabs sure find money to fund terrorism

They are using the Palestinians and treat them worse than the Israelis do. The Israelis treat the Palestinians as an enemy and are upfront about it. The Arabs treat the Palestinians as an enemy and sue them, but CLAIM they are friends.

[StandWatie]

52. "the Arabs"

are supporting Palestine the way diaspora Jews support Israel. Throwing guns at them and saying "you and him fight".

If you suggested that perhaps the best way to help Israeli Jews was to move them out of Israel you would be laughed out of the room.

[Muddleoftheroad]

58. Not hardly

Diaspora Jews fund a hell of a lot more than guns. They send money for trees, contribute to charities, travel to Israel and give to other charities there.

[StandWatie]

59. like Arabs don't?

Birzeit University’s ability to meet its mission has largely been made possible by the support of numerous Palestinian, Arab and international individuals and organizations that have provided invaluable financial support to the University throughout the years. This generous support has enabled the University to provide quality education, effective community development programs, training and services and to develop the proper infrastructure and facilities to support these activities. It is through the efforts of all the members of the University community including the students, staff, faculty, administration, governing bodies, alumni and financial supporters that Birzeit has achieved the recognition and standards that it currently enjoys.

http://www.birzeit.edu/giving/

The United Palestinian Appeal, Inc. provides both emergency humanitarian relief, charity, and long term infrastructural development to Palestinian communities striving for economic and community development in the wake of ongoing conflict. We strive to deliver efficient charitable services at low overhead costs in the areas of education, health care, community development and agriculture, and child sponsorship.

http://helpupa.com/about/

That one is ran by American Palestinians so you will notice this:

UPA's goals and objectives are purely humanitarian. Its mission is to provide aid and charity to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. Our aim is thereby to alleviate Palestinian suffering. UPA maintains its independence and integrity as a strictly humanitarian organization by not accepting funds from political groups or from any source that may attach unacceptable conditions to its contributions. Click on the link below if would like to view or download a pdf version of our latest annual report, which includes an independent auditor's report.

Conversely American Jewish and especially Pat Robertson style Christian Zionists can buy guns directly and give them to settlers in Hebron and right the whole thing off as a tax refund.

on edit: and yes, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, etc.. are all generous donors.

[Muddleoftheroad]

61. Not as generous

Israel made a place for millions of displaced Jews. The Arab world has not done the same for the Palestinians.

[StandWatie]

62. like that's the same thing..

I'm sure they would be happy to make homes for them back in Israel on top of ruined Kibbutz and Israeli cities the same way Israel "made homes" for Jews on top of destroyed Arab villages.

[Gimel]

155. Last donations I know of

were to buy every settler a bullet-proof vest at the price of $1000 each. Nice amo.

[Astarho]

68. Another Example

Palestinian Arabs are different from Iraqi Arabs, from Jordanian Arabs, and from Moroccan Arabs, just as Sioux Indians are different from Navajo Indians, from Hopi Indians, and from Cherokee Indians (from which I believe your handle came)

Saying they are all "just Arabs" is like saying all Native Americans are "just Indians".

[Cassandra]

53. There were Palestinians living and working in Kuwait...

before the first Gulf War. After they were found to be cheering on
Hussein, they were tossed, en masse, out of the country. I assume Palestinians have lived and worked in other Arab countries, but do they ever get citizenship? I doubt it. If someone disagrees, please provide a link if you can find one; I don't have time to look today. (Not being belligerent, I have stuff to do)

[StandWatie]

55. oh, guest workers..

Yeah, those they have in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and their treatment reflects the recently departed slave-society culture of those places. I have no idea what Israel's excuse was back before they got the Thai and Chinese to use in their place.

No, they do not have citizenship.

on edit: I should have been clearer, there aren't refugee camps there.

[sushi]

57. If you think

all Arabs are the same, they're not. Jews are Jews whatever country they are from, while, for example, Saudi Arabians are Arabs but not all Arabs are Saudi Arabians. Jews are united by their religion and language. When I lived in the Middle East and took Arabic lessons I learnt that Arabic is spoken differently in the various Arab countries. Similar, like Dutch, German, and Flamish, or Malay and Indonesian, but still different. Also, not all Arabs are Muslim.

Not sure if this answered your question, but I'll post it anyway.

[Gimel]

156. The way I read this resolution

The statement that those who wish "to return and live in peace with their Jewish neighbors" is only read by some as meaning Right of Return. Since they are not willing to live in peace, the first part of resolution cannot be fulfilled. It does not guarantee right of return to the descendants. It says as "soon as possible". That opportunity seems to have been missed long ago.

I'm sure the Ambassador is aware of this clause 11. Therefore, compensation for property (with presentation of proof of ownership) is the only remaining option.

[Equinox]

16. What did the "Christian" Palestinians do, Rini?

Do tell. You're so full of knowledge oh wise one.

[rini]

23. about what?

Post #4 is about UN resolution. did they leave? Is that your question?

[StandWatie]

19. the "phased plan"

is the creation of right-wing Israelis who spend much, much, time fretting about demographics and see the "phased plan" coming into being through procreation.

[StandWatie]

64. I've rethought that..

after carefully reviewing the negotiations that led up to Israeli acceptance of original partition and the obvious lack of sincerity regarding Zionist ambitions I completely understand the fear of a "phased plan" in the context of their own experience and duplicity in the matter.

[QuietStorm]

13. Interesting bit

The UN does really seem to be a pain in the ass for these guys. I guess when it comes to opinion facts aren't as essential. Consider the source.

[Cassandra]

11. To ask my question here...

"Today Europe does not have a German or Polish refugee problem, and the Indian subcontinent is not plagued with a refugee issue. Israel has successfully integrated more than 2 million refugees. Why has the same process of healing not occurred with Palestinian refugees? Why today in the Middle East do the descendants of the people who fled their homes in 1948 still suffer in refugee camps?

The unfortunate truth is that over the past 50 years, the Arab governments and the Palestinian leadership have acted to thwart efforts to resettle the refugees, leaving them to suffer in miserable conditions. Even the Palestinian Authority has been unwilling to eliminate the refugee camps in the areas under its control in the West Bank and Gaza and resettle their residents. Obviously, this has been part of a deliberate policy to keep the refugee issue alive as a political weapon against Israel. "

This raises a good question. Why are some Palestinians still treated as refugees by the PA in their own territory?

Sorry about my dupe. I looked and didn't see it. :shrug:

[drdon326]

12. Simple.

because they use them as political pawns. The
propaganda machine keeps telling them its the
mean ol'israelis keeping them as refugees.
(too bad these people arent told about the $ 300,000,000
arafat stole from his people.)


