Fatah: We'll sacrifice victims until Jerusalem is ours

[oberliner]

The status of Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state is a red line that no Palestinian leader is permitted to cross, President Mahmoud Abbas' ruling Fatah faction declared in the West Bank on Saturday.

According to Israel Radio, the Fatah general conference, which convened in Bethlehem for a three-day gathering, adopted a position paper which also states that the Palestinian national enterprise will not reach fruition until all of Jerusalem, including the outlying villages, come under Palestinian sovereignty.

Fatah, which rules the West Bank but was ousted from power in Gaza by the Islamist Hamas movement, also ruled out any interim agreements with Israel.

"Fatah will continue to sacrifice victims until Jerusalem will be returned , clean of settlements and settlers," the paper states.

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1106050.html

[stray cat]

1. Sounds peaceful

:eyes:

[sharesunited]

2. Palestinian national enterprise? Work on fruition in Gaza, first. Show some stewardship there.

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. I've got a great idea.

Move everybody out of the city and level the fucking place.

Leave nothing for anyone to fight over.

Turn it into a pile of rubble, then bulldoze the rubble.

For 3000 years, that place has been more trouble than it's worth.

[LeftishBrit]

4. Not a great idea at all

Turning historic cities into rubble isn't all that great (also where'd you move everyone *to*??)

But I'm moving more and more to the idea that international control of Jerusalem may be the ONLY way to go. Yes, it's in a sense de facto colonialism; yes, there would have to lots of safeguards on its effectiveness - but at present the religious status of Jerusalem makes it such a bone of contention, with neither side willing to compromise, that it really seems to be THE big obstacle to peace.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Frankly, the history of three millenia of religious mania and hatred

is history we can do without.

A pox on ALL their houses - and churches, and temples, and mosques.

[sabbat hunter]

66. They tried

having jerusalem as an international city, but the UN quickly abrogated that duty, when it didn't defend it against invading Jordanian troops in 1948, then did nothing to get Jordan out of it.

[azurnoir]

6. Jewish Fatah delegate nominated to Revolutionary Council

Bethlehem – Ma'an – A Jewish member of Fatah was nominated for a spot on the movement's Revolutionary Council on Saturday.

Vowing to step up lobbying efforts worldwide if elected, Dr Uri Davis told Ma'an one of Fatah's weakest attributes has been its failure to establish ties with international parties, movements and human rights organizations.

In an interview, Davis played down the significance of his nomination to the Revolutionary Council, Fatah's 120-member governing body. Each member of the movement has the right to run for office despite one's religion, race or color, the Fatah delegate noted.

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=217573

[oberliner]

7. He's not Jewish

He converted to Islam when he married his most recent wife who is Muslim.

[azurnoir]

11. You mean he is not a "practicing Jew"

Davis was born in Jerusalem in 1943 eight years after his mother and father, Jewish immigrants from Czechoslovakia and Britain, respectively, arrived in Palestine in 1935. They were an early wave of Zionist immigrants who established homes in the area more than a decade before the state of Israel was founded.

he is a Jew no matter what he converted to, and you of all people should know that or at least I thought you would

[LeftishBrit]

12. He's ethnically Jewish though not in other ways...

FWIW, his own self-description is as a 'Palestinian Hebrew'.

[aranthus]

15. He's probably ethnically Jewish

By that I mean that he grew up with Jewish folkways, and probably still follows some of them. My point is that Jewish is an ethnicity of ideas and customs, and not of blood.

[aranthus]

14. He may or may not think of himself as Jewish, but

none of the major denominations of Judaism would consider him to be a Jew if he has converted to another religion.

[azurnoir]

30. I find after all the is a "breathe mint or is it a gum" parsing

of what being a Jew is the denials here quite humorous and a confirmation of what I suspected for some being a Jew is what ever is needed when ever is needed

thank-you

[aranthus]

31. That is not so at all.

If you knew anything about Jews and Judaism you would know that what I posted is correct. None of the four major denominations of Judaism regard converts away from Judaism as Jews. That isn't me saying it; that's the understainding of organized Judaism. Do you think that someone is a Jew just because they say that they are?

[azurnoir]

33. I know and you know the parsing that goes on here

and once again I do find it quite humorous and BTW I do understand Judaism

[aranthus]

45. After 3000 years

the matter is not entirely settled, which is a big reason for the parsing. Part of that is that Judaism is a religion, and also a people. So depending on what ideas a person believes, they can see themselves as a Jew or not. Davis obviously doesn't share the religious aspects of Judaism anymore, but he may identify with the Jewish people in some meaningful way, so that he would say that he's a Jew.

