President Bush was given an Iraqi-journalist-style sendoff on his last full day in office Monday, as tourists and demonstrators lobbed shoes, pumps, boots, sandals and Crocs from Pennsylvania Avenue onto the White House lawn.As for Cheney:
Before launching the operation live, the shoe-chuckers took target practice in Dupont Circle on a 20-foot-tall blow up doll of the outgoing president, decked out in the flight suit he wore aboard the "Mission Accomplished" aircraft carrier.
Vice President Dick Cheney pulled a muscle in his back while moving boxes and will be in a wheelchair for Tuesday's inauguration ceremony.
White House press secretary Dana Perino said Cheney was helping to move into his new home outside Washington in McLean, Va., when he injured his back.
His doctor recommended that he needed a wheelchair for the next couple of days.
blog.bassamsebti@gmail.com
242 Comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 242 Newer› Newest»Bassam, i have been watching msnbc. my god i wish i was there. i am joining friends and family tomorrow @ 7 AM westcoast time. so many tears already. i cannot recall ever in my life anything like this for an inauguration.
god it feels so right.
rachel maddow reported a group of black iraqis who are running for office in basra are going to be there tomorrow!
ok, i will not gush all over your blog ay more. i hope you are taking full advantage of being in DC tomorrow. this is a great day for america. a great day for global understanding regarding race, martin, oh martin, oh martin.
OBAMANATION!
I wonder what 'martin, oh martin, oh martin' said about Anti-Zionism ...
happy obama day! :)
how blessed you must feel to be living in our nation's capital on such a monumental day! i am envious that you get to be so close to the festivities. i almost start to feel a little bad for bush, with all this shoe business, but then i remember what a monster he is and don't really feel all that bad at all!
Well, since Avram asked, I thought I would look it up.
". . . You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth.
"Antisemitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so.
And lest you declare this Israeli propaganda, Annie, this was excerpted from a letter written by MLK, as noted on the bottom of the page. So you may fact check if you like.
This site says the writing attributed to MLK is a hoax. What say you, Avram?
Aha!
The plot thickens.
The letter may, indeed, be a hoax, but perhpas the sentiments expressed were not.
From the first site you linked, " Dr. King clearly linked anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism, but the speech as quoted is not accurate" ...
Someone dressed up his speech! ;)
Avram,
Someone dressed up his speech! ;)
lol! Indeed.
Annie,
Sorry, forgot, "blinkered view" was referring to a practice in horse racing where they put blinders on a horse so he can't see the horses running beside him. It narrows his view so that he is not distracted by others in the race.
geez guys, get a grip.
The article states: "Shortly before he was assassinated, Martin Luther King, Jr., was in Boston on a fund-raising mission, and I had the good fortune to attend a dinner which was given for him in Cambridge...One of the young men present happened to make some remark against the Zionists. Dr. King snapped at him and said, "Don't talk like that! When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism!"
Dr. King clearly linked anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism, but the speech as quoted is not accurate.
if you want to assert being anti zionist w/being anti semetic just do it, but don't drag martin into the argument. right before he dies he said this bla bla bla.
ha ha ... I was just showing you how 'martin oh martin oh martin' thought the Jews deserved their homeland ... Thought that if someone you obviousy respect thinks that, perhaps you can too ...
I was just showing you how 'martin oh martin oh martin' thought the Jews deserved their homeland
close, no cigar. there is a difference between jews deserving a homeland and your assertion Dr. King clearly linked anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism.
lynn, thanks for the 'blinkered' explanation.
Israel's apologists and the Martin Luther King Jr. hoax
That advocates of Israel have relied on fabricated and out-of-context quotations from a leading moral figure of yesteryear only underscores the absurdity of the general point that all opposition to a Jewish state in a diverse land is anti-Semitic. There are obviously many legitimate ways to critique Zionism. One quite reasonable observation is that after more than a half-century of conflict, the Zionist project has failed to bring the Jews of Israel peace and security--its raison d'etre. One might counter that this is due to Arab intransigence; the Palestinians should accept their dispossession. However, Palestinian opposition to this fate is an indisputable fact, and security was and is Zionism's key goal. This necessarily was an analytical failure on the part of the Zionists who assumed the Palestinians would blend in to other Arab countries while the later generations forget their past. To dismiss this argument--one that evaluates Zionism by its own goals--and every other critique of Zionism as anti-Semitism is not only dishonest but a cowardly evasion of meaningful debate.
aaaah Annie, your inability to even digest what others wrote makes you look like you either a) didn't read what we wrote or b) just can't be bothered to admit you're wrong:
Lynette: "This site says the writing attributed to MLK is a hoax. What say you, Avram?"
Lynette: "The letter may, indeed, be a hoax, but perhpas the sentiments expressed were not."
Avram: "Dr. King clearly linked anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism, but the speech as quoted is not accurate..."
You shouldn't really be using 'electronic intifada' though as 'proof' ... That's like me using Bin Laden & Meshal as examples for 'outstanding Muslim individuals' ...
aaaah Annie, your inability to even digest what others wrote
more ad hominem cruth.
i copied EXACTLY what you wrote, the allegation you were merely suggesting one thing, when all evidence (which i also copy and pasted) contradicted this assertion.
i wasn't using the quote 'as proof' avram, i used it because i agreed with it. specifically
To dismiss this argument--one that evaluates Zionism by its own goals--and every other critique of Zionism as anti-Semitism is not only dishonest but a cowardly evasion of meaningful debate.
here are some critics from the london review of books. maybe you like this source better.
i find it odd you would critique my source when you mouth camera, probably one of the most unreliable source available on the net.
why in this thread celebrating the end of bush. why now to insert martin into the conversation w/your 'i wonder what martin would think' when there was an obvious campaign, an onslaught apparently, to tie him into this accusation. when martin was alive the antizion/antisemetic meme wasn't even invented yet. it was all some publicity campaign cooked up by the aipac camera crowd a few years ago. why now here? seriously, i have had enough of this meme. discuss it with yourself it holds no interest to me. next you are going to be claiming anyone who doesn't agree w/this slaughter of civilians in antisemetic. the world community is thinking quite differently and israel knows it.
israel is currently at work on war-crimes damage-control. you can just make laws to cover your slaughter, that was already established at the hague. martin was a non violent nam, anyone, american or otherwise knows what he would have thought of this slaughter of palestinians. he was a man of peace, israel is an aggressive maker of war.
oh heavens, i just reread the text and realized i did read it wrong. a little late!
so very sorry for me confusing you with making this assertion, just because you copied the text. as far as anyone 'deserving' a homeland. i do believe everyone should have a country to call home. but i do not believe that should be at the exclusion of other who reside there. ie, lots of jews have a homeland right here in america. america isn't any less a homeland for jewish americans than israel is to israeli jews. i don't believe anyone or any country should be formed exclusively for one religion be they catholics or hindus or anything else. i believe in tolerance and that people should learn to live together and forge peace w/eachother. that is simply my belief and it is not based on my personal feeling about any one person, or group of people, and i think the history of israel is evidence my belief is well founded.
i do not think you can assume anything about martin regarding israel that isn't documented at the king center in atlanta, and that goes for fake letters and fake assertions about his speeches for greedy self serving principles.
listen and learn about non violence.
oh my so many mistakes today. should read
you can't just make laws to cover your slaughter, that was already established at the hague. martin was a non violent man
"israel is an aggressive maker of war."
more ad hominem crutch
The problem with you Annie is you feel a) you own the truth and b) anyone who is pro-Israel doesn't. Either that makes you a full on believer of propaganda (in your side's failure obviously) or someone who doesn't want to live in reality. Say what you want, both sides have their demons and both sides lie. The fact you cannot admit that shows how heavily biased you truly are -
Your talk about 'deserving a home', in my opinion, reveals that you don't look at the Jews as a nation (which is what we were until the Romans destroyed the Jewish Empire, albeit a tiny one). That's a whole arguement for a whole other day.
Btw, don't feel bad b/c MLK Jr. said that - I wasn't implying that you were anti-semitic, I was just saying that he was in favor Zionism, and hence you shouldn't believe a word he says ... just warning you of course.
avram, there are many ways to be pro israel. for many of us, pro israel is pro 2 state solution. what is good for palestinians is also good for israel. in no way am i 'against israel', i am just against the way the government of israel is choosing to secure itself. i am also completely against moving into this phase of a new administration for both the US and israel by prefacing it w/a slaughter of palestinians making it all the more contentious for them to be in any sort of willingness to compromise. prefacing peace with war crimes is an abysmal policy.
you don't look at the Jews as a nation
i most certainly do not. you cannot speak for all jews, israel does not speak for all jews.
don't feel bad b/c MLK Jr. said that
don't be disingenuous by pretending your ideas replicate anything martin said.
there is an op ed in the financial times by Prince Turki chairman, King Faisal Centre for Research and Islamic Studies, Riyadh. He has been director of Saudi intelligence, ambassador to the UK and Ireland and ambassador to the US
i urge everyone to read it, very powerful
Unless the new US administration takes forceful steps to prevent any further suffering and slaughter of Palestinians, the peace process, the US-Saudi relationship and the stability of the region are at risk.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
i mention this because stating israel is 'an aggressive maker of war' is not an ad hominem argument, i am certainly not accusing you arvam, of being an agressive maker of war, nor would i because although i disagree w/you, i will choose to believe you are sincere in wanting what is best for israel, although i disagree w/the methods you support (which would include trying to aleign israels agression w/the wishs of martin, or aligeined in any way w/his vision of non violence)
AH attacks the maker of the statement ie
The problem with you Annie is you feel a) you own the truth and b) anyone who is pro-Israel doesn't. Either that makes you a full on believer of propaganda (in your side's failure obviously) or someone who doesn't want to live in reality. Say what you want, both sides have their demons and both sides lie. The fact you cannot admit that shows how heavily biased you truly are -
there are many AH's in this statement, whereas there is nothing here that actually argues the premise you are trying to establish.
just sayin'
Point of order:
why now to insert martin into the conversation w/your 'i wonder what martin would think' Annie
Avram did not insert MLK into this conversation, Annie, you did. With your line:
in DC tomorrow. this is a great day for america. a great day for global understanding regarding race, martin, oh martin, oh martin. Annie
Annie - you have said a few times that 'all' Zionists lie. In other words, you are discounting the information of all people due to their 'affiliation' to a movement.
If that's the case, then debating with you would be rather impossible as I'm a Zionist who believes Israel has a right to exist. I have no issues with a peaceful two state solution, but I have issues with people who feel that only 'one' side possesses the truth. We both know that is an impossibility -
i'll rephrase that lynn
why in this thread celebrating the end of bush. why now to insert zionism into the conversation w/your 'i wonder what martin would think about anti zionism' when there was an obvious campaign, an onslaught apparently, to tie him into this accusation. when martin was alive the antizion/antisemetic meme wasn't even invented yet.
" when martin was alive the antizion/antisemetic meme wasn't even invented yet."
and you can prove this with reliable sources?
again, the fact he did link the two kind of hurts the above no? Unless of course you think that book is 'ad hominem afdafda crutch'
the fact he did link the two
get over yourself. there is no fact, only allegations after his death.
It's not a question of inventing anything, Annie. It seems clear what MLK's thoughts were regarding anti-Zionists:
And he also relates that Dr. King said, “When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.”
This quotation has been confirmed, so you should feel assured that you can use the quotation in letters. Just be sure to mention that it came from Dr. King’s 1968 Harvard University appearance,...
" when martin was alive the antizion/antisemetic meme wasn't even invented yet."
and you can prove this with reliable sources?
will Binyamin Netanyahu due? In an interview in the Jerusalem Post in November 2002 Netanyahu warned that latent anti-Semitism was again becoming active:
"In my view, there are many in Europe who oppose anti-Semitism, and many governments and leaders who oppose anti-Semitism, but the strain exists there. It is ignoring reality to say that it is not present. It has now been wedded to and stimulated by the more potent and more overt force of anti-Semitism, which is Islamic anti-Semitism coming from some of the Islamic minorities in European countries. This is often disguised as anti-Zionism."
by all means find a reference prior to this. their are people who have documented this claim of the 'new anti semitism'. the anti semite/anti zionist accusations are very new. they were not around during martin's time. i think the onus is on you to prove they were. certainly you are not implying that martin discovered or invented this meme? this accusation is widely circulated today as the lexion has been promoted to stifle criticism of israels policies. but certainly you can find some other referenced that date back to the 80's perhaps, but i doubt it.
Unless of course you think that book is 'ad hominem afdafda crutch'
which book might that be?
The letter was commonly cited to also have been published in a book by Dr. King entitled, "This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr." No such book was listed in the bibliography provided by the King Center in Atlanta, nor in the catalogs of several large public and university libraries.
Soon afterwards, CAMERA, a rabidly pro-Israeli organization, published a statement declaring that the letter was "apparently" a hoax. CAMERA explained how it gained so much currency. The "letter" came from a "reputable" book, Shared Dreams, by Rabbi Marc Shneier. Martin Luther King III authored the preface for the book, giving the impression of familial approval. Also, the Anti-Defamation League's Michael Salberg used the same quotes in his July 31st, 2001 testimony before the U.S. House of Representative's International Relations Committee's Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.