Its the same propaganda machine that abuses children by inciting
them to strap on bombs and kill innocent people... while his
NOBEL-ness arafat and all the other terrorist heads feel so
safe. That is why the IDF should go after the heads of these terrorist
organizations .....esp.since head-up-his-ass mazen
wont.

[QuietStorm]

14. In their own territory?

Haven't you heard it's an occupation. PA has been flattened. Leaders changed by US brokers. collective punishment, demolitions, curfews, sealed borders. What do you mean their own territory?

[Cassandra]

35. The odd thing about the refugee camps

is that they don't seem to look like what most of us think of when picturing refugee camps such as those in Africa; tents, bare ground, no permanent structures for miles. But these refugee camps have stone (brick, stucco) buildings; permanent structures. Didn't the camp outside of Jenin have a McDonalds? I'll grant you, this is not exactly the apex of civilization, but if they are already living in permanent structures, why not call it a town or city? They are certainly living in better conditions than those living in the corrugated metal and cardboard shanty towns on the edges of large cities in South America. And those residents are not refugees. If the PA (or someone) has been capable of building permanent structures to house refugees, why are they refugees at all? Why shouldn't those groups have the same of whatever services are offered to other Palestinians? If other Palestinians don't have much in the way of government services, is this all Israel's fault? There have been periods in the West Bank and Gaza when the PA was in charge of their own. What was Arafat doing with the funds at his disposal? Buying weapons, rather than providing city services (and stealing the rest).

[Devils Advocate NZ]

15. Amazing...

It must be remembered that the Palestinian refugee problem resulted from an Arab-Palestinian war of aggression launched against the newborn Jewish state. The Arab leadership refused to accept the U.N. partition and refused to accept Israel. Therefore, Israel's War of Independence in 1948 created the ensuing flow of refugees. Surely the Arab leadership has primary moral responsibility for these individuals.

Amazing bit of Hasbara by this author! Take the above paragraph and reword it to the more realistic:

It must be remembered that the people who lived on the land refused to be kicked off their land by words, so when they were kicked off their land by bullets, it was their own damned fault. Thus, they have no right to demand to be let back on their land or be compensated for its loss.

Brilliant! And that rape victim was asking for it.

No wonder this guy is Israel's ambassador to the US - that kind of ability to spin should be rewarded (and made use of)!

[tinnypriv]

24. What a joke

The "right of return" is actually set in the Declaration of Human Rights, adopted the day before GA/194. The co-sponsors of GA/194 clearly had that in mind when the section Violet quoted was written.

As for the Palestinians not accepting the "legitimacy" of Israel, as this author well knows, that is just an attempt to find yet another roadblock to peace. The intent is to demand that the Palestinians accept the "legitimacy" of their explusion. That is never going to happen, and isn't even a serious point. They've already accepted the right of Israel to "live in peace and security". When anybody demands anything beyond that, you know they're not seriously interested in peace.

Does anybody take this sort of crap seriously?

[drdon326]

26. Really??

"They've already accepted the right of Israel to "live in peace and security".

i must have missed that over the screams of the most
recent bus bombing.

(i beg you....dont call me eugene!!)

[Violet_Crumble]

27. Really...

Yr making the mistake AGAIN of labelling the Palestinian people as terrorists. The groups carrying out the attacks are not the representatives of the Palestinian people, and were in no way connected with the PA, which is the representative of the Palestinian people...


Violet...

[StandWatie]

28. oh, I don't know...

I think that bombing was representive of Palestinian opinion, right or wrong. However that doesn't mean that you can't simultaneously recognize that Israel isn't going anywhere.

[drdon326]

30. Interesting

well, you would seem to know.

[yuvalmadar]

56. I don't know about the celebrating palestinians opinion, but...

I do know that Arafat has been involved in plenty of terrorist attacks in the past.

[tinnypriv]

31. Hey, blame Chaim

He's the one who said the PLO wrote the 1976 UN resolution which the U.S. vetoed. That had "peace and security" in there.

I'm not drinking now, so I won't call you Eugene, but if you persist with these types of posts, maybe I should.

Start, that is. :D

[Mike_from_NoVa]

36. Xenophobia

...the Palestinians striving to force Israel into receiving millions of Palestinian refugees are seeking to undermine Israel's character as a democratic Jewish state.

From Ambassador Ayalon's statement above, it's obvious the Israeli government's position against the right of return is based on a fear of being (even peacefully) overrun. I'm not comforttable with so many of my tax dollars going to a country whose official position is xenophobia. And xenophobia can never lead to peace.

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. Xenophobia?

More like a fear of being conquered which all nations share.

[newyorican]

39. More like fear of retribution...

and trying to stave off the inevitable emergence of Palestinian/Israeli-Arab political power due to demographics. (That assumes Israel is a democracy.)

[Mike_from_NoVa]

46. Not sure about retribution, but I agree about

the inevitable emergence of Palestinian/Israeli-Arab political power due to demographics

Fear of this is xenophobia, yeah. And yeah, it probably is inevitable. So figuring out a way to deal with this politically while remaining a democracy, and without resorting to these intellectually dishonest fear tactics would seem to be what's in Israel's best interests.

[Mike_from_NoVa]

44. sure, Kakorrhaphiophobia too, but primarily Xenophobia.

Over the last 20+ years, the US has made Israel way too powerful economically and militarily for there to be any legitimate fear of being forcibly "conquered" any more. The political reality is that America would NEVER allow it. Never.

But is his Sunday Post essay, the Ambassador both has and encourages something like what you call a "fear of being conquered." More specifically - he expresses a fear of accepting an influx of and subsequently being undermined by a majority population of people unlike themselves, i.e. foreigners. In other words, he has and encourages xenophobia, which I guess I'm the only one who finds troubling.

[yuvalmadar]

54. Whoa man! :)

The explanation (fear of being conquered) is only two letters longer... Enough with these big words! :D

[rini]

60. Of course

you are right. Arab countries welcome foreigners to settle with no constraints. Why even in this country we should do away with immigration laws. I think both Israel and the United States should be as welcoming as Saudi Arabia.

[quilp]

63. Palestinian rejected the "resolution" because it meant giving up all claim

to the land they were born in. It is amazing how casually the idea that Arabs should give up all right to their own country is argued. THEY WERE BEING ASKED TO GIVE UP THEIR LAND! TO BETRAY THEMSELVES, THEIR CHILDREN AND FUTURE GENERATIONS. GET IT? Anyone who argues this should be equally prepared to pack their belongings and move out. Are you ready to do that in the "name of peace"?