[Ken Burch]

43. I always thought the position was "You're STILL Jewish no matter what you converted to."

n/t.

[aranthus]

44. I do not know of a major denomination of Judaism that holds that.

The position I was raised with says that a person can be Jewish even if they are not religious. Conversion is another matter.

[Ken Burch]

46. Still, nobody was spared by the Nazis just because they claimed to have gone Catholic or Lutheran

n/t.

[aranthus]

48. True, but that's the Nazis.

They are the only antisemites I know of to have a racial view of Jews. They are hardly the authority on the subject.

[Ken Burch]

49. If a person was killed by the Nazis because "he was a Jew" it is the ulitimate insult

to that person's memory to say "no, he wasn't".

And no one is entitled to say that of such a person. It's as bad as those Israelis who dismissed the Diasporan victims of Hitler as "cowards" and who often made Holocaust survivors living in Israel feel unwelcome, when that should have been the one place in the world, of all places where such people had the right to expect nothing but compassion and support.

[oberliner]

56. It is an insult to someone not to respect their choice of faith

Unlike the Nazis, most people today would respect the wishes of someone who was born Jewish but decided he or she no longer wishes to be Jewish but would instead like to be Christian or Muslim, or anything else.

Conversion is something that is a profoundly meaningful decision for many people. To tell someone: "I'm sorry, you are still Jewish" after they had undergone this process is deeply insulting.

Thankfully the notion that you are Jewish if you have a drop of Jewish blood is a formulation that is generally limited to very extreme people.

[Ken Burch]

57. You can respect a person's "choice of faith" without insisting that that person forfeited

the identity he or she had before choosing the faith in question.

And it's not about saying "I'm sorry, you are still Jewish", it's about saying "whatever you now believe, you are still Jewish and that's something to be proud of".

I'm not the one acting as if a Jewish identity is somehow shameful. You are, and it's a weird position for you to take.

[oberliner]

58. If someone wants to continue to claim a Jewish identity then that is certainly their right

However, you seem to be suggesting that they are required to do so.

You are the one who is insisting that one must still be Jewish (and proud) even if a person no longer wishes to be Jewish and no longer wishes to claim any Jewish identity.

If someone who was born Jewish wishes to convert to Christianity or Islam and in doing so wishes to have a Christian or Muslim identity rather than a Jewish one, why would you deny them that?

In my view, it is a very weird position to take to say that if you are born Jewish you are required to have a Jewish identity for your entire life regardless of your own faith or identification.

[Ken Burch]

60. No, I'm not saying they are required to do so at all.

I'm saying they should be welcome to do so if they wish, and that if they do so others should be expected to respect their wishes and accept it.

[oberliner]

61. Here is what you wrote:

"it's about saying "whatever you now believe, you are still Jewish and that's something to be proud of""

It certainly seems from that remark that you are saying that they are required to still be Jewish.

[Ken Burch]

62. Well I didn't mean to impose any requirement on the person

But the imposition that's been made on the person in this thread is by those who've insisted that the person automatically ceases to have any sort of Jewish identity simply because that person has chosen another religion.

I agree that there's no such thing as a "Jewish race", but there is an identity, and it can't just be revoked because some other people say it should.

[oberliner]

63. Well it's an interesting question

What does it mean to convert to another faith?

Can you be Jewish and Muslim at the same time? Jewish and Christian? Christian and Muslim?

I would think that the act of converting has some meaning in terms of how a person is choosing to define themselves.

[shaayecanaan]

65. I don't think thats the point being made...

I think the rather simple point being made is that an apostate Jew is still halakhically considered a Jew to a large extent.

Until recently, most forms of Judaism accepted Rashi's opinion that a "Jew, though he may sin, is still a Jew". For that reason, it was considered improper to levy interest on the debts of an apostate Jew. An Jewish woman who became apostate during her marriage was still required to obtain a get from her husband (or alternatively a special decree the name of which I can't remember). An apostate could also be buried according to Jewish custom, if the family desired it. A penitent apostate (one who left Judaism and then came back) could be accepted back into the fold with only a very nominal amount of fuss. Neither could an apostate be disinherited in favour of his or her non-apostate siblings.