The bogus letter was further quoted by writers in prominent publications one would imagine armed with fact-checkers capable of spending the short amount of time needed to verify the primary source. Mort Zuckerman, the editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report quoted the letter in a column (17 September 2001). Warren Kinsella followed suit in an article for Maclean's (20 January 2003). Commentary, which is known more for its ideological zeal than any appreciation for factual scruples, ran a piece by Natan Sharansky. He quoted the false passage as a block--some ten months after CAMERA declared it a hoax.
so which book are you referencing? should we take Rabbi Marc Shneier word on it, that martin made this claim. of the 'harvard speech' allegations?
this has been thoroughly debunked. are we to drag it up again now that we have a popular african american president? if i were you i wouldn't try riding this meme on martins coatails, it will backfire.
there are many many scholars that have dissected every aspect of his archives and their known sources. you cannot just insert a claim, for it will always be second hand and only as worthy as the source. just because you get one of martins children to write a preface for a book does not mean all the information is verified.
you have said a few times that 'all' Zionists lie.
well, then you should have no problem w/directing us all to the exact thread where this was allegedly posted by me, for i know i would never ever say anything like that.
you need to make up your mind whether zionism is or in not a political movement. it requires a political belief. the belief itself does not render anyone a liar. furthermore, to not believe in this political stance does not make one a racist.
you cannot have it both ways. either zionism is a religious tenent, thereby rendering israel a theocracy, or it is merely political choice chosen by some to believe it is in he best interest of world jewry. but you cannot claim israel is a democracy on the one hand, allowing you to brush off her critics as being something akin to racist, which would imply one was prejudice against ones religion, or jews in general.
take you pick arvam.
now i think you should just accept this anti zionist equals anti semite canard is merely a tactic to silence critics of israels foriegn policy, which is zionist (the political kind, NOT the religious overtones).
furthermore, i think after WW2 there were many people who were willing to give zionism a chance and a great head start. but just as people change political philosophies during turbulant periods, they too can change their views on what is or is not best for israel, or for jews in general. and this includes jews, many who are becoming less and less attached to israel all the time (the ones in america i mean).
to even suggest that i would say all zionists all liars is so absurd, for many of my friends are zionists, they just don't like the way the state of israel is going about protecting itself in this violent fashion. it doesn't mean they are liars for heavens sake.
heck, i would have an easier time switching from being an anti zionist to a zionist if i thought it could work, it is based on politics and ideology. some people just think the best solution for israel is not the way it has been living. it doesn't mean they don't like the state. it doesn't mean i don't like the state. heck, i still love my country while i detest many of its policies, it doesn't mean i hate americans, or am prejudice against americans. but no, i don't like republicans. i do not like the right wing whether they are in israel, or america. i don't like violence.
but that is not anti semitism. i am quite certain martim would not be in approval of the violence in gaza, he promoted non violent resistance. everything the pro zionist israel stanch stands for right now is the antithesis of what martin gave his life for.
zionism need to learn to adapt if it wants to survive, otherwise it is dangerous to jews and palestinians alike.
Annie,
i am quite certain martim would not be in approval of the violence in gaza, he promoted non violent resistance.
So he would not have agreed with Hamas firing rockets into Israel.
Avram,
I was watching "60 Minutes" last night and they did a piece on the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. In listening to the interview with one of the settlers, it struck me that her views were as uncompromising as those of Hamas. And looking back at the last time that Israel dismantled Jewish settlements, I am wondering what the odds are that the Israelis will be able to dismantle those in the West Bank without similar violence?
They interviewed one Palestinian, who believes it will be near impossible, and one Israeli, who will be runnng for Prime Minister, who believes it can be done. Any thoughts?
Oh, and one other thought. I understand that for some people it would be very difficult to just hand over their homes to others, but in removing the Jewish settlers, isn't it a waste to destroy what they have built? Couldn't that be part of some compromise agreement reached for compensating the Palestinians?
Hi Lynette -
We'll have to remove the settlements, whether it's painful or 'impossible', because it's a barrier to peace from our side. It will cause a lot of internal damage to our country but that's what we must do for peace, and it will be done eventually. I just hope the other side is as dedicated for a long term solution.
Annie -
Anyone who follows this blog can spot what kind of poster you are. Pro-Israel/Zionist = Lie, bad
Pro-Arab/anti-Zionist = heaven
Is there a point to debate with you? Be serious, would you debate with you if you were in my shoes? You don't care about 'compromise' or 'grey areas', you care about being right all the time (alla Hamas)
hi lynette
I think I watched the report you watched too (CBS's 60 minutes) ... A few points after watching it:
1) Mustafa Barghouti is a good man, one of the few moderate, anti-corruption leaders the Palestinians have. I don't get the Jerusalem 'ban', I think it's a disgrace. His idea for peace (bar 'return of the refugees') is what most of us understand is a must.
2) The report does a brilliant job of focusing on the extremist settlers (ie the noisy minority).
3) She does however (the settler) highlight an important point - when we remove them, it will rip apart this country and I hope we survive it.
4) His piece on the illegal houses in Jerusalem doesn't show any investigation into the matter. There is a ton of illegal built properties there - Just as we'd have to knock down the settlements, we'd have to knock them down too.
5) I think the report, overall, did a good job of highlighting the moderate Palestinian and not giving enough information on the moderate Settlers (which I would say are anywhere from 30-50% of the Settler population). I'm not sure what the goal of the report was - we have to believe peace between the two people is possible - but I think the reporter should have not allowed Barghouti's 'apartheid' claim to go without some retort.
It seems clear what MLK's thoughts were regarding anti-Zionists:
what 'seems' clear to me is someone is saying king said something.
So he would not have agreed with Hamas firing rockets into Israel.
of course not! non violence means non violence.
I understand that for some people it would be very difficult to just hand over their homes to others, but in removing the Jewish settlers, isn't it a waste to destroy what they have built? Couldn't that be part of some compromise agreement reached for compensating the Palestinians?
very nice idea lyn. however, i seriously doubt all those buildings on palestinian lands will inspire palestinians to give up their homes in east jerusalem or gaza or a permanent blockade of food and medicine. but perhaps for the years of suffering under occupation and all the check points and all the death of thousands, perhaps it would suffice to compensate palestinians for the right of return for their land within the israeli state within the '67 borders. the wall should be moved into israels land. i cannot place my fence in my neighbors yard.
i read somewhere many of those houses sit empty, owned by people in new york who visit every so often.
another thing to consider, if you build a house on your neighbors land is it your house? because i don't think it would be here. the 'home' may be the settlers, but my most law, the houses would already belong to palestinians, because it is their land. also, how many palestinian homes have been bulldozed by israel? maybe those houses will make up some for that.
but i think it is a good idea, except not for east jerusalem of course.
Avram,
Thank you for that comprehensive answer. :)
Just a quick response to your points.
1) Mustafa Barghouti:
I agree that he seemed a reasonable type of person. One that could be a responsible and fair participant in any negotiations with the Palestinians.
I don't get the Jerusalem 'ban', I think it's a disgrace.
I didn't understand that either. It seemed quite unfair and unnecessary.
2) The report does a brilliant job of focusing on the extremist settlers (ie the noisy minority).
Yes, it did. I think people may underestimate how difficult it is for Israel, domestically, to adjust some of these policies. This part of the piece helps shows that.
3) She does however (the settler) highlight an important point - when we remove them, it will rip apart this country and I hope we survive it.
Indeed.
4) illegal houses in Jerusalem...
There is a ton of illegal built properties there - Just as we'd have to knock down the settlements, we'd have to knock them down too.
Another point that people don't really know much about. At least I didn't. The focus has always seemed to be on the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, totally ignoring other areas of concern.
5) I think the report, overall, did a good job of highlighting the moderate Palestinian
Which was refreshing. So many times all I hear or read about are those who resort to violence or believe that Israel shouldn't exist. This gives the impression that there is no hope for a negotiated settlement.
and not giving enough information on the moderate Settlers (which I would say are anywhere from 30-50% of the Settler population).
And they are the ones who will play an important role in the future.
...but I think the reporter should have not allowed Barghouti's 'apartheid' claim to go without some retort.
I think part of the problem in this regard is what is happening in the West Bank with the private roads and large number of checkpoints for the Palestinians. And the total blockade of Gaza. Neither are helpful in mitigating people's perceptions of 'apartheid'. I do understand Israel's difficulty. It is seeking security. But, bottom line is that for the moderate Palestinians these policies are extremely hurtful. *sigh* We have run into the same difficulties with some of our actions during the WOT. It is a very fine line to walk.
Annie,
I owe you a comment. But I really have to run now and get some work done. I'll catch you later...
BT,
I am not sure if my first comment was posted or not, so I am posting this again. Please delete any extra if they show up. Thanks. :)
Avram,
Thank you for that comprehensive answer. :)
Just a quick response to your points.
1) Mustafa Barghouti:
I agree that he seemed a reasonable type of person. One that could be a responsible and fair participant in any negotiations with the Palestinians.
I don't get the Jerusalem 'ban', I think it's a disgrace.
I didn't understand that either. It seemed quite unfair and unnecessary.
2) The report does a brilliant job of focusing on the extremist settlers (ie the noisy minority).
Yes, it did. I think people may underestimate how difficult it is for Israel, domestically, to adjust some of these policies. This part of the piece helps shows that.
3) She does however (the settler) highlight an important point - when we remove them, it will rip apart this country and I hope we survive it.
Indeed.
4) illegal houses in Jerusalem...
There is a ton of illegal built properties there - Just as we'd have to knock down the settlements, we'd have to knock them down too.
Another point that people don't really know much about. At least I didn't. The focus has always seemed to be on the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, totally ignoring other areas of concern.
5) I think the report, overall, did a good job of highlighting the moderate Palestinian
Which was refreshing. So many times all I hear or read about are those who resort to violence or believe that Israel shouldn't exist. This gives the impression that there is no hope for a negotiated settlement.
and not giving enough information on the moderate Settlers (which I would say are anywhere from 30-50% of the Settler population).
And they are the ones who will play an important role in the future.
...but I think the reporter should have not allowed Barghouti's 'apartheid' claim to go without some retort.
I think part of the problem in this regard is what is happening in the West Bank with the private roads and large number of checkpoints for the Palestinians. And the total blockade of Gaza. Neither are helpful in mitigating people's perceptions of 'apartheid'. I do understand Israel's difficulty. It is seeking security. But, bottom line, is that for the moderate Palestinians these policies are extremely hurtful. *sigh* We have run into the same difficulties with some of our actions during the WOT. It is a very fine line to walk.
Annie,
I owe you a comment. But I really have to run now and get some work done. I'll catch you later...
"i read somewhere many of those houses sit empty, owned by people in new york who visit every so often."
you're wrong, you have more empty houses in Jerusalem (ie rich French & US Jews buying 'holiday' apartment for Jewish festivals) than in the settlers, where younger Israelis live in general.
"but i think it is a good idea, except not for east jerusalem of course."
You mean, where thousands of illegal homes are built and we don't knock 'em down?
Lyn - I did some more search about those 60 minute clips and I have two things to add:
It appears that Simon is attempting to misrepresent the majority of Israelis. He claims that "Moderate Israelis who deplore the occupation used to believe passionately in a two-state solution." Yet, to illustrate this point, he interviews Meron Benvenisti, an Israeli who has long advocated a one-state solution and considers Israel to be worse than apartheid South Africa.
Is this representative of the Israeli mainstream?
Likewise, Simon's focus on settler Daniella Weiss is not representative following Weiss's rejection by the mainstream settler movement.
Annie,
i seriously doubt all those buildings on palestinian lands will inspire palestinians to give up their homes in east jerusalem or gaza
That's not quite what I meant. Obviously you have the Palestinians living in the West Bank, some of whom could use those buildings. It just seems such a waste to knock them down, considering that it might be wise to try to conserve resources.
It is an extremely twisted knot that has been tied in this region. It will take much sacrifice on both sides to untangle.
Both sides have to agree to genuinely try to work out some equitable agreement. None of this pushing and shoving for advantage over the other side business.
Both sides have to understand, really understand, that there has been great suffering on both sides. (As do people like you, Annie.)
And both sides must understand that if they don't stand firm against the extremists amongst them, the moderates will be swallowed up in this endless round of fighting.
Avram,
Why are all of these illegal homes being built in Jerusalem? Are the majority occupied by Palestinians? Is this a tit for tat type of thing? Could there be a trade between those and the settlers in the West Bank?
Or are they being built there because of the claim to Jerusalem by Palestinians? Is there no way to share the city?
So, I take it that the mainstream in Israel does support a two state solution?
They did interview the one Israeli woman, who will be running for Prime Ministar (I forget her name), who still seemed optimistic about a two state solution.
I think Simon did a good job of showing the difficulties that Palestinians have. Perhaps where he fell a little short was on getting across the insecurity that Israelis feel. That is, after all, the root cause of the checkpoints, private roads, and overwatch done by the soldiers. As much as moderate Palestinians need to be helped and encouraged, so do moderate Israelis.
Bassam,
Thanks. ;)
"but i think it is a good idea, except not for east jerusalem of course."
You mean, where thousands of illegal homes are built and we don't knock 'em down?
no, i wasn't speaking of any homes per se in east jerusalem. i was speaking of the 'one jerusalen' group, i presume this means that the palestinians would have to give up any claim to jerusalemm be it land homes or whatever. besides, when palestinians have their own state they won't have to apply for permits from the israeli government. when you say 'illegal homes' in east jerusalem, that means all homes without permits which i don't think israel issues to palestinians w/the same ease it treats jewish members of the state.
Permits are also very expensive. To build a 200 square meter home -- smallish for Palestinian families-- on a plot of ? dunam, fees for a permit will total NIS 107,392. These figures are equal for Jews and Palestinians. However, the socioeconomic status of Palestinians is usually much lower. And typically when housing is built for Jews, the State pays for at least some of the zoning process, and large private developers absorb the rest. In a Palestinian neighborhood, by contrast, the entire expense is carried by the builder, usually a single family.
so why should the israeli government pay for a permit for a palestinian to build a home? they shouldn't! but they can solve that by making them outrageously expensive, and then only pay for jewish settlers to build.
Q. If a Jewish homeowner in Jerusalem builds without a permit, won't his or her house be demolished just like an Arab's house?
A. Amnesty International confirms that an approximately equal number of Jewish structures receive demolition orders each year. But Palestinian homes are typically completely demolished, whereas AI's investigators could not find a single Jewish home that was demolished completely between 1967 and 1999. If a demolition actually takes place, most typically illegal porches, sheds and entryways are destroyed. Deputy Mayor Haim Miller was quoted in 1998 saying, "I don't sign demolition orders for Jewish homes, only for Arabs." (Yediot Acharonot 2/7/98)
....
Q. WHY? Why the disparity between Jewish and Palestinian housing in East Jerusalem?
A. Israeli policy has aimed actively both to bring more Jews to East Jerusalem and to curtail Arab population growth there. One way to accomplish both aims is by limiting Palestinians' access to housing while expanding the housing stock for Jews. It has been widely documented that an explicit demographic quota system has been in place for Jerusalem at least since 1973, fixing the ratio of Palestinians to Jewish residents. In the most recent Jerusalem master plan currently being prepared, this is again listed as an official policy goal to be achieved via building and zoning regulations.