If I were a Palestinian I would NEVER recognise the right of "Israel" to exist on my land. The English and the USA are keen on giving the Jews a homeland. And they MUST have a homeland, just as the Palestinians MUST have a homeland. Then the English can give them Cornwall, or the USA give them New York.

No people should be ever be expected to make such a sacrifice in the name of peace with anyone. I know of no people who have, or have ever been expected to without a fight. Except of course by the likes of Hitler and Stalin.

[The Magistrate]

65. So We Have One Enthusiastic Vote For Continued Warfare Here

And rather a predictable one as well. More than half a century of war has achieved nothing for the people of Arab Palestine but an ever increasing dimunition of their welfare and future prospects. It might be time to adopt a different course, one less romantic or stirring to the spectator's blood, perhaps, but one that opens the possibility of an end to bloodshed.

[Violet_Crumble]

66. There's been way more than one enthusiastic vote...

And I don't think it's fair to single out one person when there's been a recent influx of those who are so keen for 'all-out' war, liquidations, and who insist that the Occupied Territories are part of Israel. I've seen votes for continued warfare all over the threads recently...

Violet...

[Darranar]

69. Yep...

So have I. It is pitiful. This is after all supposed to be a progressive forum. Why all this war-mongering extremism?

[quilp]

77. If outrage that one people can take the land of another people

is "extremism". I plead guilty.

If to point out the hypocrisy when those people trying to get their own land back are branded "terrorists" by the like of Sharon and his ilk is "extremism". I plead guilty.

If finding the Israeli rationalizations of their ruthless brutality to be obscene. I plead guilty.

If totally disgust of a media that refers to a dead Palestinian as a "bystander", while a dead Israeli is an "innocent victim" is "extremism". I plead guilty.

[Darranar]

78. None of the four above make you guilty of war mongering extremism...

Advocating the killing of children and the slaughter of suicide bombings does, however.

[quilp]

88. I don't "advocate" the killing of children. But I do defend it.

As the particular right of an occupied people to drive the occupiers from their land. Perhaps you will never understand this until you, like me, have actually lived in a country under threat of invasion. Let me assure you the people I knew, who were not monsters, would have had no scruples whatever in such a case. Perhaps you would be able to look your children in the eyes and leave them to the mercy of an invading army and its followers. My people were not willing to do that. Nor am I.

[The Magistrate]

92. The Right To Resist Occupation, Dear

Includes no right to commit crimes of war in doing so. So long as the leading tactic of the various irregular armed bodies of Arab Palestine consists in taking enemy civilians as the target of their attacks, those attacks are crimes of war. Simply because a cause is just does not mean anything done in its name is right. One day you will simply have to come to terms with the fact that, for all your conviction right is on your side alone, you lend your support to unabashed war criminals.

[quilp]

96. Are there any "regular" armed bodies of Arab Palestinians?

Exactly how would you have them fight? Or perhaps they have no right to fight? Your argument has all the arrogance of invicible power! As to "war criminals" perhaps you care to mention a military power that hasn't had them in its recent history? Churchill, Bush, Nixon, Sharon. All could be convicted in any court. Human beings tend to become "unabashed war criminals" when it comes to basic survival.

[Darranar]

97. Nixon, Sharon, Bush...

none of their criminal acts were done for their survival. neither are those of the palestinian militant groups who cause suicide bombings.

[quilp]

100. Had they been it would be more excusable!

What do you expect the Palestinians to do beside give up their land and become refugees? You claim to have absolute knowledge of the motives of these suicide bombers. Since they are putting their lives on the line I am in no position to question their motives. But I am convinced that if they had missiles and tanks they would prefer to use them instead of their own bodies. But they don't. Do they!

To save our army in WW11 against the Japanese army we deliberately atom bombed two cities full of women and children. Perhaps you'd care to compare the morality that to a few dozen "suicide bombings".

[Darranar]

101. MORE civilians would have died...

on the Japanese side had we invaded. That is not the case with the suicide bombings.

[quilp]

104. Not having your historical omniscience I can't argue about

whether more civilians would have died or not. But the expressed reason for dropping the bombs was not concern about "innocent civilian" deaths. It was to save the lives of the soldiers of the US army.

[Darranar]

106. Who knows...

what the reason behind dropping it was? I most certainly don't.

[quilp]

109. Well Truman sure made no bones about it!

n/t

[Darranar]

110. That's not true...

the decision to drop the atomic bombs wasn't a sudden decision made in the course of minutes. It was decided in a vast amount of secret discussion.

[quilp]

114. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Truman and his administration's rational for dropping the atom bomb was to force a Japanese surrender and save the lives of US soldiers who would have had to invade Japan island by island. I've never heard anyone dispute this. Including members of his administration. You have another theory?

[Darranar]

115. I have no idea what you're talking about....

When have I disputed that?

[quilp]

118. Your Post #110 "that's not true"

Unless you were refering to something else. Perhaps you didn't understand the term "made no bones". It means he openly and readily admitted it. Sometimes old phrases slip out.

[Darranar]

119. Yes, I misunderstood it...

ignore the subject line.

[The Magistrate]

108. The Question, Dear

Is not whether these people would prefer use of some other implement than their bodies, but rather what use would they make of such implements. On the historical record, there is not much room for doubt that these people would use such weaponry for unrestricted attacks against the civilian populace. You are, just as any other person is, in a position to question the motives of any other person: there is no sacred or otherwise exempt status gained by those "putting their lives on the line" which forbids this. The public statements of the organizations which wield these people make judgement of their motives quite accessible to any: they intend to kill enough Jews to make the rest go away, and draw no distinction whatever between military personnel and civilians.

The nearest thing to regular formations of Arab Palestine would be the security forces of the Palestine Authority. My spelling out of irregular formations in reference to the variety of such groups in existance stems from a policy of avoiding at all times the usage "terrorist", which is a meaningless term of value solely to a propagandist: those who are so called are in fact simply private persons who claim for themselves the tradtitional prerogative of states to use violence toward political ends. The operative question for such persons, as it is for states, is whether such use of violence constitutes a crime of war, not whether they expect their actions to cause fear, or conduct them from ambuscade.

With your reference to "we deliberately bombed" above, by the way, your legend is rather slipping, or were you a Yank somehow stuck through the Blitz, dear?

[quilp]

111. It is possible I both lived in London during the war and in the USA today.

Or is that beyond your rather limited imagination.

[The Magistrate]

112. Just Trying To Be Helpful, Dear

Always a shame to see an actor forget his lines.

The gerrymander you suggest is certainly possible, but "we" concerning an act by U.S. military forces certainly suggests an origin in or identity with the United States, not too obviously consonant with a cupboard in the Blitz. As Mr. Twain remarked: "Always tell the truth, it is easier to remember."