To a large extent this idea holds true today:-

http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/teshuvot/docs/19912000/zelizer_apostates.pdf

[shira]

68. you're very close - I agree that a Jew alway remains a Jew, just not necessarily "Jewish"

At least orthodox Judaism sees it that way - a Jew born that way or converted halachically according to orthodox Judaism is alway a Jew no matter what. However, if what they practice is NOT judaism in the orthodox sense, whatever that is it's not "Jewish". I've heard many times from some orthodox Jews that the NON-orthodox judaism I was raised under is NOT judaism, or not "Jewish". Kal V'chomer to a Jew who is atheist or of another faith entirely.

[aranthus]

59. Yes and no.

Would a Catholic who converts to Islam still be considered Catholic? Would a Muslim who converts to Catholicism be considered Muslim? I suppose that's for Islam and Catholicism to decide, but I think that the decision is theirs. And I can't accept that its about "whatever you now believe, you are still Jewish and that's something to be proud of". Being Jewish is what you believe. It's a religion and a culture, not a blood identity.

[oberliner]

17. No, I mean he is not Jewish

Just because the Nazis would've still called him Jewish because of his "Jewish blood" does not mean that he is a Jew.

He converted to Islam and is now a Muslim.

[azurnoir]

29. So you have set yourself as judge as to who is a Jew?

interesting

[aranthus]

32. No. That's the position of Judaism. n/t

[azurnoir]

34. Jew enough for Nazi's but not Jew enough for us

would you say secular Israeli's as long as both their parents are?

[oberliner]

36. Does the individual have no say in the matter?

If someone who is born to Jewish parents says that they no longer wish to be Jewish but wish to convert to Islam or Christianity, would you not respect those wishes? Do they not have the right to consider themselves Muslim or Christian and not Jewish if they so choose?

Just as they have the right to consider themselves secular Jews even if they do not believe in or practice Judaism wouldn't they have a similar right to consider themselves not Jewish if that label does not fit their identity?

[aranthus]

47. You're not suggesting that Jews adopt the same racist definition

of Jews as used by the Nazis? To answer your question. I was raised in a Reform synagogue. My understanding of the current position of Reform Judaism is that anyone who converts to Judaism or who's mother or father is Jewish is considered Jewish, unless they convert to another faith. So secular Israelis are Jewish.

[azurnoir]

50. Nice try but once again you are still trying to parse

the man is a Jew whether it be ethnically or religiously and whether or not you like it and your interpretation still leaves us with Jew enough to be killed for it but not Jew enough for us

[aranthus]

53. No. I'm just stating the position of organized Judaism.

That's not my interpretation, and it isn't a question of whether I like it or not. If you (or anyone else) thinks I've stated that position incorrectly, please let me know. I'm certainly not an expert on the position of Reconstructionist Judaism, for instance, but I think I've stated it correctly.

I've already said that the man may (or may not) think of himself as ethnically Jewish. That's fine as long as "ethnically Jewish" is understood as a cultural bond and not a blood bond. He's ethnically Jewish if he lives some element of Jewish culture, not because he's got "Jewish blood" or simply because he says he is.

[azurnoir]

64. You made my point thank you n/t

[oberliner]

35. No I think each individual can decide for themselves if they are Jewish or not

This particular individual has converted to a different religion which means that he is choosing a different faith other than Judaism.

There are people who have self-identified as Jewish while remaining atheist or agnostic or while embracing the tenets of other faiths (i.e. Jews for Jesus, Jews for Allah) but this gentleman to my knowledge has not done so.

If you want, you could email him and ask him if he considers himself to be Jewish. If he responds in the affirmative then I will withdraw my statement.

His email address is listed on his website.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. Well, you appear to have decided for him....

That first post about it where you said he wasn't Jewish because he married a Muslim woman and converted to Islam really didn't show any interest in how he self-identified. Maybe you should have contacted him and asked him if he considered himself to be Jewish beforehand, and then if he said he didn't (which is what I'd suspect he'd say), you could have quite rightly said that he's not Jewish, not because he converted to Islam, but because he no longer identifies as being Jewish....

[oberliner]

54. He decided to convert to Islam and become a Muslim

I would say that the default assumption when someone converts from Judaism to another faith is that they are making the choice to no longer be Jewish. Otherwise what does the act of converting signify? It would be a unique exception for someone to convert but also wish to self-identify with the religion that they converted from. I have seen no evidence to suggest that he is one such exception, but if that evidence was to be presented to me I would withdraw my earlier statement.

[Violet_Crumble]

67. That's actually my default assumption, but you said it's up to the individual to decide...

I'm sure yr every bit as aware as I am that he no longer identifies as being Jewish, but if he did, would that trump converting to another religion? It's just in yr first post you didn't say anything about self-identification and it came across as though converting to another religion was the only factor...