Amir Cheshin, who served as Mayor Teddy Kollek's advisor on Arab affairs from 1984 to 1993, writes: "Israel saw the adoption of strict zoning plans as a way of limiting the number of new homes built in Arab neighborhoods, and thereby ensuring that the Arab percentage of the city's population—28.8% in 1967— did not grow beyond this level. Allowing 'too many' new homes in Arab neighborhoods would mean 'too many' Arab residents in the city. The idea was to move as many Jews as possible into East Jerusalem and move as many Arabs as possible out of the city entirely." (Cheshin et al. Separate and Unequal)
Q. Is this disparity legal?
A. Not according to international law. Israel is a signer of various United Nations international human rights standards which prohibit racial discrimination and require equal protection for all subjects of a government (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 2(1) and others.) Israel's demolition of Arab homes for permit violations (and also for security violations) has been condemned under this Covenant. The Fourth Geneva Convention specifically prohibits destruction of real or personal property by an occupying power. (Article 53.)
more at the link.
more
Israel allows Palestinians to build on only 7 percent of East Jerusalem, land which is already mostly filled with Palestinian neighborhoods. In East Jerusalem, on expropriated Arab land, there are some 43,000 Jewish homes and not a single Arab home. By contrast, in all of East Jerusalem there are 28,000 Palestinian homes. Despite a housing shortage among Palestinians exceeding 20,000 units, Palestinians, who comprise 30 percent of the population of municipal Jerusalem, were allowed to build only about 7.5 percent of the homes built during the years 1990-1997.
# Much of the land adjoining Palestinian neighborhoods has been put off limits for Palestinians. Palestinians are denied permits to build on this land - even on land they own, including land adjacent to an existing home. It is also difficult even to obtain permits to expand existing homes. While both Palestinians and Israelis build illegally, Palestinians are responsible for less than 20 percent of illegal construction, but nearly two-thirds of demolitions are of Palestinian homes. During 1992-2000, Israel demolished 198 Palestinian homes.
60 minutes report
It appears that Simon is attempting to misrepresent the majority of Israelis. He claims that "Moderate Israelis who deplore the occupation used to believe passionately in a two-state solution." Yet, to illustrate this point, he interviews Meron Benvenisti, an Israeli who has long advocated a one-state solution and considers Israel to be worse than apartheid South Africa.
hmm, i think you completely misunderstood the theme of the report. while it is true simon stated this:"Moderate Israelis who deplore the occupation used to believe passionately in a two-state solution." he not talking about, nor is he obligated to talk about the majority of Israelis. as we all know, sometimes even in democracies, moderates don't always make policy, politicians do, and sometimes extremists do. the theme of the report, as stated on the front page, is
"a growing number of Israelis and Palestinians feel that a two-state solution is no longer possible.
so who is he talking about? 'a growing number' is not 'the majority'. he goes on to illustrate people who feel this way. at no time during the report are we led to believe this represents the majority of israelis. i think the report fairly well documents a movement that is making it hard, if not impossible (by design) to ever make peace so everyone can see a future in peace, for many do not want anymore arabs there, at all.
likud platform knesset.il
The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.
...
The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.
judea and samaria are in the west bank are they not? i don't know how relevant it is to this report to represent the 'majority' in israel. this idea that every news report is obligated to cover opposing viewpoints, or they are 'misrepresenting' someone a canard. the report did a very good job in illustrating what it set out to do, which was demonstrate the side of people who think a 2 state solution is impossible. did they also represent people who believed in it? yes, the zippi politician, although i think it would have been more helpful to represent more extremeist politicians, (like lieberman and the likud candidate) to fully display the extremism israel must contend with, including this Weiss character.
i am not familiar w/ the views of mainstream settler movement in the west bank that you speak of. maybe you could share with us some of the 'moderate' ones, who do believe in a 2 state solution. the ones you think may be helpful in comprehending the 'majority' of israelis.
Yet, to illustrate this point, he interviews to illustrate his point of the diary, but not the specific point of the proceeding sentence which was part of the report. i think you are being a touch nitpicking. last night i attended a meeting w/a number of jews, many who had traveled to israel, some had lived there. one person told me of one of her relatives and an big ad they had taken out in the new york times years ago stating the zionist plan was not good for israel as it would make it a state not like any other, and lead to an anti democratic state. and everyone there thought what was happening in israel was aparthied. maybe this isn't a mainstream thought in israel, but this opinion is growing all over the world.
even obama said something about israel having to sacrifice something. what do you think it should sacrife, beside what doesn't belong to it anyway, like the illegal settlements?
btw, The Hamas leader spoke at a meeting with 11 European parliamentarians who sailed from Cyprus to the Gaza Strip to protest Israel's naval blockade of the territory. Haniyeh told his guests Israel rejected his initiative.
Clare Short, who served in the cabinet of former British prime minister Tony Blair, asked Haniyeh to repeat his offer. He said the Hamas government had agreed to accept a Palestinian state that followed the 1967 borders and to offer Israel a long-term hudna, or truce, if Israel recognized the Palestinians' national rights.
so..what are you waiting for israel?
nyt Israeli Map Says West Bank Posts Sit on Arab Land
By STEVEN ERLANGER
Published: November 21, 2006
JERUSALEM, Nov. 20 — An Israeli advocacy group, using maps and figures leaked from inside the government, says that 39 percent of the land held by Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank is privately owned by Palestinians.
The government data indicate that 40 percent of the land that Israel plans to keep in any future deal with the Palestinians is private.
About 86 percent of Maale Adumim, an Israeli settlement, sits on privately held Palestinian property, according to government data.
Israel has long asserted that it fully respects Palestinian private property in the West Bank and only takes land there legally or, for security reasons, temporarily.
If big sections of those settlements are indeed privately held Palestinian land, that is bound to create embarrassment for Israel and further complicate the already distant prospect of a negotiated peace. The data indicate that 40 percent of the land that Israel plans to keep in any future deal with the Palestinians is private.
The new claims regarding Palestinian property are said to come from the 2004 database of the Civil Administration, which controls the civilian aspects of Israel’s presence in the West Bank. Peace Now, an Israeli group that advocates Palestinian self-determination in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, plans to publish the information on Tuesday. An advance copy was made available to The New York Times.
so, what is israel 'sacrificing' (besides dreams of further expansion on palestinian lands) for a peace deal? land that it has stolen? how is this a sacrifice?
why is this so one sided? and how is the tactics of hamas so different than zipis or rahms father?
lynn, i really agree w/alot of what you said about twisted knot that has been tied in this region. It will take much sacrifice on both sides to untangle. and other things too like the suffering on both sides (albeit of course one only need to look at the disparage of the number of dead on each side and the conditions of which they live to see who is suffering more lynn, truly if this is not the case maybe they should switch sides for the next 40 years , no?) but i really wonder about this:
i seriously doubt all those buildings on palestinian lands will inspire palestinians to give up their homes in east jerusalem or gaza
That's not quite what I meant.
well what DO you mean then when you make questions to arvam like this?:
Could there be a trade between those and the settlers in the West Bank?
you mean have the palestinians trade what they already own for another thing they already own? that is not a great deal to ask people to give up their access to their holy sites. pleeeease.. it's jerusalem for heavens sake, don't go pretending it has more meaning for jews. what is wrong w/the 67 borders. i am finding it hard to understand what more it is in terms of land palestinians should be willing to 'give up' considering they have already given up quite a lot of their land already! maybe there is something else they can give up instead, like a willingness (if israelis can acknowledge a palestinian states right to exist, then palestinians can also give up their dreams of ever having all that has been taken from them..give up their dreams of ever returning to the part of palestine the jews got.) why is this not enough. why does israel need to expand right now in this deal? why are we looking at israels expansion as part of a 'deal' to settle a palestinian state on land palestinians already own?
Is there no way to share the city?
the saddest part of not sharing the city is there are probably lots of israelis and palestinians who could get along, and have gotten along, and will in the future. this one place could be one of healing and the proximity does not have to be always a bad thing. people in democracies all over the world learn to live with eachother, and in time the children make alliances, and loves together, and all this division becomes part of the past..
Perhaps where he fell a little short was on getting across the insecurity that Israelis feel. That is, after all, the root cause of the checkpoints, private roads, and overwatch done by the soldiers.
israel has not held back communicating their insecurities. i think most americans have an understanding of those concerns. also, i think it is a lot to presume what is the 'root cause' of the checkpoints. because in all seriousness lynn, as the report notes there are over 600 of them, and if the israelis were not so gang ho in continuing to develope and live right smack dab in the middle of all these palestinians, well, after all, they wouldn't have to be so careful about trapping the palestinians into little enclaves to protect all the illegal pockets the settlers keep building on! logic!
for instance, if you moved into my living room and became fearful i might attack you in the night for being there, of course you could justify locking me into my bedroom to protect yourself, no? and then you could claim the root cause of your need to lock me up was..your fear of me. no?
i would like to direct you to this piece written in German translated it to English (w/approval of the translation from the author). It is by Rolf Verleger, a German psychology professor and Jewish activist. The original was published on January 5 in the popular German magazine Hintergrund.
(Bassam, please if this is too long of course you do not need to post it and thank you very much for your generosity, always)
here is the translation:
Gaza: The bad, bad neighbor
By Rolf Verleger, January 2009
What would you do – such wrote on Dec. 31 the Israeli historian Prof. Fania Oz-Salzberger in the FAZ – if your neighbor would continuously threw stones and Molotov cocktails at your apartment. Would you not even grab a rifle and try to put an end to this? And if your neighbor would crowed himself with his kids, so that you could not hit him, would you not get a rifle with telescopic sight?
Just as this presumed neighbor, Hamas is acting in Gaza, when they shot at Israeli cities with rockets. Therefore the current Israeli war against Gaza is a just war.
With this nice example of a reader and his neighbor a lot can be vividly explained indeed. For simplicities sake, let’s call you and your family, terrorized by your bad neighbor, 'the house owners' and let us have a look at the curious circumstances in your housing block. The apartment of your neighbor is Gaza.
1. Three years ago you took the neighbors keys away.
Without your agreement as landlord the neighbors family can not leave there apartment, neither to go to work, nor to study, nor to travel, nor to shop. Without your agreement, the neighbor will not receive their mail, no food, no electricity, no gas or visits: The apartment is locked, and you as the landlord have the keys, and the bad, bad neighbor is locked in. And this since 2006, almost three years.
That’s when the bad, bad neighbor got furious.
The mistake of the bad, bad neighbor and his friends in the other apartment block: These people voted for the wrong party.
Although you having been so kind to the neighbor, as to move freely, four years ago - 2005, out of his balcony with sea views, which you took over earlier on. Of course without paying him a look or word, and the balconies furniture got trashed when you left. Where would life come to, if we would be speaking with our neighbors? And now you are telling the whole world that you evacuated the balcony but you do not tell that you still have the sole apartment key.
That’s when the bad, bad neighbor got furious.
2. Two years ago you send a gang of rowdies to your neighbor
You and your north American friends from the house owner society send a hit gang to squat in the apartment of the neighbor, the Mohamed-Dahlan-Gang. They were supposed to take the apartment away from the bad, bad neighbor. Unfortunately the neighbor defended himself successfully. That got you really angry. Thereafter you tried to tell everyone, that the bad, bad neighbor has forcefully taken over power in his apartment, that he was not legitimized to do so. You yourself have been surprised by how many journalists have spread this lie. From Silke Mertins of the TAZ it was kind of expected, but that even Torsten Schmitz of the Sueddeutsche would write this nonsense was surprising.
That’s when the bad, bad neighbor got furious.
3. You have not charged the running costs of the apartment correctly.
For years payments of custom duties and fees owned to the neighbor get collected by you as the house owner but are not been paid out in time and completely to the neighbor.
That’s when the bad, bad neighbor got furious.
4. You have already killed many people from the neighbors apartment.
That was in the year 2006. Those were hundreds of dead in the neighbor's apartment. Fortunately the wind did not blow from the south. Otherwise it would have smelled up to your own apartment.
That’s when the bad, bad neighbor got furious.
5. You took away the neighbors work and his car.
At times the neighbor went fishing. You don't allow that anymore. The neighbor used to have factories. You bombed them in 2006. He used to have agriculture. You have ruined that, by not allowing export.He once had an airport - build with money from the EU. You have destroyed that airport: Bad Neighbors don't need an airport. The bad neighbors, who only want to shoot, are not supposed to go fishing, to work in factories, to work the soil, to travel.
The bad, bad neighbor is supposed to shoot at you, so that you can shoot back. And that is what the neighbor then did.
6. The courts rule in the favor of the bad neighbor.
Ignorant international so-called professionals of neighborhood law, like Amnesty International, experts of the UN, winner of the Nobel Peace Prices have stated clearly all the time that your doing as house owner against your neighbors is against the law and unjust. Luckily these people do not have a police to enforce so called law and order. “How many divisions has the pope?” Stalin already joked.
That’s when the bad, bad neighbor got furious.
7. You have been chasing the friends of the bad neighbors out of their apartments for years.
Unfortunately the bad neighbor still has mobile phones and landlines. That’s how he gets to know daily, how friends and relatives of the bad neighbor, who live in the apartment block West Bank get chased out of their houses. A practical tool for this is the large wall, that you have build in the middle of the apartment block. Because you have build this wall, which is to serve your security - that is at least what you said when requesting the building permit. In reality you have build this wall not around your house, but straight through the apartments of these friends.What do they need two living rooms for. One suffices enough, and in the other you can have your friends living - U.S.-Americans with dementia, who are so forgetfully that even after only a day in the alien apartment, they declare it to be really their home. And that those within their smaller apartment must pass a security check, before going from the living room to the bathroom, that's nothing: The whole life is a waiting room! And who peacefully demonstrates against these measures will get in Germany the Ossietzky Price, but will be shot at with teargas at home, and if out of luck be shot in legal self-defense. Of course the friends of the bad neighbor went to complain against the wall in front of a court of law, the German foreign minister of the time, a dull man named Fischer, called this “not helpful”, they of course were given right by the law, but again there is no police there, who would enforce their right.
That’s when the bad, bad neighbor got furious.
8. You took away ownership of the houses from your neighbor 60 years ago.
Long, long time ago, the grandfather of the neighbor was the owner of the whole house. At that time your grandparents came into the house, desperate, hunted, it was a good shelter from the storm. Soon you build a house in the yard, after all the yard belonged to no one. Of course, the others could now not go from one house to the other anymore, oh well, they are only Arabs. From time to time some humanitarian do gooders passed by, they were named Achad ha’AM, Martin Buber, Hannah Arendt, plus a couple of others, who said, it would be good to live in peace with the house owners, but by Bakunin and Marx’ will, these Arabs are too primitive for the creation of egalitarian communes, with these country folks one can not be friend. And later when Marx was out of fashion, it was Gods will, these Arabs have the wrong religion, what do they want in the holy house. There plenty of other houses around, they should go there.