[quilp]

116. All posts between us will end right here.

I think you should get help.

[Darranar]

117. I think quite the opposite...

The Magistrate is an extremely fairminded poster on this forum, and his contribution to the debate has been enormous. His knowledge of this subject is equally tremendous.

If you must sink to the point of attacking him without addressing his very relevant points, I will happily put you in my second slot on ignore.

[quilp]

121. Read Magistrate Post #112.

I may be your idea of being "fairminded", but it isn't mine.

[Darranar]

122. I'll leave it to the Magistrate to explain that particular one...

because I think he could explain it better than I, because I find it hard to be blunt sometimes.

If you actually read his posts consistently, you might see what I mean.

[quilp]

123. I have no problem being blunt. He called me a liar.

And I'm not not sure you just didn't either.

[Darranar]

124. No, I don't think you're a liar...

There. Blunt and out in the open. I don't think you're a liar.

But I'll ask you to do a very simple thing. Examine the posts on both sides of the argument, while trying to keep your own personal biases out of it. There are a number on both sides, of which the Magistrate is one, who can see both sides of the argument and argue rationally without showing much bias.

[quilp]

127. Of course I am "biased". I try to advocate for the Palestinians.

And being both British and American I can't pretend there isn't some guilt driving that. I hold those two countries primarily responsible for the plight the Palestinians are in.

But I have also said: I don't believe if the positions the Israelis and Palestinians, the Palestinians would behave any better than the Israelis.
I have also bitterly blamed the Arabs for using these people as pawns.
I have always said both people must have a country.

Where we differ is the use of the word "terrorist" against Palestinians. I think it totally hypocritical. And my firm belief the Palestinians have the right to recover their land by any means taken inside their land. The charge "war criminal" does not apply to them.

Now the truth is out about my own personal history you can probably see why I am so adamant about invasion, and those who benefit from it. I had no conscious intention of bringing it up and wish I hadn't. In England we all thought the Nazis were going to invade us. There was no intention of giving any of them; men, women or children any quarter. And I don't back off from that position an inch.

[Darranar]

128. You aren't the only one here for the Palestinians...

you should know that by now.

Slaughter of innocent civilians for no purpose contitutes criminality. If the slaughter actually acomplished something for the Palestinians, perhaps I would change my view. But it doesn't.

[quilp]

130. They do it because they don't know what else to do.

I think as a people they are pathological. If it is possible for a people to become collectively insane, I think they have. They are totally demoralised and in despair. They've had fifty years of losing. It is hard to imagine. Somewhere some power has to rescue them from themselves. Perhaps the USA should force the Israelis to do remove a major settlement. Sharon must be told he must do it and then given political cover to do it. These people need a ray of hope.

[The Magistrate]

133. It Is Worth Pointing Out, Fellow

That if a person on the other side of this debate offered the analysis you have stated above, charges of bigotry and worse would thicken the discussion to mud. There may be something to what you say: it is certainly true that the history of this matter has been marked by continual miscalculation and self-defeating action on the part of Arab Palestinian leaders, and no persons of better quality have yet been raised to such positions by that people. This goes back more than half a century, by several decades at least.

The idea that crime cannot be committed by Arab Palestinians is of course nonsense, the background you rest that on might serve to mitigate punishment, but does not affect guilt in the slightest. Indeed, the decision to adopt criminal means in their fight is one of the chief reasons their struggle has failed of success,and that must be faced by those who support them.

The ray of hope you speak is going to have to come from Arab Palestinians themselves. The leadership or the mass of people is going to have to come to understand the self-defeating character of their actions, and swear off them, like a drunk abandoning the bottle. To continue with your own metaphor of pathology, in such persons all change must origionate from within; it cannot be either imposed or enticed from outside the person afflicted.

[Muddleoftheroad]

134. By rationalizing anything they do

You give carte blanche to anything Israel must do to defend itself. Think on that.

[quilp]

135. I'm not trying to "rationalize" I'm trying to understand.

Please don't read all kinds of sinister innuendos in my posts. What you read is what I am trying to say. I may not always find the right words, but there is no reason to put the worst possible interpretation on the words I use. I have no "hidden agenda".

I have never been on the losing side of a war, that is, where the effects of the loss were felt. What happens to people who have? While the "winners" seem able to go on, the "losers" don't. The French still seem to be refighting WW11 and even today carry some kind of "chip". The South has not put the Civil War behind them, and it did give rise to the KKK. The loss of WW1 in Germany gave rise to the Nazis. Even the USA seems to carry more scars from Vietnam that the Vietnamese (inspite of the their much greater suffering and death toll).

On the other hand Japan, and even Germany, as far as I know seem to have adjusted better than any people I can think of right now. Both were fascist type states that committed the most appalling crimes. Yet they seem now as if their defeat removed a poison from their culture.

What is fifty years of defeat doing to the Arab people? Can we afford to go on defeating them? What future "monsters" are we breeding with all these "victories'?

[The Magistrate]

125. Grow A Skin, Q.

It is my practice to take my amusement where it can be found: the seeming dissonance between some elements of your expression offered a small occasion for it. Attempts to cite personal experience as authoritative in any regatd in a venue such as this is a mug's game: anyone may say anything, and a radical scepticism tempered by courtesy has always been my own policy in that regard. Some persons, after long exchange, strike me as quite credible. The nub of the matter is this. Who you are, what you are, means nothing whatever to me: my judgements are formed by nothing but the words you place here, and the quality of fact you present and of argument you contrive. These are none of a particularly high order, with the result that my impression of you is not a favorable one. Your view of me, similarly, is immaterial to me, as it would surprise me very much to learn mine meant anything to you.

As a matter of strategic advice from an old campaigner, it is really best to ignore slights, as protest only calls greater attention to them, and tends to shrillness in any case, which cannot ever be helpful to dignity.

Mr. Darrannar, you have my apology if you feel any of this has placed you in a false position: it had not occured to me you, or any other, might attempt to step in to this foolishness.

For my part, too, the matter is closed, and it is time to cook dinner for the family in any case.

[Darranar]

126. Don't worry...

It hasn't. I guessed your explanation, so I waited for you to explain it.

[Darranar]

93. No, I wouldn't...

but I wouldn't kill other people's children for no point.

[quilp]

98. Darranar: What exactly is "Passover"?

If you don't commemorate it, assuming you are Jewish, then I would concede that while I totally disagree with you, you have thought the matter of children through. But if you do observe "Passover", what are you "observing" exactly?

[Darranar]

99. You would be surprised...

on the debates I've had over God's slaughtering of the firstborn of the Egyptians. I think it was completely immoral; as was the slaughtering of the inhabitants of Jericho, women and children included.