[LeftishBrit]

40. I tend to agree here about people deciding for themselves..

Ultimately, a significant part of being Jewish is claiming and accepting a link with the lives of your Jewish ancestors. Many people choose to do so, even if they are not religious, or strongly linked to Jewish culture, or 'pure' Jews by known ancestry. Some reject the identity, for one reason or another. Uri Davis doubtless has at least as much right to identify as a Jew as I do for example; but if he chooses not to, I think his own self-identification should be accepted.

[azurnoir]

51. Define Palestinian Hebrew

so if you trade the J word for the synonymous H word it makes all the difference?

[LeftishBrit]

52. I've never heard the phrase before, so am not out to define it.

It seems to me that he is probably trying to avoid the far commoner J word - but I may be wrong.

Most Jews actively dislike being called 'Hebrews'; Hebrew is a language, and the use of 'Hebrews' for Jews often comes from antisemitic Christians - though this is clearly not the case here.

But I can't fully second-guess him. There may be more info somewhere. In any caae, it would be interesting to know more about him.

[Lakrosse]

8. so Bibi, for all the trouble with him

agrees to a two state solution, and of course, Fatah is rejecting it, by wanting all of Jerusalem, which is not theirs. Yes, we're only supposed to blame Bibi. uh hu

[Violet_Crumble]

9. Nutty has not agreed to a two-state solution...

Maybe things have changed since I last heard, but if they have can you please provide a link to where Nutty comes out with his agreement to the creation of a Palestinian state...

btw, you apparently are responding to something other than the OP that was posted, as it was about Jerusalem itself and not a two-state solution. But if yr attitude is that insisting that Jerusalem remain undivided and belong to Israel proves a rejection of a two-state solution, then Nutty and his gang have resoundingly rejected a two-state solution by virtue of their stance on Jerusalem. Or do you only apply that line of thinking to things when it's Palestinians and not Israel?

[oberliner]

10. June 15: Netanyahu Backs 2-State Goal (Washington Post)

Binyamin Netanyahu said Sunday that he is willing to support the creation of a Palestinian state, for the first time making a commitment that the United States, Europe and the Arab nations have pushed for since he took office.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061400741.html

Obama welcomes Netanyahu's two-state speech

WASHINGTON - The White House is welcoming Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu's call for the creation of a Palestinian state. Netanyahu said in Jerusalem that he would support a Palestinian state as long it is demilitarized and guarantees Israel's security.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3731315,00.html

EU says Netanyahu's two-state speech is a step forward

European foreign ministers have responded with cautious optimism to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech in which he endorsed a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4328211,00.html

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Thanks, but I notice he attached a long list of conditions to any support...

As I said in my previous post, the Fatah position on Jerusalem, which is what the OP 'Lakrosse' was replying to was about, is no different than that of the Israeli govt. Both want an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, which is why international stewardship of the city seems a logical solution that means neither of them have it as their capital....

[Ken Burch]

13. It's the same thing for Palestinians to want all of Jerusalem as it is for Israelis to want that

Both positions are equally extreme. And both must compromise.

The best thing is to see this an initial negotiating position. Sadat was still trying to wipe out Israel in 1973, after all. And look where he was four years later.

It also goes without saying that continuing the Occupation in the hopes that Fatah and Hamas will collapse is a hopeless effort and cannot possibly lead to a new Palestinian leadership that would settle for Netanyahu-Begin style "autonomy".

[aranthus]

16. Well no.

First of all, from a practical standpoint, Israel already has all of Jerusalem, and obviously is in a stronger negotiating position. So if anyone needs to give on this issue it's the Palestinians. Second, Israel has a stronger moral claim to all of Jerusalem that the Palestinians. Among other reasons, Jerusalem has been a capital of a Jewish state in the past, and has never been the capital of a Palestinian state. Third, the Palestinian demand for all of Jerusalem sends a message to Israel that the Palestinians are not only uncompromising, but totally unrealistic, which is not a very good way to induce the Israelis to take them seriously as a peace partner.

[Ken Burch]

19. According to the CBC, Fatah wasn't actually asking for ALL of Jerusalem:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/08/09/fatah-charter.html

Quote: "The Fatah movement led by Mahmoud Abbas on Sunday endorsed the idea of a Palestinian state alongside Israel and said it reserves the right of resistance against Israeli occupation.