And then, since 1947, your parents took most of the apartments and the whole house of the parents of the bad, bad neighbor, as they fled, in panic from the armed terror of your parents. And now, the descendants of the neighbors of these people live in the one apartment, in the most populated stretch of the world, in Gaza. Yes, why is it now so densely populated?
That’s when the bad, bad neighbor got furious.
And so said the German chancellor and Mrs. Prof. Oz-Salzberger: The fault for the war falls on the bad, bad neighbor.
9. Closing remarks
As the first Jewish Zionist, around 1890, came to today’s Israel, they were fleeing the discrimination in the land of the Tsar, from burnings and killings in the search of a free, self controlled life, which was not possible in their old country. This was not a conflict of good versus evil, but a fight about a piece of land, that was home to Palestinian Arabs, and that seemed to be the only possible home to the migrants.
The Jewish side has won that war, for the price of constant war. But a peace plan is since long ago on the table. The two state solution based on Israel's frontiers of 1967, with a solution on the problems of the Palestinian refugees, with solutions in regards to Jerusalem. This was proposed by the states of the Arab League in 2002 and again confirmed just a short time ago. Israel will not agree to this plan, as Israel can not decide if they do not rather want to keep the illegally gained land in the West Bank and even expand on it. As long as Israel does not say "yes we would rather have peace, we will stop the occupation regime," there will be no peace.
The position of Germany in this conflict is split. But can the fact, that we European Jews, victims of Germany’s injustice, give the Jewish state now the rights to commit injustice against others. Do German politicians really believe, it is reparation of the killing of my Jewish relatives, that Israel can, without stops and binds, do what it pleases?
On the contrary, it would do Israel good, if it were led out of its fantasized position to be the eternal victim, if it were led away and as any other state be embedded into the international system of rules and regulations. That means that the wrongful occupation of the West Bank, the long lasting siege of Gaza and the mass killing of the inhabitants of Gaza since December 17 2008 must be sanctioned and boycotted. The EU should measure Israel’s advances on state rights and human rights as they measure - justified or not - Serbia and Turkey. The legal evaluation of the cases of Olmert, Barak and Livni should, as the cases of Milosevic, Mladic and Karadzic, take place in Den Haag.
so , maybe a compromise would be to simple not prosecute israel for the crimes of the past. but to use those past crimes of illegal land grabs, to be used as bargaining chips? this seems rather odd to me.
"So, I take it that the mainstream in Israel does support a two state solution? "
I would say 65% understand the need for it the nations' survival, 15% don't care (ie are just disinterested one way or another), and the rest are anti.
Annie -
You quote a lot of old stuff. The Likud now wants to push economic peace before territorial concessions. It makes sense after watching Gaza.
Do you know what a Hudna is Annie? What does it say about Hudnas in the Koran?
Annie,
He said the Hamas government had agreed to accept a Palestinian state that followed the 1967 borders and to offer Israel a long-term hudna, or truce, if Israel recognized the Palestinians' national rights.
This is interesting, Annie. Can you tell me when Hamas changed their charter?
Specifically the part in article 13 that reads in part:
Article Thirteen: Peaceful Solutions, [Peace] Initiatives and International Conferences: [Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement.
Because as far as I can see, a temporary truce is just that, temporary.
Yeah, I know, you have more in your comment, but no time at the moment to respond to all of it.
Because as far as I can see, a temporary truce is just that, temporary.
yes, like the last one that israel used to plan a war. a truse is only as good as the people who make it, and the intentions of those people. obviously there are those on both sides who never want to make peace. if you were an israeli like this weisss character, she makes it quite clear she wants all the land for israel, and then you have palestinians who are the same.
but i posted earlier on the other thread the study done, israel is the one who has broken almost all of the ceasefires, just like it did on november 4th.
but let me ask you thins, between now and the resolution, which many on both sides never want, what is the logic behind israel being the jail keepers. what is a truce when one side can enter the other and assassinate at will, or arrest at will? when one side can come and arrest and jail thousands apon thousands?
now let us here the israelis say a palestinian state has a right to exist.
did the plo ask for a hudna? very smart of israel promoting an islamic organization to deal with. this way you will always have the opportunity to refuse a palestinian state based apon language in the koran.
i find it amusing israel always claims it can't deal w/hamas or any representative of palestine except some trained puppet. maybe it is israel who should focus on its own terrorists.
what do you think of this guy
The booklet, entitled Go Fight My Fight: A Daily Study Table for the Soldier and Commander in a Time of War, was published especially for Operation Cast Lead, the devastating three-week campaign launched with the stated aim of ending rocket fire against southern Israel. The publication draws on the teachings of Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, head of the Jewish fundamentalist Ateret Cohanim seminary in Jerusalem.
In one section, Rabbi Aviner compares Palestinians to the Philistines, a people depicted in the Bible as a war-like menace and existential threat to Israel.
In another, the army rabbinate appears to be encouraging soldiers to disregard the international laws of war aimed at protecting civilians, according to Breaking the Silence, the group of Israeli ex-soldiers who disclosed its existence. The booklet cites the renowned medieval Jewish sage Maimonides as saying that "one must not be enticed by the folly of the Gentiles who have mercy for the cruel".
Breaking the Silence is calling for the firing of the chief military rabbi, Brigadier-General Avi Ronzki, over the booklet. The army had no comment on the matter yesterday.
You quote a lot of old stuff. The Likud now wants to push economic peace before territorial concessions.
gee, that was from 1999. how much has likud changed? not much i presume. and then there is Koenig Memorandum.
"You quote a lot of old stuff. The Likud now wants to push economic peace before territorial concessions.
gee, that was from 199"
Thanks for proving my point ... Quoting things from 10 years ago isn't really being honest.
Annie,
now let us here the israelis say a palestinian state has a right to exist.
Doesn't matter if you use the word "right" or "need", according to Avram 65% of Israelis support a two state solution. Good enough for me.
a truse is only as good as the people who make it, and the intentions of those people.
And what are Hamas' intentions? Last time they restocked their weapons via smugglers tunnels. So, how does anyone trust them?
And to refer back to your earlier comment regarding my suggestion of swapping houses, it was just that, a suggestion.
Obviously, people's emotions are intense when it comes to this whole situation. All I would suggest is a little breathing room, a little fair play, from both sides.
"according to Avram 65% of Israelis support a two state solution. Good enough for me"
I'm sure it's more but I don't remember stats ... The fact that even the 'extreme' right Yisrael Beitenu favors an 'altered' land swap (ie, we keep some of the major towns and they get the major Arab-Israeli towns) shows the realization on our side (which wasn't always the case) that a settlement NEEDS to be reached to give BOTH people a chance to survive here. That's the only thing that should matter - both people living side by side in peace.
excuse me? what did you say about honesty? what, does the party change its platform w/every election? or when stating the obvious becomes politically incorrect? since when isn't it usual for people to have the same theme of ideas they had ten years ago. maybe zionism will go out of style in 6 years.
why on earth does everything have to turn into a ad hominem attack. can you go one post w/out the crutch arvam. besides, i notice you did not address the topic. besides in a post that has been covering something somebody said martin said 40 years ago, by your own standards....
Doesn't matter if you use the word "right" or "need". Good enough for me.
well that gets a little sticky lyn, and here's why. everybody needs a home, but every religion group does not need its own state. where as one could very well say palestinians need a state, the people in israel need a state to, but that is different than a 'right'. so i think one needs to hold the same standard for each of them. personally i don't think it is reasonable to expect one group of people to require the others 'right; for that group to have its own state. by that standard, israelis would have had to declare the palestinians had a right to exist before the state of israel could have been born.
And what are Hamas' intentions? Last time they restocked their weapons via smugglers tunnels. So, how does anyone trust them?
ok, let's play pretend. what if the US was paying palestine for nukes and missle systems and they were bombarding israel. do you think israel should get in trouble for smuggling weapons, if they couldn't get them anyway?
how can you trust israel after what it just did?
And to refer back to your earlier comment regarding my suggestion of swapping houses, it was just that, a suggestion.
ok lyn, if you think a swap is reasonable, how about israel and palestinians just swap out. palestinians could get the lions share of their land back, and israel could be in the WB and gaza.
All I would suggest is a little breathing room
you mean some breathing room while the west bank is under occupation and gaza is blokaded and has to beg for any and everything. i would say air is about all they got at this point.
frankly lyn, i am pretty fed up w/ breathing room, i'd say its been 60 years of breathing room. heck lyn, with the kind of patience you have, we could be in breathing room mode for another 60 years. i am sick of breathing room, i want to see the cards on the table.
"i'd say its been 60 years of breathing room"
How much blame do you put on the Arabs for this 'breathing room'? How much on the Israelis?
How much blame do you put on the Arabs for this 'breathing room'? How much on the Israelis?
this is a different question asking me who i blame for violence.
i cannot for the life of me find a logical reason why palestinians would want more 'breathing room' between now and getting a state of their own, and stopping the constant illegal settlement development occurring during all phases, whether declaring 'breathing room' or however you want to call it. IOW, delay (breathing room by another name) only serves one side, israerls.
lynn, although you said something about being busy or however you put it, i noticed you failed to respond to any of the links i provided regarding your assertion regarding palestinians building without permits:
You mean, where thousands of illegal homes are built and we don't knock 'em down?
i would like to followup w/another report. arvam, by all means feel free to comment on this haaratz report.
Secret Israeli database reveals full extent of illegal settlement
Just four years ago, the defense establishment decided to carry out a seemingly elementary task: establish a comprehensive database on the settlements. Brigadier General (res.) Baruch Spiegel, aide to then defense minister Shaul Mofaz, was put in charge of the project. For over two years, Spiegel and his staff, who all signed a special confidentiality agreement, went about systematically collecting data, primarily from the Civil Administration.
.....
The defense establishment, led by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, steadfastly refused to publicize the figures, arguing, for one thing, that publication could endanger state security or harm Israel's foreign relations. Someone who is liable to be particularly interested in the data collected by Spiegel is George Mitchell, President Barack Obama's special envoy to the Middle East, who came to Israel this week for his first visit since his appointment. It was Mitchell who authored the 2001 report that led to the formulation of the road map, which established a parallel between halting terror and halting construction in the settlements.
The official database, the most comprehensive one of its kind ever compiled in Israel about the territories, was recently obtained by Haaretz. Here, for the first time, information the state has been hiding for years is revealed. An analysis of the data reveals that, in the vast majority of the settlements - about 75 percent - construction, sometimes on a large scale, has been carried out without the appropriate permits or contrary to the permits that were issued. The database also shows that, in more than 30 settlements, extensive construction of buildings and infrastructure (roads, schools, synagogues, yeshivas and even police
stations) has been carried out on private lands belonging to Palestinian West Bank residents.
...
The information contained in the database does not conform to the state's official position.. on the Foreign Ministry Web site, which states: "Israel's actions relating to the use and allocation of land under its administration are all taken with strict regard to the rules and norms of international law - Israel does not requisition private land for the establishment of settlements." Since in many of the settlements, it was the government itself, primarily through the Ministry of Construction and Housing, that was responsible for construction, and since many of the building violations involve infrastructure, roads, public buildings and so on, the official data also demonstrate government responsibility for the unrestrained planning and lack of enforcement of regulations in the territories. The extent of building violations also attests to the poor functioning of
the Civil Administration, the body in charge of permits and supervision of construction in the territories.
According to the 2008 data from the Central Bureau of Statistics, approximately 290,000 Jews live in the 120 official settlements and dozens of outposts established throughout the West Bank over the past 41 years.
this is a rather long article, i urge you to read the whole thing.
evidence suggests it requires unregulated 'breathing room' to establish these illegal outposts. are we to believe after this illegal government run enterprise designed some might believe for the express purpose of preventing palestine from ever having a state (as described quite plainly in the 60 minute report) this is merely another 'mistake' of the governemtn of israel? are we to believe that israel, described as a 'democracy' is truly representing the will of the people, who poll after poll confirm they ARE pro 2 state solution?
are we to believe time and again, year after year, that while this illegal enterprise is taking place, the claims by israel that the cause of the friction, violence, occupation and what many describe as 'ethnic cleansing' (60 minutes report) is truly all a 'reaction' to palestinian terror?
sometimes when people investigate murders, or any crime, when trying to determine who is at fault, they address a little thing called...
MOTIVE
sometimes people don't always act in self defense. sometimes people actually kill other people because they think they might benefit FINANCIALLY or other means that might be considered GREED. in fact, when people are found to be operating w/a motive of self grandisement charges against them, and punishment is substantially increased.
should we reward this illegal incursion of settlements built on land owned by others to be used as a bargaining device to benefit the criminals? the more breathing room you have, the more substance from which to bargain therby increasing your worth?
doesn't this seem a little backward lyn? arvam?
The Likud now wants to push economic peace before territorial concessions.
gee, wonder why? wouldn't have anything to do w/the FACT they keep stealing more and more territory the more breathing room they have would it?
i can't believe you actually ask me who's to blame for 'breathing room', isn't it all to obvious?
we keep some of the major towns and they get the major Arab-Israeli towns
lol, stripping some israels of their citizenship based on race? how very 'democratic' of you.
stripping certain jews of their citizenship based on race? how very 'democratic' of you.
how untransparent. is it any wonder i don't think of israel as 'middleeasterners' and transplanted russians and europeans?
slicing up the states by ethnicity? i thought it was the religious distinction that zionism was about? what a bunch of baloney. is zionism racist or is it not? what is this i hear about allowing arabs to remain in israel if they pledge an allegiance to zionism? is this a requirement of all jews, or just arabs? because last i heard any jew all over the world was allowed israeli citizenship.
how 2 faced. what a farce. you keep stealing land to trade it for some of your own citizens citizenship based on RACE. how anti semetic of you.
That's the only thing that should matter - both people living side by side in peace.
great, well, if that is the only thing that matters go back to the 67 borders which are already determined and quit lobbying for more 'breathing room' to impose your new designs down the throat of arabs. becasue that is what this is about you know, dividing the citizens of israel by race. so now you create MORE division requiring MORE sacrifice of arabs.
how duplicitous. how greedy. this is outrageous. is there NO end to the levels in which you will stoop to carry out this racist design called 'zionism' which is looking more and more 'white' as the years tick by.
oooh, i was a little to pissed when i wrote that. when i said 'you', i meant israel. but not all of israel, just the people who make these designs, because i assume if israel is like us here, the masters rule.
on that note , mr friedman of friedman unit fame , has presented us with another of the neocons glorius friedman units disguised as his original free thinking idea. how marvelous daaarlin'. but thanks to you and free thinking israelis of the right wing persuasion it aint so 'new', now is it? just another pound of flesh, another kicking the ball down the road aways, and then by then..5 years down the road..that plan too will be dead in the water, and the new offer (with more freidman units) will be even less than last time.