I personally don't believe that those stories happened in any way similar to the way that they're described, so I feel a little better about it.

[quilp]

103. Well I guess when you can pick and choose your stories

you will always feel better. But when all is said and done the "slaughter" you deplore is the basis of the Zionist claim to the land of the Palestinians.

[Darranar]

107. How?

n/t

[quilp]

131. Biblical

Aren't "Passover", "Exodus", and "Promised Land" part of the great mythology (this is not meant pejoratively) that justify the Zionist
claim to the land "Israel"? Not being a Jew I have merely understood this to be the case. If the basis of their claim is not Biblical what is it?

[Darranar]

132. It's biblical and historical...

As the Magistrate showed masterfully in a post a while ago. Read it again, and you'll see what I mean.

[quilp]

136. I did. It didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.

What conspicuous by its absence was any reference to the USA and its crucial financial and military aid. Reading what he wrote you would have really thought the Israelis did it all by themselves.

What struck me was this passage:

"As regards ethnic concerns, the state of Israel was founded to ensure there was at least one place where state persecution of Jews was a practical impossiblity. Given the sorry history of same in this world, that does not seem unreasonable to me, and the solution, though certainly imperfect, seems the only one practicable."

Question": Who is going to do the same for the Palestinians?

[The Magistrate]

137. The Piece You Mention, Dear

Was a response to your query, whether it was my belief the Jewish claim to Israel was historical, religious, legal, conquest, or ethnic: it was not, nor meant to be, a comprehensive account, although, since there is some historicity to the claim, as well as a history to the other factors, it was necessary to give some historical background. What maintains Israel in part at the present time forms no part of an answer to the question you asked me.

As to your query above: no one will.

[The Magistrate]

138. The Exchange Referenced Above

May be found here by anyone interested:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=7820&mesg_id=8507&page=

[The Magistrate]

80. The Thing Is Not That Simple, Fellow

An Israeli civilian unfortunate enough to be on a bus demolished by a self-immolating militant is a target; an Arab Palestinian unfortunate enough to be alongside the automobile of a Hamas leader targeted by a rocket is indeed a bystander.

The term "terrorist" is a foolish one: what is of concern is whether an act by a combatant is a deliberate crime of war. Those who take for their object the killing of enemy civilians, and not the killing of enemy combatants, do commit crimes of war. When enemy combatants are the target, the harm done to enemy civilians nearby is by the Geneva Accords to be balanced against the direct military gain of the action to determine if harm to such civilians is a crime of war. Combatants are also required to conduct their operations in such a manner as to minimize the possibility of harm to their own nearby civilians by hostile combatants, and if they do not, they commit a crime of war.

[quilp]

67. I see no reason the Palestinians should surrender their land, Ever!

"Peace" on Isreali terms has done nothing but "increase the dimunition of their welfare".

The "spectator's blood" was a cheapshot, "but a predictable one".

The Isrealis want Palestine. They have most of it. They want all of it. They will continue to kill, maim, imprison, humiliate and marginalize the Palestinians until they get it. That is the reality behind all your, and Sharon's fine sentiments.

[rini]

70. If it were their land,

or there had ever been a country of Palestine I'd agree with you, but it's not and there never was

[Darranar]

71. Quilp makes an important point here...

You can't say that none of Palestine is Palestinian land. Quite a lot of it is, and frankly I think that they'll never be an end to the questions and controversy of whether this square inch of land should or should not be Palestinian land. I support what i percieve to be a just solution, which is giveing all of the west Bank and Gaza Strip back to the Palestinians.

[newyorican]

72. umm...

http://www.ntcsites.com/palestine/maps/view.nhtml?profile=maps&UID=10003

http://www.ntcsites.com/palestine/maps/view.nhtml?profile=maps&UID=10004

[quilp]

74. Therefore the people who lived there do not really exist.

Therefore there is no need to be concerned about their human rights. The same attitude that justified the holocaust. Whenever I have doubts there is always someone of your persuation to reassure me.

[Darranar]

75. By the same logic...

you don't think that the Israelis exist. You certainly don't seem to care about their human rights.

I acknowledge the existence of both people, and I think that the human rights of both need to be protected.

[quilp]

83. My problem isn't that the Israelis exist. It is they exist in Palestine!

They have turned the Palestinian people into pre-WW11 Jews. That is my problem. You seem totally blind to my real position.

[Darranar]

84. Actually....

I think their situation isn't comparable with Jews as a whole at any period. European Jews, maybe.

[The Magistrate]

73. Every Instance Of Continuing The Fight By Leaders Of Arab Palestine, Dear

Has resulted in an increased penury for their people, and a dimunition of the quantity of land not under Israeli control. This pattern goes back decades, but it is clearly reflected even in the current bout of hostilities. What emerged from President Clinton's negotiations may well have been less than optimum, but it was more than what is on offer now. The per capita income of Arab Palestinians has decreased tremendously over the last three year years, and may be relied on to continue to do so so long as hostilities continue.

That is the result of fighting as a policy: one of the standard humorist's definitions of insanity is to repeat an act in the expectation the results will be different this time around. Perhaps it is time to try something else, at least if the wish is for a different result.

[quilp]

76. So they should simply capitulate?

And throw themselves on the tender mercies of a government led by Sharon. A man whose humanitarian instincts and history are notorious. With luck and much arm twisting from that compassionate conservative Bush they can look forward to a future of cleaning Israeli sewers.

[The Magistrate]

79. Surrender Is The Most Sensible Option

The defeat has occured; nothing will reverse it.

[sushi]

81. You must be an outsider

so that's easy for you to say. You ARE an outsider, aren't you? Try putting yourself in a Palestinian's place! Their economy is a mess, yes, but Israel's economy isn't doing so well either! A peace agreement is the only answer.

[The Magistrate]

85. A Peace Agreement Would Be Most Desireable, Ma'am

To get one, the continuation of attacks against Israeli civilians must halt. As the parties conducting these attacks are unlikely to do this of their own accord, someone else must bring an end to their activities. But without a cessation of such attacks, there will be no peace. It is such a cessation many who express support for the cause of Arab Palestine dub surrender: that usage does not discommode me in the least.

[sushi]

94. You forgot something

Intead of dismantling settlements Israel builds more! I think 'someone else must bring an end to their activities,' because without a cessation of settlement building, there will be no peace!

[The Magistrate]

95. That Has Not Escaped My Notice, Ma'am

Cessation of settlement expansion by Israel would materially improve the prospects for peace, and do more to increase the security of Israel than just about any conceivable military measure. However, the activities of the various irregular Arab Palestinian bodies are wholly incapable of compelling the settlement activity to cease. While it is possible for either the Palestine Authority or the Israeli armed forces to at least greatly diminish the activities of those irregular bodies, the end of settlement expansion can only be wrought by the Israeli people and their government, or through pressure from Israel's principal backer, the United States.