Delegates passed a motion Sunday reaffirming Fatah's goal to work as a liberation movement and achieve independence for Palestinians in a state with East Jerusalem as its capital."

So the "Judenrein Jerusalem" thing was a canard.

[aranthus]

22. Maybe.

CBC may have simply left that part out. Or it may be that Israel Radio got it wrong accidentally or intentionally. Ha'aretz isn't exactly a right wing mouthpiece, and I don't think Israel Radio is either. However, it looks like we need to at least reserve judgment on the claim until there's more evidence.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. Thanks for posting that correction, Ken....

That makes more sense than the original one did...

[Ken Burch]

42. Indeed. I think what we saw here was a classic case of disinformation

There was no way a "we want ALL of Jerusalem" position tracked with Fatah's historic stance on the question.

[bemildred]

18. Palestinian Fatah Faction Endorses Peace Process, Armed Resistance

Palestinians leaders in the West Bank are winding up a conference with a mixed message of war and peace. The gathering has aroused concern in Israel.

The Palestinian Fatah movement endorsed the peace process with Israel, but reserved the right to return to armed resistance. The party platform was approved at the first Fatah convention in 20 years and the first on Palestinian soil. It took place in the biblical West Bank town of Bethlehem.

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat says Israel must return all of the territory captured during the Six Day War in 1967. "Fatah wants peace, but peace cannot be attained without Israel withdrawing to the '67 borders, establishing a Palestinian state on the '67 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital -- two states living side by side," he said.

Israel denounced the call for armed resistance as an incitement to violence.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-08-09-voa25.cfm

[aranthus]

20. So which is it?

Do we believe what Erekat is saying in English to the Western media, or do we believe what the Fatah leadership is saying to itself and to its own people, that appears to contradict him?

[bemildred]

21. Both, apparently.

The old carrot and stick routine.

[aranthus]

23. Assuming the original report is accurate (See Ken's post 19),

then they can't both be true. If Fatah were saying one thing about Jerusalem jto the West in English, and something contradictory to its own people, then that is a good reason to distrust them, their intentions, and their seriousness about making a real peace with Israel.

[bemildred]

24. Actually, they can.

Anybody that trusts any politician, Israeli or Palestinian or anywhere else, is a fool. It is perfectly possible to say contradictory things, and politicians do it all the time, most anywhere you look.

[aranthus]

25. I'm not talking political truth. I'm talking fact.

A politician can say to one group, "I believe X," and to another, "I believe against X." Obviously that happens all the time in politics. But that means we now don't know which one the politician actually believes, right? If an American politician were to say to the NRA that he was against gun control, and to another group that he was for it, the first thing I would do is not trust him. So if the story is true, the least that Fatah has done is hang out a big sign that says, "don't trust us." How helpful is that?

[bemildred]

26. "Anybody that trusts any politician, Israeli or Palestinian or anywhere else, is a fool."

Quote from post #24. If you expect me to defend the trustworthiness of Fatah politicians, you are out of luck. Of course the same applies to Israeli politicians, exactly.

[aranthus]

27. Agreed on that point.

But to make peace, the Israelis are being asked to give up something tangible; land. Land that is very important to them. In return they get a promise of peace from Fatah politicians. Politicians that we both agree can't be trusted. Do you see the problem? Because the Israelis certainly do.

[bemildred]

28. Nothing is gained without risk.

Fatah is not in the business of guaranteeing Israelis security, that ought to be obvious, anymore than Israel is in the business of guaranteeing security to Palestinians. The only thing that matters is the paper you sign, and sometimes not even that.

It needs to be kept in mind that the present situation is not tenable, and it will not get better. The more you wait, the worse your negotiating position gets.

[LeftishBrit]

41. Seems that there are two threads here which have a lot of parallels

This one and the one headed 'Israeli PM vows never to evict settlers'

Both show intransigence by the two sides.

Both may have been exaggerated and somewhat misrepresented by reporters.

Both probably involve a degree of 'posturing' for internal political, especially within-party, consumption - at the expense, of course, of coming up with real solutions.

Both make me feel like banging the heads of the leaders together, but I would need to wear gloves because banging those heads together could result in splinters from all that wood!

[aranthus]

55. Agreed, but has either report been confirmed accurate?

Ken has posted a CBC report that suggests that the Ha'aretz report is in error. There have also been posts that what Netanyahu meant was that he wouldn't unilaterally evict people (thereby giving him some wiggle room). I haven't had a chance to look for confirmation either way. Has anyone else?