1. Israel agrees in principle to withdraw from every inch of the West Bank and Arab districts of East Jerusalem, as it has from Gaza. Any territories Israel might retain in the West Bank for its settlers would have to be swapped — inch for inch — with land from Israel proper.
say whaaaaaa? every inch except what you might retain?????
then why say every inch? it gets worse after you read the other 3 brilliant original thoughts by the oh so inventive mr friedman..straight fro the horses (aipacs) mouth. shove it on down the road folks. and after 5 years..carrot carrot carrot..we will bombard you with our deathly kindness and then declare this will never work, because you failed after all.
"lol, stripping some israels of their citizenship based on race? how very 'democratic' of you.
stripping certain jews of their citizenship based on race? how very 'democratic' of you.
how untransparent. is it any wonder i don't think of israel as 'middleeasterners' and transplanted russians and europeans?"
As usual, instead of reading and digesting, you start slandering a person. I'm of Sefardi descent, ie those who lived under the Turks after the Spanish inquisitions B) Try and hold your breath for a second before responding to the next statement:
Any Jews left in the new Palestinians will be in serious danger. Not, not all Palestinians want Jews dead (just in case you try to viciously slander me again). But the radical elements, as they do with the Christian minority in Gaza, will either kill or ensure Jews do not have the freedoms they'll deserve. In essence, like much of the Arab world, Palestine will have to be Judenrein.
Let's not explain further why a territory swap is fair. A) the Jews of Ariel/Ma'aleh Adumim and the larger settlements on or right outside of the green line have tens of thousands of Jews. To uproot them would be almost impossible, as evident by our government's inability to do anything with the 8,000 Jews from Gaza, who have yet to be given permanent homes or stable working environments as promised. B) The Arabs of the triangle have often stated their allegiance to the Palestinian cause. No issue with that, I would too probably if I was an Arab. Hence, instead of leaving them in a state that will STILL continue to give them the same issues they currently have, they'll be in their OWN state where those issues shouldn't exist.
In other words, this swap has nothing to do with ethnicity but with making this as easy as possible on the two people facing life altering changes on both sides. If they don't do it this way, I doubt they'll make a 2 state solution possible.
"what is this i hear about allowing arabs to remain in israel if they pledge an allegiance to zionism?"
Actually, if you stopped 'hearing' things and actually read things that are from Israel, you'd see that one party wants EVERY person to declare loyalty to Israel - this targets the Ultra-Orthodox as much as the Arabs. But don't worry about that bit, as you are obviously on a crusade to slander the country further with your lies and hatred.
"because last i heard any jew all over the world was allowed israeli citizenship."
Continue to make statements without being honest. Let me adjust it as you're obviously just clueless. A person with at least one Jewish grandparent can move to Israel and acquire citizenship - he cannot do so outside of Israel.
"how anti semetic of you."
Bassam, I am insulted you allowed this kind of post through - if I called her a name (but I'd probably spell it right) that could be hurtful, would you let it slide?
As usual, instead of reading and digesting, you start slandering a person.
slander:
Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
excuse me arvam, where's the false statement?
when i wrote that. when i said 'you', i meant israel.
israel slanders itself daily, i don't have to do it.
I'm of Sefardi descent, ie those who lived under the Turks after the Spanish inquisitions
and how does this address the topic?
are you asserting the politician in the knesset did NOT advocate pushing all of israels arab citizens out of israel and withdrawing citizenship if and when there was ever going to be an arab state? what about trying to get the 2 arab parties out of the election process? don't tell me to hold my breath.
Any Jews left in the new Palestinians will be in serious danger.
huh? why don't they go to israel. are you asserting the palestinian state is supposed to accept all the illegal settlers?
Not, not all Palestinians want Jews dead (just in case you try to viciously slander me again).
i have no idea what this means? obviously not all palestinioans want jews dead nor did i assert they did or assert you said they did. so what are you talking about.
But the radical elements, as they do with the Christian minority in Gaza, will either kill or ensure Jews do not have the freedoms they'll deserve. In essence, like much of the Arab world, Palestine will have to be Judenrein.
what? what is the point of having a jewish state to live next door in the palestinian state?
Let's not explain further why a territory swap is fair. A) the Jews of Ariel/Ma'aleh Adumim and the larger settlements on or right outside of the green line have tens of thousands of Jews.
don't be disingenuous with me. since the neocons have been ruling america over the last 8 years the growth has been unfettered. furthermore i presume you know quite well Netanyahu would let West Bank settlements expand! the government of israel has been illegally supporting the growth of these settlements on palestinian owned land in the west bank at a ferocious rate over the last decade. obviously they are doing their upmost to completely populate and expand in the region designated for a palestinian state.
lets see your proposal for exactly what it is. this has nothing to do w/jews being safe inside a proposed palestine state and everything to do w/escalating that growth to prevent one. for all israel would have had to do was to STOP the ILLEGAL GROWTH and proceed with evictions. instead we have the party who stands to win in the election running on a platform for MORE settlements.
you never explained why the 'swap' was fair to begin with, so don't blather about 'further explaining'. it isn't fair pure and simple. the land is stolen, no amount of shinanigans will make that 'fair'. it is criminal. and don't tell me uprooting them would be impossible. not with israels history. israel knows perfectly well how to evict people from their property!
as evident by our government's inability to do anything with the 8,000 Jews from Gaza
excuse me? are you asserting there are still 8000 jews in gaza? you don't really think israel would bomb gaza before evicting their own do you? how can you use evidence of successful eviction as proof of an 'inability' while you government os promoting an expansion in settlements on the future palestinian state? have you lost your senses?
B) The Arabs of the triangle have often stated their allegiance to the Palestinian cause. No issue with that, I would too probably if I was an Arab. Hence, instead of leaving them in a state that will STILL continue to give them the same issues they currently have, they'll be in their OWN state where those issues shouldn't exist.
excuse me? people all over the world have alligience to the palestinian cause, including many many jews here in america, and people all over europe, and people in the peace movement in israel who are not arabs. they do this not because they are arabs, but because it is THE MORAL THING TO DO.
Yisrael Beiteinu is proposing a measure to strip "disloyal" Arab citizens of their citizenship. just like this nazi law.
you can't just make a racist law and then justify it later. here is the thinking of your racists
This means that those who show absolute loyalty will be granted full equality, yet those who do not do it would not be able to enjoy full citizenship rights. The rule of thumb here is simple: Those who are less loyal would get less, and those who are more loyal would get more.
and you call yourself a democracy? can you even IMAGINE what would happen here in america if we were threatened w/loosing our citizenship by being against the iraq war? but this stripping of citizenship isn't applied equally on israels society even, only its arab citizens? do all of israels citizens have to take an oath of loyalty to zionism????
and when you say their OWN STATE..i though israel was for jews? are these arab parties, are these people not jewish?
and , if denying them citizernship..isn't that persecuting jews? how is this not anti semetic? am i missing something.
Actually, if you stopped 'hearing' things and actually read things that are from Israel, you'd see that one party wants EVERY person to declare loyalty to Israel
to israel, or to zionism? let's read what this proposal is. because the last i heard jews don't think in unison and zionism is a political construct. let israel make a constitution and then see who pledges alligiance, because last i heard israel was for jews, not jews who thought like you do.
wiki anti semetism
Extreme instances of persecution include the First Crusade of 1096, the expulsion from England in 1290, the Spanish Inquisition, the expulsion from Spain in 1492, the expulsion from Portugal in 1497, various pogroms, and the most infamous, the Holocaust under Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany.
how is expulsion from israel any different? are you talking about these jews?
"because last i heard any jew all over the world was allowed israeli citizenship."
Continue to make statements without being honest. Let me adjust it as you're obviously just clueless.
ad hominem, maybe my wording was off but you know exactly what i am talking about.
A person with at least one Jewish grandparent can move to Israel and acquire citizenship
you mean a jew from anywhere in the world, or all over the world can come to israel and become a citizen. yes this is EXACTLY what i meant.
he cannot do so outside of Israel.
whoopee. but he can come for a visit, become a citizen, and go back to america right? he doesn't have to show loyalty to israel by LIVING THERE? he only has to appear there to apply? yeah, HUGE DISTINCTION. just enough to accuse me of being dishonest and clueless, right. i get your drift.
if I called her a name (but I'd probably spell it right) that could be hurtful, would you let it slide?
anti semitism isn't a name, it is a state of being subject to application which i have demonstrated. if you want to counter it and explain how discriminating against certain class of jewish folks is not anti semitic, go ahead. enlighten us.
a 'name' is calling someone a swear word or something. or calling someone by the name of a certain german dictator. it is altogether different. or accusing someone of being anti semitic for a different political belief (like anti zionism) which has nothing to do w/hating jews per se or discriminating against them.
in your case you are claiming your racist political beliefs are based on the 'safety' of all concerned, and therefor not racist.
which is just hogwash.
if I called her a name (but I'd probably spell it right) that could be hurtful, would you let it slide?
ok, i have a joke (a true story). Bassam, if this breaks the rules don't publish it.
my friend emailed me and told me his step mother is mad at him for calling her doggie a bitch. he said, since when is calling a bitch a bitch insulting?
i recommended he apologize. but then i made a joke and wrote, call the bitch and tell her you are sorry for calling her bitch a bitch!
my point i suppose is if you are using a term as a descriptive feature that applies and not as an insult per se but as part of an argument, then that is different then calling someone a name.
i wasn't trying to be hurtful arvam, simply pointing out your ptv has some not so hidden hypocritical components due to the history of jews thru out history.
did you know in April 1933 a law for "reorganization of the civil service” cleansed the civil services from socialists and communists as well as jews? how is this not descrimination based on political and/or racist beliefs?
just because you make a law in israel, it may make it legal there, but it will not make it moral.
when stages of immoral policy in germany or america (re torture)was instigated, then legal opinions were established to justify the policies and where needed because some people would not follow the policies without better justifications laws were created to have a legal basis for the policy implementation.
defendants at the nuremberg said they acted within those laws or followed legal orders. the judges didn't swallow those justifications as the laws and orders clearly contradicted basic humanitarian ethics.
you'd see that one party wants EVERY person to declare loyalty to Israel - this targets the Ultra-Orthodox as much as the Arabs.
like this?
you'd see that the gop wants EVERY person to declare loyalty to america - this targets the democrats as much as the republicans.
not quite huh? who decides what 'loyalty to israel' means? loyalty to israels constitution? except they don't have one. to this?
The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, as it is officially known, represents the consensual basis upon which the state rests. In essence, it is Israel's founding covenant. As indicated by the range of signatures appended to it, it was proclaimed as the expression of a wall-to-wall consensus which extended beyond the Zionist movement to include the Communists and the ultra-Orthodox non-Zionists of Agudat Israel. Precisely drafted to assure the support of all parties to Israel's founding, it combines Jewish national aspirations and universal human rights, religious and secular sensibilities, Zionist needs and the political ends of modern democracy. As such, it was and is a consensus-building document.
or to israels borders? because israel seems to benefit from not having definitive borders.
so what exactly is this 'loyalty'. because in america when we say the pledge of alligence we pleade 'one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
obviously israel doesn't support liberty and justice for all. or some people propose justice for some people differently than others, based on their politics, or ethnicity.
jpost
It is an open secret that liberal American Jews have turned their attention in growing numbers to the plight of Israeli Arabs, and are now contributing more than ever to causes related to the advancement of this minority within Israel.
Enter Lieberman: if polls are correct, what American Jews will see in Israel is the growing power of a party seen by most of them -- rightly or wrongly -- as racist toward Arab citizens. Lieberma's platform, of course, is more nuanced and complicated than just being "racist" (which he claims it isn't). Nevertheless, I can hardly envision a narrative that will not make Lieberma's political achievement a nuisance and an embarrassment to the average American Jew. Thus, the stage is set for yet another show of differences:
American Jews will wonder about the nature and the morality of the "Jewish state".
Our panel of experts believed (on scale of 1-5) that Obama will:
Pressure Israel to evacuate illegal outposts
4
Pressure Israel to evacuate settlements
2.14
Expect Israel to withdraw unilaterally from territory in the West Bank
1.37
jpost
maybe israel can inform the obama adminitration how 'fair' it is and how israel is just looking out for everybody's 'safety' and how it will be 'impossible' to do anything but continue to eat up all the land in the WB..
maybe aipac has obama right where it wants it and israel can continue expanding on palestinian land.
off for the day...
Avram,
Actually, if you stopped 'hearing' things and actually read things that are from Israel, you'd see that one party wants EVERY person to declare loyalty to Israel
I am afraid that you are talking about something that Annie doesn't understand, loyalty to country. It is a concept that is beyond her.
loyalty to a country, is loyalty to her constitution lynn, the principles which she was founded, for which her citizens gave their life. not loyalty to every single thing carried out in that countries name, like someone defending torturing in our name, or defending war crimes done in our name, or defending a certain political flavor of the month, like palin, or alligience to israel while it commits war crimes.
don't be trivial by slinging around ad hominems and pretending i don't know what loyalty is.
"and how does this address the topic?"
You implied I, as well as most Israelis, were "transplanted russians and europeans". Which is obviously a lie, considering until the 1990s MOST OF ISRAEL was Jews who were expelled by the Arabs. Most of these Jews **surprise** tend to vote for right wing parties ... hmmm
"Any Jews left in the new Palestinians will be in serious danger.
huh?"
I mean any Jews left in Palestine. Ahhh so now you call us settlers, and that's ok. How about Hebron where there was Jews for over 2000 years until the Arabs ethnically cleansed every last one in 1929? Were we 'settlers' there too? You can't have it both ways -
"what? what is the point of having a jewish state to live next door in the palestinian state?"
And yet you have an issue with land swap?
"as evident by our government's inability to do anything with the 8,000 Jews from Gaza
excuse me? are you asserting there are still 8000 jews in gaza?"
No, I'm asserting (which you probably don't know) that since those 8000 Jews left Gaza, they've not been given permanent housing or a chance at a livelihood as promised. That was part of what the Israeli government promised them and FAILED at doing (you see, we fail our own people too!). You think they'll be able to do it with far far more Jews?