[sushi]

149. Why do you think

has the US not put pressure on Israel to dismantle all the settlements? And if your answer is 'because the suicide bombing has to stop first,' do you agree that this means that there will never be an end to this conflict?
I think Israel's leadership has no intention to give up the settlements. It's the opposite, Israel wants more land.

[The Magistrate]

153. Answering That Question Is Beyond Me, Ma'am

In broad form, the answer you suggest is probably the case, and as the other side can mirror it by saying it will not act without concession from the other, the result will likely be as you suggest, as well.

But it seems to me that the side which conceeds first, whether the other does or no, would gain a tremendous moral advantage, and also materially alter the views of the mass of people in the other polity, moving them away from support for violent measures, and the persons who advocate them. This advantage is waiting for the hand of the side with the wit to reach and grasp it first.

[bpilgrim]

139. so you endorse the cycle of violence?

it seems to me that when the IDF wasn't in charge of security and at the peace table we had record peace.

sharons methods, history bears out, are an utter catastrophe in regards to actually bringing peace and SECURITY to 'his' people.

maybe they need to put the palestinians back in charge of security in the OCCUPIED territories... and partner up at the peace table?

little U.N. intervention, or some other neutral third party.

:hi:

peace

[The Magistrate]

140. Let Us Be Clear, My Friend

Israeli forces did not move into the Palestine Authority's areas to enforce security measures until some months into the current period of active hostilities. At that time, there was no peace, nor was the Palestine Authority doing anything to rein in the various armed irregular bodies of Arab Palestinians conducting attacks against Israeli civilians. Once the Israeli forces mived in, there was an appreciable dimunition in the number and intensity of such attacks: certainly they were not halted completely, but they became much less frequent. To that degree, it can be said from the Israeli point of view that the action bore some fruit.

On the larger question, however, we are probably in general agreement. There are political and diplomatic actions the Israeli government could take that would probably do much more to achieve security for the people of Israel than any conceivable military measure. Chief among these would be a halt to expansion of settlements, and commencement of the process of liquidating existing settlements, along with measures to arrest and punish settlers who have committed crimes against Arab Palestinians. These measures would go a long way towards altering the feelings of many Arab Palestinians, and materially reduce the support enjoyed by armed irregular bodies among that people. That could make ceding security responsibility to the Palestine Authority practicable, and set a proper tone for serious negotiation between the two sides.

As a matter of theory, a "third party" force makes great appeal, though it seems to me on consideration there are some practical problems, not the least of which is, that if this takes effective measures against a continuation of attacks by Arab Palestinian irregulars, it will become as much a target for these as Israelis. It is unlikely any nation will wish its soldiery placed in this hornet's nest.

[bpilgrim]

143. i still take issue with sharons record vs his predessors since oslo

i don't have the numbers at hand but the intensity and frequency of the violence on both sides have INCREASED signifigantly and is undeniable.

Sharon kicked off the latest wave of violence with a provacitive march with a huge number of security forces into a known hot spot. IRRESPONCIBLE in the extreme.

Since then he has only made matters worse with his extremism in responce.

In short his leadership has only made things worse for his people and the palestinians.

They need to pull out, allow the palestinian police to rebuild and then PARTNER UP with them to truley begin to bring peace back to the region third party or no.

They need to get back to the table and TALK.

defending this madmans acts of murder mayham and assainations will only prolong and encourage those who are carrying these acts out.

We must lend our voices to EXPOSE the extremist on all sides not to give them political cover for their deeds.

that is my main point.

peace

[The Magistrate]

144. Defending Sharon, My Friend

Is no part of my intention. He, his leadership, and his policies, have been disasterous for Israel, Arab Palestine, and the entire region.

[quilp]

82. At long last an honest answer!

Should the "surrender" be unconditional?

[The Magistrate]

86. A Surrender Proffered Voluntarily, Fellow

Can generally get better terms than one imposed by demand of the victor.

You speak of surrender as something unthinkable, and there is something humorous in that to me. Surrender is, in fact, the way most wars end, and the peoples of Israel and of Arab Palestine are indeed in a war, and have been for more than half a century. On any reading of the military facts, the people of Arab Palestine have lost that war, and lost it long ago. They have no power whatever to prevent their foe from doing what it pleases; they have no military capability whatever capable of enforcing their will on their foe. The limit of their capability along that line is to goad their foe to rage. This is seldom a wise course for the helpless, as its only result will be to increase their suffering. The truth of this is clear from any dispassionate examination of the situation today in the Levant. To consel further armed resistance is simply to advise increased suffering and further reduction in prospects for the people of Arab Palestine. You are free to do that if you wish, of course, but in doing so, you in fact do nothing but wish even greater success to the aims of Likud and their like, as these are the only beneficiaries of continued armed struggle in the matter.

[quilp]

87. I never spoke of "surrender as something unthinkable"!

I simply see no reason the Palestinians should hand over their country as if it belonged to the Israelis by some "Biblical", moral, or "historical" right. Nor without fighting with every and any means they have until the cost is to high for them to pay. That is their call.

In fact I believe that this is a war that the Palestinians have lost. What I object to is: The hypocritical tactic of calling Palestinians "terrorists": The criminalization of their resistance: The endless rationalisations of the ruthless brutality of the Israelis: And the Israelis braying their defiance to the world while hiding behind "big brother" the USA.

What I fear is the behaviour of that particularly arrogant and vengeful people toward the subjugated Palestinians. The first thing we would all be treated to would be "show trials" of "terrorists". All Israeli crimes would be swept under the rug. And worst of all their murderous and duplicitous behaviour would be vindicated.

But my question was "should their surrender be unconditional?". That is should they be at the tender mercies of the "Likud and their like"?

[Cassandra]

89. Why do you respect the Palestinians moral and historical rights

over that of the Jews? Particularly when many of the Palestinian refugees never owned any land ( I have quite a bit of sympathy for those who did).

"What I fear is the behaviour of that particularly arrogant and vengeful people toward the subjugated Palestinians. The first thing we would all be treated to would be "show trials" of "terrorists". All Israeli crimes would be swept under the rug. And worst of all their murderous and duplicitous behaviour would be vindicated.

But my question was "should their surrender be unconditional?". That is should they be at the tender mercies of the "Likud and their like"?"

You're forgetting something; that the parliamentary system would remove Likud from power once the danger was past. And they can't count on the conquering hero glow to sway the voters. Remember that once Churchill had won his war, he was out. Likud is the SECURITY party. It is not the economy, negotiating or peace party.

[quilp]

90. I didn't know land ownership was a needed qualification for citizenship.

Most people in most countries don't own land. As far a I know the Palestinian people, Arabs and Jews, were, for generations, happy scratching in the sand, growing their olives and oranges, tending their goats and attending their markets, mosques, temples, and churches. Then came the end of WW11, and their land was casually handed to someone else by a third party. They were by all accounts a poor, ill educated, and niave people cynically betrayed by a more powerful and educated one.

The people who now controlled their land were much better versed in the ways of the world, with superpowers as allies willing to supply them with arms. And very well financed by sympathisers in the USA. Any resistance by the Palestinians was branded as "terrorism". They had their family homes destroyed, their farms torn up, and their relatives imprisoned. Finally they were driven out to a "reservation". Totally out manoeuvred, outgunned, and overwhelmed by an unscrupulous and brutal people. They just never stood a chance. No one helped them. Not even the other Arabs who more often used them as pawns.

That is why I respect their "moral" and "historical" rights. But don't misunderstand me. I believe every people, including the Israelis, have "moral" right to a country. But only if they would recognise the "moral" right of the Palestinians to equal treatment.

You may well believe the "Likud" would lose power, but if I were a Palestinian I would not trust my children's future on it. And the possible behavior of those victorious "settlers" hardly bears thinking about.

[Cassandra]

91. Weren't you talking about land ownership upstairs?

" Palestinian rejected the "resolution" because it meant giving up all claim to the land they were born in. It is amazing how casually the idea that Arabs should give up all right to their own country is argued. THEY WERE BEING ASKED TO GIVE UP THEIR LAND! TO BETRAY THEMSELVES, THEIR CHILDREN AND FUTURE GENERATIONS."
Many were living in towns, so they didn't have large fields taken away from them. Are they upset at being displaced? Of course, but millions of people have been displaced just in the last century. Most aren't even offered the opportunity to have a state and reparations. The Kurds, for example, think the Palestinians are a bunch of whiners, as the Kurds have accomplished much more with much less.
Some of those who betrayed them were the wealthy Arab and Ottoman landowners whose land some were working. The PA, BTW, is very well financed and has been for years by Arab states for whom it is useful to have a refugee problem to beat Israel over the head with. It's too bad that more money didn't trickle down to the Palestinian people. The "reservation" was part of the state they were originally offered. When Jordan captured that territory, why didn't they do anything to help the Palestinians gain a state instead of taking their land? They've actually been helped quite a lot; to stay right where they are.

[quilp]

102. Millions were rounded up into concentration camps. Is that OK too?

Many people thought the Jews in Europe were "whiners". What kind of a half baked argument is that!

[Cassandra]

113. Those millions are mostly dead, so they were hardly whining

Tha Kurds were complaining about Palestinians, very much alive, who would rather bemoan the bad deal they got than start over where they are. Lots of populations in history have gotten raw deals; most start over. The Jews did, after considerably more tragedy than Palestinians will ever endure.
It's not so much that many people thought Jews in Europe were whiners; it's that they were Jews and no one gave a damn. Some still don't. Palestinians have had a lot of support for quite some time, but they also get a lot of encouragement to follow a losing strategy.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

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

[loquat]

105. THEY FEAR THE TRUTH

What makes the pro Arab dictatorship supporters tick? They repeat the old abandoned ,almost word for word, myths of the worst of the pro arab propagandists ..They get somewhat disturbed when you quote Benny Morris . Of all the historians, he has been considered the most pro Arab minded of the lot.

I took the trouble of revisiting Noam Chompsky's "Fateful Triangle (updated edition)" It is still sold all over the Arab world and I see it most often quoted ,without any attribution, on this and other discussion groups.

In his chapter on the" Historical Backgrounds" he completely leaves out the Arab League meeting just prior to the UN session of November 46 . The facts of this meeting is critical to the understanding of all the events that followed. The Arab League agreed ,with Palestinian representation,as follows:

1- To take up arms against the United Nations decision if it assigned any portion of the ancient Jewish homeland back to the Jews .

2- To make room for the Palestinian in their countries if they were dislocated and had to be moved as a result of the war.

3- Not to meet with any UN committee to find a peaceful solution before the vote.

4- To stop any unfavorable UN decision by engaging in riots, murder , asasinations , looting and burning of Jewish property. (This threat was also made at the UN)

5- To make the Jews throughout the Islamic world pay for the UN action.

6- To stop any unfavorable action by the UN by forcing the issue into the "World Court ".


He mentions only as part of one sentence ,en passant, the existence of equal opportunity Arab irregulars who swarmed into UN territory starting with December of 46 Over 5 000 of them came across the borders to steal burn , rape and kill Jews. An organized "Arab Liberation Army' ,some 6000 in number with full military equipment came out of Syria to get thier share of the loot . But Chompsky has no space to include this in his camel dung.

I can attribute it to my poor eyesight but try as I did I can find no mention by Chompsky of the UN Meeting of 1949 at Lausanne to discuss the problem of the displaced Palestinians.
Here the Arab League representatives turned down an Israeli offer to accept back into Israel 260 000 displaced Palestinians after they had already accepted back 50 000 on a family reunion basis. It interesting to note that the Arab League did not permit Palestinians to sit on the committee which rejected the offers.

From the Fourth Progress Report of the UN Conclliation Commission for Palestine.
Item 25: The Government of Israel agreed to unite wives and minor children
of legal Arab breadwinners living in Israel.Turned down by the Arab League!

What Chomsky does not go into at all was that during this period every thing was in chaos. Homes ,factories roads and infrastructure in general was in ruins .Thousands of Jews of the Islamic world who had been driven out of their homes had fled to Israel and were living in tents and being fed by soup kitchens.

No offer of any kind was ever made by the Arab dictators to their fleeing citizens as contrasted to the generosity of the Israelis.

[rini]

129. Brilliant!!!!!!!!

[quilp]

145. I don't "fear the truth". Nor am I an "Arab propagandist"

As far as I know the inhabitants of Palestine dwelt in that land for generations. Along came WW11 and the concentration camps. There were millions of displaced Jews in Europe. No country was willing to take them for a variety of reasons. Many could not return from whence they came, or for good reasons didn't want to The solution was to give them a "homeland" in Palestine.

The problem was Palestine was already a "homeland" of the people living there. Over the course of the last fifty years the Arab Palestinians have, through "legal" and military means, been relentlessly driven off their land to make way for Jewish "settlers" coming from all over the world.