"people all over the world have alligience to the palestinian cause, including many many jews here in america, and people all over europe,"
So let's have them all in Palestine too? What is your point? People who have allegiance to the Palestinian cause that don't live here don't really dictate what this country, or the Palestinians (well bar the radical elements) do.
"Yisrael Beiteinu is proposing a measure to strip "disloyal" Arab citizens of their citizenship"
And ultra-orthodox Jews, which you continually ignore in your attempts to make us out like Nazis. How very 'fair' of you (your true colors show more and more in every post).
"IMAGINE what would happen here in america if we were threatened w/loosing our citizenship by being against the iraq war?"
Not the same thing - and it has NOTHING to do with Zionism (or would this be an issue for Ultra-Orthodox Jews?). Sheesh man, you make stuff up as you go along. It's rather tiring.
"and when you say their OWN STATE..i though israel was for jews? are these arab parties, are these people not jewish?
and , if denying them citizernship..isn't that persecuting jews? how is this not anti semetic? am i missing something."
You're confusing me ... What are you trying to say?
"to israel, or to zionism?"
Obviously to Israel, again this has nothing to do with Zionism (as I see it) - this has nothing to do with protests against Israel (they'll still continue weekly I'd guess) or the related, this has to do with the inequality we've created internally with army/taxes/other issues.
"whoopee. but he can come for a visit, become a citizen, and go back to america right?"
Nope - he'll get into serious trouble then on his next visit - jail time most likely.
"Pressure Israel to evacuate illegal outposts
4
Pressure Israel to evacuate settlements
2.14
Expect Israel to withdraw unilaterally from territory in the West Bank
1.37"
It should be 5, 4 (not the ones that will remain in Israel as I've already said), 5.
You see Annie, far from painting me as some vicious 'anti-semitic' 'blah this' ad hominem dafdfda person, you should see I want TWO STATES for both people to try and rebuild their nations properly. Both nations are SCREWED internally right now - yes, BOTH. So a two state solution, taking into account big population areas, is not 'racist' - it's just giving us a chance to make it work at a higher % in my opinion. You see, it has nothing to do with Arabs (5% Druze representation in Israeli Parliment vs less than 2% of our population for example) but has to do with what can give us the best chance to co-exist (which I'm not sure is really possible)
"and how does this address the topic?"
You implied I, as well as most Israelis, were "transplanted russians and europeans".
i did not imply anything of the sort. i gave a thorough explanation of exactly what i was referring to on another thread, and clarified it for you after calling me a liar the first time.
"lol, stripping some israels of their citizenship based on race? how very 'democratic' of you.
stripping certain jews of their citizenship based on race? how very 'democratic' of you.
how does you being Sefardi descent address dividing jews by race?
you still have not explained it?
you said this: "Any Jews left in the new Palestinians will be in serious danger.
i said :huh?"
you say: I mean any Jews left in Palestine. Ahhh so now you call us settlers, and that's ok.
i did not call you settlers. you originally said 'the new palestine" which i assumed you meant, a new palestinian state. why should jews be left there? what is the point of making a palestinian state, if israeli jews are also going to live there? if you are going to have a state w/both, you can do it in israel and just have one big state? so when i ask 'what is the point of having the two states side by side if israeli are going to be continue living in a new palestinian state you ask me why i have an issue w/land swaps, i already told you why i have an issue.
No, I'm asserting (which you probably don't know) that since those 8000 Jews left Gaza, they've not been given permanent housing or a chance at a livelihood as promised.
so this is israels excuse for not returning the stolen land in the west bank? that's rich. maybe if i rob your bank i won't have to give the money back because i can't find a new job! and i get to keep on stealing more money because i will have more and more babies w/mouths to feed.
"people all over the world have alligience to the palestinian cause, including many many jews here in america, and people all over europe,"
So let's have them all in Palestine too? What is your point?
no, but it sounded like yours! perhaps when you read my response you could actually connect it to the quote of yours i sited, and its origin, instead of taking it out of context arvam.. in this instance i copied your response to me..
me: 'stripping some israels of their citizenship based on race? how very 'democratic' of you.
stripping certain jews of their citizenship based on race? how very 'democratic' of you."
part of your response:
Let's not explain further why a territory swap is fair. A) (yada yada)....Any Jews left in the new Palestinians will be in serious danger...(more yada) B) The Arabs of the triangle have often stated their allegiance to the Palestinian cause. .....Hence...
basically what i hear, is the reasons you give for this 'fairness' for being racist is..the arab jews have an allegiance to the palestinian cause. my comment about having an alligience, is not based on race, it is based on what is moral. you can't use a persons moral values to justify taking something away from them, or expelling them. well, maybe you can, but it is still racist. they are still jews are they not? and israel is supposed to be the jewish state right? so now you want the arab jews to go live in palestine because they support what is moral? or a political determination? like zionism? there were lots of jews before zionism. is irael a homeland for jews, or is it not? or just jews who agree w/the zionist model?
"IMAGINE what would happen here in america if we were threatened w/loosing our citizenship by being against the iraq war?"
Not the same thing - and it has NOTHING to do with Zionism
excuse me? "Zionism is an international political movement ", wiki. politics. i sited Israel's founding covenant. As indicated by the range of signatures appended to it, it was proclaimed as the expression of a wall-to-wall consensus which extended beyond the Zionist movement to include the Communists and the ultra-Orthodox non-Zionists of Agudat Israel. Precisely drafted to assure the support of all parties to Israel's founding,
zionism is a political mindframe, nothing that is supposed to be declared wrt loyalty is it not. it is unlike the US, we are bound by a nation w/our constitution, israel is bound by it ethnicity to being jewish, all jews are supposed to be included , no? or is it all jews that agree to the current flavor of the month, or year? can you change your politics and loose your citizenship? is this how a democracy is made? by kicking out people who don't share your political viewpoint?
me:"and when you say their OWN STATE..i though israel was for jews? are these arab parties, are these people not jewish?
and , if denying them citizernship..isn't that persecuting jews? how is this not anti semetic? am i missing something."
you: You're confusing me ... What are you trying to say?
again these jews
are you propasing these Mizrahi jews move to a new palestinian state?
Mizrahi Jews or Mizrahim, (Hebrew: מזרחים, Standard Mizraḥim Tiberian Mizrāḥîm ; "Easterners"), also referred to as Adot HaMizrach (Communities of the East) are Jews descended from the Jewish communities of the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia and the Caucasus. The term Mizrahi is used in Israel for Jews from all the Arab world and adjacent countries, primarily Muslim-majority, including Iraqi Jews, Syrian Jews, Lebanese Jews, Yemenite Jews,Persian Jews, Afghan Jews, Bukharian Jews, Maghrebi Jews, Berber Jews and Kurdish Jews, as well as communities such as Mountain Jews and Georgian Jews, and among the Jews of India and Jews of Pakistan, the Baghdadi Jews (descendants of relatively recent Iraqi Jews settled in the last few centuries, in contrast to Jewish communities of the Indian subcontinent established millennia earlier).
please explain to me, are these the israelis you are proposing leave, these jews, for political reasons?
and you are saying it is for their safety? hellllo.
maybe israel needs a constitution so everyone can be a little clearer exactly what's going on.
you can't just make a racist law and then justify it later. here is the thinking of your racists
.....
And ultra-orthodox Jews, which you continually ignore in your attempts to make us out like Nazis. How very 'fair' of you (your true colors show more and more in every post).
what have i continually ignored? are these ultra-orthodox Jews your racists, or are they not? are they the equivilant of our fundie fanatic christians who the gop leans all over to pass their extremeists agenda? is it the same policy, only not cushioned in noce little phases like 'they will all be safer this way'.
"are these ultra-orthodox Jews your racists, or are they not?"
Nope ... They are Jews, who 'generally' (I cannot tell you %s here, or even guess) are not really interested in the "State" but take all the benefits. They rarely serve in the army, and often times 'survive' on government funds while their wives work and they study. "Black Hatters" as we call them. I have many issues with them.
Annie - If a 2 state solution came the way of the '67 line, I'd be happy with it if it bought proper peace. I don't hate my neighbors (well, I hate Hamas and the radical elements within Fatah). I want their children, as well as ours, to not know war. I, in the last year or so, have become a strong believer in SECURITY over SETTLEMENTS. I don't believe we can have both anymore. I don't want my kid to have to learn war like I have, and be an active combat reservist. I'd rather we have an 'army' for show, like the Swiss, and live side by side, in trust and peace with our neighbors. Yes, I am a right wing ZIONIST and that's what I believe.
I am a right wing ZIONIST and that's what I believe.
here is the problem as i see it arvam. it does no good to profess wanting a swiss army and believer in SECURITY over SETTLEMENTS when right wing zionists vote for the party who is pro expanding settlements.
and what is the benefit of being pro democracy if the policies of the party one supports is very much anti free speech, which is vital in any democracy?
"Yisrael Beiteinu is proposing a measure to strip "disloyal" Arab citizens of their citizenship"
And ultra-orthodox Jews, which you continually ignore in your attempts to make us out like Nazis.
"are these ultra-orthodox Jews your racists, or are they not?"
Nope ... They are Jews, who 'generally' (I cannot tell you %s here, or even guess) are not really interested in the "State" but take all the benefits.
ok, i am having some confusion here arvam and maybe you can help me sort this out. according to haaretz, Netanyahu has endorsed Avigdor Lieberman's Ysrael Beiteinu proposal which haaretzs says is against Israeli Arabs.
the people who support this (whether they be you, settlers, lieberman, netanyahu, you say are not racist.
ok, let us imagine that people support this bill for other reasons, some not based on race, but loyalty( although i think it is fairly transparent the author of the bill has racial motivations) it is aimed along w/some political motivation to annex these israeli arabs along w/the palestinians for the new state. now i ask you earlier but you did not address it, are these arab israelis including Mizrahi Jews?
the article says
Lieberman's hardline Yisrael Beiteinu has built its campaign ahead of next week's general election around the slogan: "No citizenship without loyalty," which is directed at Israeli Arabs, some of whom the party accuses of constituting a fifth column.
now please tell me if right wing parties are supportive of this, how is it different to the 1935 law i posted upthread respecting "citizenship certificates"?
please explain how these citizenship certificates are different than the oaths of loyalty lieberman and now Netanyahu and you support?
at the article it also links to an article Lieberman to Tibi: We must treat some Arab MKs like we treated Hamas
how is this not racist and if one supports it how is one not racist, because one says one isn't? because one say it is 'for the public good' or 'for their own good'? ok, so i can also see the 1935 law included social subversives, would we then not call that law 'racist' because it included other 'undesirables'?
this op ed on ynet by an israeli professor called this new law 'clear and present danger' .
The motto "without loyalty there's no citizenship" belongs in the darkest regimes. In such regimes, people are detained, tortured, sent to labor or rehabilitation camps, or simply "disappear" because someone suspected they are disloyal. In such regimes, citizens live in fear and are scared to speak up lest someone interpret their words as criticism
....
Lieberman is not talking about us, say most citizens. Yet he is. Lieberman is talking about anyone who disagrees with his perception of the State and its path. Please read Yisrael Beiteinu's platform; it doesn't hide a thing. In the "Citizenship and Equality" clause, under the headline "stricter attitude to subversion," it says: "We shall act to ban parties or bodies whose words or acts constitute incitement against the State of Israel as a Jewish Zionist State and undermine its existence."
but as i demonstrated earlier "The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, as it is officially known, represents the consensual basis upon which the state rests. In essence, it is Israel's founding covenant. As indicated by the range of signatures appended to it, it was proclaimed as the expression of a wall-to-wall consensus which extended beyond the Zionist movement to include the Communists and the ultra-Orthodox non-Zionists of Agudat Israel. Precisely drafted to assure the support of all parties to Israel's founding,
so who is to determine 'support of israel' is different than what the founding members determine it to be?
wouldn't you have to form a constitution first and define israel differently?
i mean, is israel for all jews? or just the jews who think like... who?
i recommend the rest of the professors paper.
Avram,
I hope you don't mind, but I am copying the last portion of your last comment to Annie and pasting it over at Last of Iraqis. They are having another one sided discussion about Israel and I felt an Israeli's opinion should be aired.
Annie - you make so many really poor comments and if you want to go round n' round (with you making continual false assumptions and bringing up irrelevant wiki links about 'mizrachi jews', which I know about and are normally very right wing due to the world they came from, but you didn't know that), we can continue. It's rather pointless.
You are an extremist - and I think you know that too.
If you want to continue this via e-mail, Bassam can pass on my e-mail address to you and I will gladly dissect every comment of yours and agree (where you're right) and disagree (where you're wrong). If not, I think we should call it a day as I am rather tired of this thread and the continual repetitions you make in trying to 'convince me' that you have a exclusive grasp on the truth.
(Btw please do some research on Ahmed Tibi and see why Lieberman said that - I don't agree with him on a lot but Tibi is scum like Bishara)
Annette - Go Ahead
with you making continual false assumptions and bringing up irrelevant wiki links about 'mizrachi jews',
arvam, observe the question marks. questions are not false assumptions, they are questions.
clearly, you do not want to address them any longer in a public forum. nor do you want to address the seemingly very blatantly racist overtones to these racist proposals i have linked to. so be it.
nor do you want to address the contradictions regarding The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, the solely zionist oath, and democracy.
nor do you care to discuss the contradiction of your claim of wanting SECURITY over SETTLEMENTS when rightwing jews promote expanding settlements which clearly breeds hostility.
so be it.
so be it.
Annie - as you've done with most of this thread, you'll go round and round even when there's answers. You see, you're trying to goad me into it again. 'so be it' 'so be it'.
As I said earlier in one of these long debates, you have a very radical (& I think hate driven) ideology. It's understandable, it's just I'm rather tired of talking about it online non-stop with you. I offered you a chance to do it via e-mail, which you refused ('so be it', 'so be it').
The fact you're unable to relate to someone who wants two states shows what kind of person you are. Your blanket statements (such as 'All Zionists are wrong') would lead most rational people to already see it themselves.
If you want to respond again, I'll respond as so.
Hoping your views of a Judenrein Israel never come true,
Avram
Your blanket statements (such as 'All Zionists are wrong') would lead most rational people to already see it themselves.
except i never said all zionists are wrong. and besides, they all aren't, nice try.
arvam, instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks, you could have just answered some of the questions.