The Palestinians are now pretty much in the same plight as the Jews were in post WW11 Europe. I think Britain, Europe, USA, Israelis, and their supporters through out the world owe these people compensation. If a solution is not found that has at least some semblance of justice and humanity to it the Western World will deservedly reap a whirlwind. And, in fact is already doing so.

[loquat]

146. NOT THE FACTS

I can see that you mean well but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

IN 1949 the World Court ,unanimously ruled , that Palestine belonged to the international body ,the UN, and it could dispose of it as it saw fit.

IN 1922 the British gave 78% of Palestine,the ancient Jewish homeland, to the Arab for a homeland for the Arab Palestinians.

In 1948 under Resolution 181 the UN gave another 8 1/2% to the Arabs for another Palestinian homeland if they so desired. About two percent around Jerusalem was to be internationalized and the remianing 8 1/2% went to the Israelis where they were in the majority.In addition it provided that if any Arab lost anything in the Jewish portion they were to be compensated.

REsolution 181 was rejected by the Arab League. Why! As historians have noted the Arab dictators wanted to divide up Palestine for themselves.

In the Arab invasion of UN Palestine that followed more Palestinians took up arms on the side of the Israelis than of the bloody Arab dictators.There were so many Palestinian volunteers that a separate unit had to be set up for them in the Israeli Army.

From the very beginning the Arab League has refused to negotitate a solution to the refugee problems . More details if you are interested. .

[The Magistrate]

147. A Small Point, Sir

England did not divide Trans-Jordan from Palestine as a homeland for Arab Palestinians. England divided the interior from the littoral to ease the problem of policing the desert area east of the Jordan river, which was then serving as a base for guerrilla raids into French Syria. England feared wider repercussions from these, emanating from an area under nominal English control, as relations between England and France in the Near East were then under great strain from developments in Anatolia and elsewhere. The Hashemite Abdullah, to whom this Emirate was to be given, was unhappy with its lack of coastal access, and sparse allotment of agricultural lands. One of the sweeteners offered was a declaration no part of the Jewish "National Home" referenced in the Balfour declaration would be located in the Emirate of Trans-Jordan. It is useless to conflate this with the concept of an Arab Palestinian homeland; indeed, it bears no relation whatever to the people of the littoral. There has always been a great deal of cultural and social distinction, owing to different means of getting a living, between the nomads of the interior and the sedentary pasturalists, farmers, and urban denizens of the west.Tthese differences have been present for millenia.

[loquat]

148. A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DFFERENCE

The inhabitants of Jordan were not Zulus or Hottentots .They were two varities of Arabs therein. The majority could be labeled as Palestinians About 65% or Bedu 25%(Arabic plural for Beduins).There were a few Jews and Circassins as well as Christtian Arabs.

Many of the important Jordanian officials came from East Palestine.The current Queen is a Eastern Palestinian The PLO constitution includes Jordon as part of Palestine.In Septem ber of 1970 Arafat tried to sieze Jordon because he said it was part of Palestine.

[The Magistrate]

150. No, Sir

There is a distinction.

You stated the thing was done for a purpose: it was not done for that purpose, and this on the evidence of clear statements by the persons who contrived the act. Mr. Churchill expressed himself very clearly on why he acted as he did in 1922. He further stated that the division did not mean all land west of the Jordan in Palestine was to comprise the Jewish "National Home" promised in Balfour.

The distinction between ways of life and societies and descent are also real. In this region for millenia there have been palpable distinctions between the urban dwellers on the coast, the settled pastoralists and farmers in the watered hills and the river valley, and the nomads of the desert beyond.

The rest means little. Under imperial hegemonies, leading families tended to congregate in urban centers, regardless of the location of their domains: since some leading land-owners maintained residences in Damascus or Cairo, you might as well say Palestine was Syria or Egypt. Arafat's statements, and the P.L.O. charter, are hardly sufficient to override concerns of honest ethnography; they are mere aspirations of a thug hungry for power.

[quilp]

151. I take the "simple" view that land belongs to the people who live there

Having picked and chosen amongst which "UN" rulings to recognize or ignore for the last fifty years, the Israeli reliance on this particular one lends no credibility. You keep refering to the "Arabs". I have about as much respect for the "Arabs" as I do the "Israelis" in this matter. My concern is only the Palestinians who lived in comparative peace for generations, and have now been ruthlessly separated from their land.

I don't see why the "right of return" is always THE PROBLEM, while the "settlements" are not. Perhaps if there was an honest attempt by the Israelis to remove the "settlers" in return for a "no return" agreement it might work. But an unconditional removal of at least half of the largest "settlements" would certainly give your argument some credibility.

[Violet_Crumble]

141. Okay, so you've got no sympathy for the Aboriginals of Australia?

After all, none of them owned land in the sense yr talking about....

Violet...

[Cassandra]

142. Not so.

Aborigines and Native Americans essentially held lands as a public trust, although I don't know if Aborigines considered themselves members of separate tribes at war with each other. This is why they didn't see any need for our style of land ownership. This relates more to the Bedouins than the Palestinians, who well understood private ownership of land (and most couldn't afford any).
Did you know there are still sharecroppers here in America who farm land owned by others (not migratory workers, they live there)? If the owner of the land wants to sell to Wal-Mart, they can't proclaim themselves a state; they have to move. It's emotionally wrenching, to be sure, but legal is separate from that.

[The Magistrate]

152. Not Quite, Ma'am

Leaving to one side the rather tenuous hold any had over land under the Ottoman Sultan, in Palestine as elsewhere in the Arab world, most land was held as tribal or clan property, and parcelled out among its households in feudal style, in exchange for rents and services to the communal entity. As with most such systems, the ideal is prettier by far than the practice, which was often squalid and unfair as only families can become. When Ottoman land tenure practices were regularized on something approaching Western lines late in the 19th century, in a desperate attempt to keep that declining imperium afloat economically, these clan and tribal lands were generally deeded to leading elders of such bodies, and what had been communal properties enmeshed in a web of mutual obligations became private property with a cash value. Those already possessed of the greatest prestige could acquire more; those already on the fringe went to the wall. There was a tremendous wave of land speculation, and rack-renting, which made life in the country a misery for many. Conversion of an economy based on kind in feudal exchange to one based on cash and capital, is always occassion for much dispossession and misery.

[bloom]

154. I think that

The US should stop giving any money to Israel and EITHER:

A) The US should give Palestinians as many weapons as we have given Israel so they can have a more balanced battle and the Paletinians wouldn't have to be considered "terrorists" ANYMORE (and use those silly bombs strapped to their bodies - but could have really serious bombs and weapons so they are taken seriously)...

OR

B) Israel should divide up the country in a fair and equitable manner (isn't there a plan already) and start treating the Palestinians like human beings.