The fact you're unable to relate to someone who wants two states
'the fact'?
yawn, the rightwing parties are not pro 2 states, at least not a state for palestine on the land they own, the west bank. besides, i am pro two states, so your false accusation is blatantly transparent.
besides, how can you accuse me of going 'round and round' when you have thus far not addressed the contradictions i have presented. like the hypocrisy of the jewish state being for all jews, and the loyalty oath, that clearly lends itself to a specific political leaning, and not The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.
so what if you offered to email me? what is it you would say in an email you can't say here? there are topics that you will not address and would rather fill your posts w/allegations of who you think i am ie: ad hominems.
so be it.
If you want to respond again, I'll respond as so.
if you are going to respond, why don't you be productive, and answer some of my questions? i'm not interested in engaging in defending ad hominems, if that's all you've got, why bother?
Hoping your views of a Judenrein Israel never come true
you know perfectly well i have never said anything anyone could ever construe as meaning this rude mean spirited accusation. grow up and learn to argue like an adult, or don't comment at all. this is totally below the belt and immature.
get a grip.
it's just I'm rather tired of talking about it online non-stop with you
non stop? i just got back sunday from a 5 day work related trip where i didn't post at all.
you are just cauf=ght between a rock and a hard place arvam, as israel is. people need to find solution arvam and in case you are unaware of the implications of you latest election this lieberman fellow has thrown a wrench into the mix. israels rightwing machine is headed for a collision course w/the stated official policies of the US, in case you didn't notice.
frankly i don't think they can resolve anything by slandering and throwing out ad nominems to confront some of the veru racist seeming policies being floated.
so i find it as no surprise you have all of a sudden become 'tired' and have chosen in your last 2 posts, in the time it would take to answer my questions, to resort to nothing more thsn unqualified, unsubstantiated accusations..about me personally. you think i am extreme? compared to lieberman?
massive double yawn to you.
If you so badly want to continue this, why not e-mail me? What's wrong?
To be a 'sport', I'll respond to your latest wonderfully thought out post:
"you are just cauf=ght between a rock and a hard place arvam"
If that makes you sleep easier at night, ok.
"in case you are unaware of the implications of you latest election this lieberman fellow has thrown a wrench into the mix"
They said the same thing about Begin in 1977. Study a little Israeli history and and you'll see what Israeli say about who leads us to war, and who to peace. He also wants two states btw (I know you don't want this).
"israels rightwing machine is headed for a collision course w/the stated official policies of the US, in case you didn't notice"
Again, the same things have been said in the past. I didn't expect you to know this.
"the veru racist seeming policies being floated."
As I said in an earlier post, no matter what people tell you - you hear what you want to hear and try and define it with whatever you can find online (where all truths are held obviously). Your latest 'Mizrachi Jew' link had me laughing ... if only you knew who formed the bulk of the right wing in this country ...
"in the time it would take to answer my questions, to resort to nothing more thsn unqualified, unsubstantiated accusations"
So e-mail me? Or are you just afraid to do it offline and want it on a usually pro-Palestinian forum? What is scaring you about continuing this via e-mail? (you see, two people can play at your "My dad is stronger than your dad" game)
"you think i am extreme? compared to lieberman?"
Did I say that? On a more serious note, at least Lieberman wants two states, one for each 'nation'. You on the other hand ... (Btw, is he an anti-semite for going after ultra-Orthodox Jews? Or are you gonna ask me again if they're racists because you don't know the difference between modern/ultra orthodox?
Seriously Annie ... I am tired of this but would give you time via e-mail if you like.
Last but not least Annie ...
Exhibit A:
Annie (and I'm paraphrasing), "I don't believe any Zionists*"
* I'm sure I could put you in touch with some of my ultra-left wing Zionist friends and you'd love 'em.
Exhibit B:
Avram, "I am a Zionist"
Now, I think most people could see why a conversation between me and you is pointless. No matter what I say, be it fact or opinion, you'll look at it as a lie b/c of your 'blanket statement' approach (another example, 'aren't ultra orthodox Jews 'your' racists?' ... all of them, right?). In other words, our discussions will be either a) me acknowledging you have a good point and it's something Israel needs to improve/change or b) me talking to a wall when you either lie, or misrepresnet something or quote an Iranian article as a Reuters article.
That's part of the reason why it's 'tiring' ... It would be like me saying, "All Iraqis are liars" and then trying to have a discussion with Bassam about Iraq. Yes, that would be veeeery productive.
I'm sure someone of your intelligence can get off her 'I'm Annie, holder of the absolute truth' (this is a joke, please no ad hominem crutch retort) perch and admit, "hey, he's right" ...
Exhibit A:
Annie (and I'm paraphrasing), "I don't believe any Zionists*"
arvam, why paraphrase me when you have so much ammunition here of my real words. i am a real fan of jstreet, they are for the most part zionist and also for the two state solution, of which i am. i just happen to believe in a palestinian state in the west bank, on their land. not some encircling of some neighborhoods in israel that contain israeli arabs or whatever highfaluten new moving the goal post idea lieberman has.
b/c of your 'blanket statement'
what blanket statement, the one you 'paraphrased ' out of thin air? this is just strawmaning it.
'aren't ultra orthodox Jews 'your' racists?' ... all of them, right?
except i never said 'all of them, right'.
really arvam, i think you can do better than that. these racist policies of lieberman, of which i have linked to haaretz..well who are his followers? why is this outrageous to ask?
'I'm Annie, holder of the absolute truth'
arvam, there is a lot i do not understand, many contradictions in my mind i have demonstrated w/questions which you have refused to address. so no, i am absolutely not the holder of absolute truth, if i was i wouldn't have ask you for explanations about this stuff.
so you go ahead and keep evading addressing them, and go ahead and put words in my mouth i never said, and then keep arguing w/strawmen and ad hominem attacks. why would i bother w/this crap in my inbox, i like the transparency of the online forum.
arvam, i was just reviewing the thread and noticed this near the top
Annie - you have said a few times that 'all' Zionists lie. In other words, you are discounting the information of all people due to their 'affiliation' to a movement.
do you think if you keep repeating these lies it will somehow rub off and become true? you are just making this stuff up out of thin air. as if anyone could plunk all zionists into one big pot, it is simply untrue and unrealistic.
just as any political movement there are various ways and theories within a political process.
for example, democracy has many forms of implimentation. one can be supportive of democracy and not be a fan of everyone who claims they are pro democracy. just because i dispise cheney doesn't mean i dispise every alleged pro democracy person. then we have radicals, and yes therre are some radical zionists, like this lieberman fellow, and others like Netanyahu who support some of his radical policies. this is merely an example of zionists, not all of them obviously. and upthread, or on another thread, you supported these racist policies saying they would be safer or something. this islike saying jim crow is good for people because the order it provides creates a safety net. it is still racist.
at the end of the day it does not justify creating a 'safety net' for itself by using palestinian land to expand. i mean by that theory we might as well just continue expanding to then protect the expansionists. which is what the proposal of more settlements does exactly. maybe israel should try making itself safer by being a better neighbor, and keep its expansions on its own land.
big duh.
and for heaven's sake quit making stupid words and ideas and attributing them to me, it is just simply rude and an ineffective way of arguing. it does seem like you are incapable of arguing any other way.
ps, sorry for all my typos earlier, i must have been typing like flying into the wind.
you have thus far not addressed the contradictions i have presented. like the hypocrisy of the jewish state being for all jews, and the loyalty oath, that clearly lends itself to a specific political leaning, and not The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.
you seem very reluctant to address this contradiction except by some offer in a private email. i wonder why this moight be. possibly the weakness of your argument? or perhaps 'excuse' is a better word.
"i just happen to believe in a Palestinian state in the west bank, on their land."
that's where a Palestinian state would be -
Annie, unlike you, I don't have time to go through 80 odd posts and find where you DID say you don't trust (or believe) Zionists (I don't think it was on this thread though, it could have been on Bassam's 1st Gaza thread, I don't remember)
Secondly, some of Lieberman's policies have serious issues (in my opinion) and I assume many of his voters are racist. Then again, I also assume many of his voters are also sick and tired of Israeli Arabs helping or perpetrating attacks on Israeli civilians (I'm sure you have issues with this).
". like the hypocrisy of the jewish state being for all jews, and the loyalty oath, that clearly lends itself to a specific political leaning, and not The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel."
I don't really see how you highlighted any hypocrisy ... Lieberman's loyalty, from what he's said in his interviews, is to 'serve' the state (ie army, or volunteering - which a dominant part of this state does do) etc ...
To be honest, I've yet to see you criticize the equal role played by the Arabs (& then Palestinians) in pushing this situation spin out of control. I doubt you will - and I somehow doubt you'll also acknowledge how difficult the Jew has had it in the Arab (note: not Ottoman or Moor) World from the 600s and on - something that seemingly is as much the root of the problems with Israel, as the 'Zionist' one.
The reason I prefer e-mail is that it's a far better way to discuss things - and as it's personal, it becomes almost a conversation between friends.
And I'm glad you believe in two states - though I strongly believe you feel Jews who currently live on that land have no right to stay there (which is just as bad as some of the things Lieberman says, and heck, even Hamas say they can stay - though Israel cannot!)
though I strongly believe you feel Jews who currently live on that land have no right to stay there
what land? the illegal settlements in the west bank thre rightwingers want to expand?
I don't have time to go through 80 odd posts and find where you DID say you don't trust (or believe) Zionists
lol, why, because you capitalized 'DID'? you started out this post asserting what martin supposedly said about zionism too. i suggest you cease w/your bogus allegations. take your strawman out to dinner and then put them to bed. cease these lies. i have friends who are zionists and i would never make those statements, ever. you simply cannot generalize like this, it is immature and slanderous.
"i just happen to believe in a Palestinian state in the west bank, on their land."
that's where a Palestinian state would be -
so you agree the land palestinians own in the west bank should revert to their state instead of being occupied by illegal settlements. good.
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere." --Thomas Jefferson 1787.
healthy democracies have dissent and protest. it is part of our heritage here in the US.
I don't really see how you highlighted any hypocrisy ... Lieberman's loyalty, from what he's said in his interviews, is to 'serve' the state (ie army, or volunteering - which a dominant part of this state does do) etc ...
i think his oath is a little more than 'serve' maybe you missed my link..
Please read Yisrael Beiteinu's platform; it doesn't hide a thing. In the "Citizenship and Equality" clause, under the headline "stricter attitude to subversion," it says: "We shall act to ban parties or bodies whose words or acts constitute incitement against the State of Israel as a Jewish Zionist State ....."
but as i demonstrated earlier "The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, as it is officially known, represents the consensual basis upon which the state rests. In essence, it is Israel's founding covenant. As indicated by the range of signatures appended to it, it was proclaimed as the expression of a wall-to-wall consensus which extended beyond the Zionist movement to include the Communists and the ultra-Orthodox non-Zionists of Agudat Israel. Precisely drafted to assure the support of all parties to Israel's founding,
nothing in israels founding covenant describes it as a zionist state. many israelis are not zionists. many jews are not zionist. zionism is a political goal, not wedded to israels existence as a state. lieberman is asking for loyalty to zionism isn't he? he's just calling it loyalty to israel because this is his concept of israel. obviously a person can be loyal to israel without being a zionist. to many people who believe israel will be a real democracy w/out zionism. it would still be the homeland for jews. by denying citizenship to anyone who does not abide by a particular political construct you are in essence kicking out anyone who doesn't agree w/you. and THEN saying you are a democracy. a democracy doesn't work like that. fascism does tho. so do theocracies.
i ask you earlier
did you know in April 1933 a nazi law for "reorganization of the civil service” cleansed the civil services from socialists and communists as well as jews? how is this not descrimination based on political and/or racist beliefs?
aren't you talking about cleansing the country of anyone who does not affirm a zionist political construct of certain israelis, but not a construct of israels founding?
hasn't israel already kicked enough people off their land? where does it stop. will you have another round up in a decade to cleanse the unbelievers away. is that how democracy works? obviously NOT ALL ZIONISTS agree w/this 'cleansing'. the purity zionists, thats what this represents. extremism to the max. if you are so gang ho in removing people from their homes, why don't you start w/the illegal settlements.
you see what I'm saying Annie?
"though I strongly believe you feel Jews who currently live on that land have no right to stay there
what land? the illegal settlements in the west bank thre rightwingers want to expand?"
And yet will you make a peep about all the illegal houses built by Arabs in the Negev, Jerusalem and Israel in general? Or should we play hearts with those vicious Jews (not all settlers are 'right wingers', and not 'all' right wingers want to expand - but again, try and say, "noooo I meant some not all of course) and snakes and ladders with the poor Arabs?
And yet will you make a peep about all the illegal houses built by Arabs in the Negev, Jerusalem and Israel in general?
arvam, don't mix apples w/oranges. we have gone over this. the israeli government rarely issues permits to arabs in these areas. this is an entire other subject than the hundreds of thousands of settlers living illegally in land owner privately by someone else. besides, you know quite well i have addressed this earlier when lyn mentioned it, so this 'won't make a peep' is a diversion.
noooo I meant some not all of course
excuse me for not spelling it out clearer. i meant those right wing political parties that support expansion of illegal settlements, and the people who support/vote for them.
and for heaven's sake quit making stupid words and ideas and attributing them to me, it is just simply rude and an ineffective way of arguing.
i see you are up to your old tricks w/your 'vicious Jews' brohau. yes, racism can be very vicious, even if it is wrapped in pretty words like 'for your safety'.
still evading the hypocrisy of a 'loyalty oath' to zionism vs The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.
tsk tsk, perhaps you could tell us why this is any different than those nazi discrimination laws that just happened to paved a way to a legalized solution. other forumns are discussing this. here is an excerpt:
In April 1933 a law for "reorganization of the civil service” cleansed the civil services from socialists and communists as well as Jews. In late 1933 a law on “criminals by habit” introduced a legal framework for concentration camps. The "Blood Protection Law" of 1935 legalized race discrimination against Jews and gypsies. Later laws and legal decrees legalized the outright extermination of people based on race, belief, sexual preference and other categories (chronological index.)
In all of these cases first the policy was thought up, then legal opinions were established to justify the policies and where needed because some people would not follow the policies without better justifications laws were created to have a legal basis for the policy implementation.
Defendants at the Nuremberg court said they acted within those laws or followed legal orders. The judges did not swallow those justifications as the laws and orders clearly contradicted basic humanitarian ethics.
regarding "first the policy was thought up, then legal opinions were established to justify the policies" don't forget less than ten years ago lukid's charter (still available @ www.knesset.gov.il )
The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.
...
The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.
so what about the people who own this land? what about their expression of the unassailable right? their vital interests ?
the civil rights movement in the US was a watershed movement. we learned all people should have equal rights. maybe you forget you are not more special than other people. israel already has a state while palestinians are still refugees. don't you think it is a little backwards for israel to be trying to expand before palestinians even have a home to call their own?
illegal houses built by Arabs in the Negev, Jerusalem and Israel
are they illegal because israel will not grant a permit, or illegal because they don't even own the land they are building on? big difference. besides, if palestinians had their own state, then israel would have no say over the permits. why should israel be controlling palestinians on their own land?
their is simply no equivalency to your diversion. you are squirming around this issue of 70% of the land of the illegal settlements in the west bank being owned by someone else, on land originally designated to be part of the proposed palestinian state. and certain politicians want to expand in this illegality.
arvam, here are two statements you made after my initial one:
me "i just happen to believe in a Palestinian state in the west bank, on their land."
YOU: "that's where a Palestinian state would be -"
YOU: "though I strongly believe you feel Jews who currently live on that land have no right to stay there"
please explain: what gives a person a 'right' to build a house on someone else's land?
please explain: how it is palestinians can live on the land they own when israelis have settlements on top of the same land?
what gives a person a 'right' to build a house on someone else's land?
i was just wondering if you were playing word games when you said "that's where a Palestinian state would be -"
for example, i own a car but my neighbor has a set of keys and takes it to work every day. however, during the evening between 9 and 11 it is in my driveway and at this time it is available to me. if you were to state 'i believe you should be able to drive your own car', would that really mean, 'i believe you should be able to drive your own car after thew neighbor who doesn't own the car or ask permission commutes with it during the day?"
is that what you mean by being supportive of a palestinian state on palestinian land?
Annie -
"arvam, don't mix apples w/oranges. we have gone over this. the israeli government rarely issues permits to arabs in these areas."
Can you please spell my name properly? If you're doing it out of disrespect, it's rather pathetic.
How about the towns built for the Bedouins? or the non-stop construction in the Arab cities? Wait, you don't know what you're talking about ... again.
"still evading the hypocrisy of a 'loyalty oath' to zionism vs The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel."
Again, yet another reason why I'm getting tired out by these non-stop round n' round we go discussions. I've answered this. You ignored it quite obviously.
"aren't you talking about cleansing the country of anyone who does not affirm a zionist political construct of certain israelis, but not a construct of israels founding?"
Again, yet another reason why I'm getting tired out by these non-stop round n' round we go discussions. You see how I'm repeating myself again and again? This has nothing to do with Zionism ... The Arab minority in Israel does not do any national service whatsoever (neither do most of the Ultra Orthodox Jews, who you have no idea who they are so they're Jews - that's enough for you) and yet get health care benefits and all the benefits. Lieberman wants them all to serve the country, one way or another (be it army for the ultra orthodox, or national service as modern orthodox Jewish girls do for the Arabs). That is what his loyalty is more about ... Ask the Druze in Lieberman's party what he thinks about that.
"please explain: what gives a person a 'right' to build a house on someone else's land? "
So if Israel is the Jewish people's land - as you claim too when you say there should be 2 states, what gives the Arabs a right to build on it? Two rules for two people? And you're calling me racist? Ha, you're quite good.
Throughout this rather boring discussion, you've only proven that you're 'committed' to a Palestinian state with no Jews (bar the extreme leftist Jews probably) while I've said I'd love a state that takes into account the deep scars within both people so they can both SURVIVE after the two states arise. Your 'tactics' of bringing up YB and Likud charters are as 'amazing' as me showing you Hamas and Fatah's charter. Let me guess, someone as smart as you know what they say about an Israeli state?
Debating with you Annie is rather pointless - you're not here to learn or try and find common ground with those who have different opinions but yet want the 'same outcome' as you (ie two states, if that's what you really want though I still don't quite believe you). You're hear to try and act like you know it all (which you don't) or pretend that the Israelis are always the bad guys (which they're not, a lot of the time we are, but the other side is just as bad).
**awaits Annie's response to one or two of my sentences, and then 'ad hominem crutch' comment and then if I'm lucky, 'oh diversion because I'm stubborn' comment**
triple yawn (i think we're on that now)
btw Annie, IF I was a Jew living in the West Bank on land that would be the independent state of Palestine, I wouldn't stay at all. I know some want to, or will try BUT me? NOT in a million years. I know if they all thought like me, it would be yet ANOTHER Arab State which will have no Jews whatsoever but far better your life, wouldn't you say so?
Btw, are you as passionate about the thriving Saudi slave trade? or the fact women have few rights there? Or the issue with Egypt banning a faith (Bahai)? Or Darfur? Just wondering if you care as much as you do about your people in Palestine.
"The Ben Yisrael family was extricated from the city of Raida, after suffering from anti-Semitic attacks and repeated death threats.
A few weeks ago, a grenade was thrown into the courtyard of the family's home in Raida, possibly by al Qaida-affiliated extremists.
Said Ben Yisrael, who heads the Raida Jewish community, and his family are due to take up Israeli citizenship upon their arrival. They will be taken to Beit Shemesh, accompanied by a Jewish Agency team.
There are approximately 280 Jews left today In Yemen, 230 of whom live in Raida in the Omran province, and another 50 Jews living in the capital city of Sana'a."
I'd say in about 10 years time, there will be no Jews in Yemen. Sad considering there were Jews there before there were Muslims ... I wonder where the outcry is ...
avram, i was looking for an old link for another forum and i ran across our first exchange on Bassams last post of 08. here was the first thing you said to me
Annie ... I see you're in the same boat as Nadia. Another hate filled, ignorant 'Zionists' do all wrong, Palestinians do all right, do gooder!
it appears you were trying to paint this broad stroke on me from the beginning, as opposed to me ever stating either of these assertions.
"still evading the hypocrisy of a 'loyalty oath' to zionism vs The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel."
Again, yet another reason why I'm getting tired out by these non-stop round n' round we go discussions. I've answered this. You ignored it quite obviously.
actually, you have not addressed it. you have only addressed the 'service to the country' part of the oath. you say That is what his loyalty is more about.
so instead of addressing the part of the loyalty oath you think it is 'more about', how about addressing the other part.
JTA “Arabs have all their rights in Israel, but they have no right to Eretz Yisrael,” Lieberman said last week at the Herzliya Conference, an annual summit on Israeli state and security.
according to wiki
The term should not be confused officially with the State of Israel, which is a smaller modern political state within its Biblical and historical limits. In Biblical times the term referred to a much wider region, whose exact boundaries are often disputed. In the 20th century, following the birth of Zionism, it specifically denotes the area generally known as "Palestine."
what about this, plus video w/daniel levy
For those not following this story closely, here's the deal: Lieberman's Israel Beiteinu party ran on a platform calling for a loyalty oath in exchange for the rights of citizenship. The phrase 'loyalty oath' isn't something ritualistic but meaningless like America's Pledge of Allegiance, but rather a legal process that would result in Palestinian citizens of Israel getting disenfranchised unless they publicly affirmed their support for Israel as a Jewish State.
isn't that zionism? how can you say This has nothing to do with Zionism ? what is zionism if not a political construct that defines israel as a jewish state. what about israeli citizen's who are for a one state solution? do you strip them of citizenship? is that democracy? i am not advocating for this, but many jews feel this way. many israelis feel this way. the founding of israel was based on all jews, not just zionists.
what about these jews? not all israelis are zionist, not just certain arab israelis.
jpost But Lieberman articulated what some of his supporters couldn't on Sunday night, telling the crowd at the Haifa Theater that "the answer is clear. Without loyalty there can be no citizenship, and those who badmouth us only do it because they have no legitimate response."
so, badmouthing israel is not 'legitimate'? it's my way or the highway? you have not addressed this, even once. how can you accuse me of ignoring something you have yet to address. yes, i hear the part about serving in the military, i don't know what you want me to say. if service is mandatory for citizenship, just make it a requirement. but don't widdle down the citizenship to solely zionist first. then it isn't a democracy. during our vietnam, for the most part once you were drafted, political loyalty could not get you out of serving.
this guy called for excecuting politicians who spoke or met w/the elected representative of palestinians. how is this acceptable. making dialogue w/people is a viable political option, not a sign of disloyalty.
So if Israel is the Jewish people's land - as you claim too when you say there should be 2 states, what gives the Arabs a right to build on it?
israel hasn't defined its borders yet, for a reason. not all of palestine is for israel, that was never the intention. i think you are putting the cart before the horse. once there are two states then it would make sense if jews don't build and expand in the palestinian state, the same would apply to palestinians inside israel's borders. but since their are no borders at present we have a people without citizenship, what are they supposed to do, indefinitely? israel does not issue permits, hardly any for palestinians to even build on their own land. and yes, we have already covered this. i am not asking for two rules for two people. this is what israel does presently, obviously. because there are all those people living in limbo occupation.
IF I was a Jew living in the West Bank on land that would be the independent state of Palestine, I wouldn't stay at all.
well then i don't see why you are defending wrt west bank illegal settlers. i am very warmed you would say this, however i can't quite understand how and why you consider yourself a rightwing zionist, because the rightwing parties don't seem to align w/you. i find it a touch confusing.
you're not here to learn or try and find common ground with those who have different opinions but yet want the 'same outcome' as you (ie two states, if that's what you really want though I still don't quite believe you). You're hear to try and act like you know it all
i'm just going to skip wrt the ad hominem in this remark and cut to the chase. my support of a 2 state solution is very much rooted in finding a common ground. i can't expect everyone to be programmed like me, as an american where all people just live together and assimilate eventually. if jews really want a state for themselves, i respect this, which is different than being a zionist (who for the most part i also respect, except the extremists). i just find it completely untenable as a result of jews needing a homeland millions of these previous inhabitants and their descendants continue to live without a country.
i simply cannot emphasize how much i think this would alleviate the stress of the situation. plus, it seems fair. most people on the globe have countries. so while i can very much appreciate you don't believe me, that i think the 2 state solution is viable, i think the alternative (a one state solution) would be simply to unfathomable at this point in time. truly, i think this. (although as an ideal, well, it is more american , the melting pot concept, and i'm american) but really, i can be flexible. i really do want to find a way. but i don't think the continued moving of goalposts is conducive to resolution. and certainly i think the expansion of settlements (the extreme rightwing approach) exacerbates the situation, and makes it worse like rubbing salt on old wounds.
listen, i am perfectly willing to perceive you as having good intentions. it does not further my perceptions of the situation to assume yours are bad or mean spirited and i have said this before. it doesn't ever serve one to make assumptions grounded in the idea your adversary is just out to screw you. however, it is always benefivial to keep your eyes open and look at events without the pleas of innocents. certainly many politicians have devious intentions (both palestinians and israelis).
so you can go ahead and make claims about who i am, and my intentions. it only reflects on you.
sorry again for the wrong spelling avram, it was unintentional.
now lyn, i always spell her name wrong, on purpose! ;)
I know if they all thought like me, it would be yet ANOTHER Arab State which will have no Jews whatsoever but far better your life
well, it only stands to reason avram, that if israelis quit expanding settlements on palestinian land designated for a palestinian state, like thew west bank. and the west bank became the palestinian state it would be 'ANOTHER Arab State which will have no Jews whatsoever but far better your life', and not just my life, but israelis lives too, and especially palestinian lives. i mean why wouldn't a palestinian state be an arab state? it would after all be outside the borders of israel, assuming israel ever defines its friggin borders that is, as opposed to say Eretz Yisrael, which consumes the entire holy land of palestine.
Btw, are you as passionate about the thriving Saudi slave trade?
we also have a thriving sex trade in this country. i watched a program about it on msnbc the other night.
hideous. would you like a list of all the blogs i comment on? do you imagine i don't have concerns for other injustices? if you were a saudi slave trader we would be having a different conversation all together. you aren't. you are a self described right wing israeli zionist. their policies suck. it is good to know you don't ascribe to all of them, like living in the west bank.
" support for Israel as a Jewish State.
isn't that zionism? how can you say This has nothing to do with Zionism ?"
No this is perhaps a 'form' of Zionism. But to insinuate that his Zionism represents everyone's Zionism is like me saying that your ideology is like Hamas's because you're an Arab.
If his 'loyalty' was related more to the army/national service (as I said), then I probably would have voted to him as I think it's sick that almost 1 million Arabs and 300-500k Jews don't do the Army/national service. But I don't like the fact he wants them to salute the flag (I don't think that is relevant to 'loyalty') or sing the national anthem (which talks about the Jewish soul). I have problems with that - I don't think it's 'racist', I think it's disrespectful and that's not how you improve a country. Is that enough of an answer?
"so, badmouthing israel is not 'legitimate'? it's my way or the highway? "
Why are you using what he says, a man who probably WON'T be in the coalition, as what I or any Israeli goes by? I don't have a problem if you criticize Israel when she f*cks up (as she does a lot) against her neighbors or her own. But when it becomes a 'Israel does all wrong, and she's the only reason for the problem here' - that's when I get rather defensive and think the 'hatred' is motivated by something far deeper.
"well then i don't see why you are defending wrt west bank illegal settlers. i am very warmed you would say this, however i can't quite understand how and why you consider yourself a rightwing zionist, because the rightwing parties don't seem to align w/you."
Many MANY settlers would leave without a problem IF they needed to - as most of the Gaza settlers did (only a few caused issues). I think if Jews want to stay in Palestine, it's their choice if the Fatah/Hamas govt accepts it. I wouldn't do it but they're human beings, let them decide.
You shouldn't be confused b/c I'm a 'zionist' - perhaps b/c I'm a right winger (though I'm sure I've said 'security' over 'settlements' in conversations with you).
"if jews really want a state for themselves, i respect this, which is different than being a zionist "
You see, now I understand you better. You have a (not an insult) narrow minded interpretation of Zionism. They are 'Zionists' who believe in a unilateral state. They are 'Zionists' who believe in 2 states for 2 people. They are 'Zionists' who believe in a state until the Jordan. You have 'lumped' us into one BIG group - It would be like me saying I don't like Islam b/c of Hamas's interpretation of it.
Example: Avram believes Zionism = the right of the Jews to have a homeland.
You said, "if jews really want a state for themselves, i respect this"
... Get my point? (No, I'm not saying you're a Zionist, don't get all worried now).
I only mentioned the Saudi slave trade because I find so many pro-Palestinian posters to have very little 'know' of anything else in this region bar this. And I know about the 'thriving sex trade' - we also have that issue here to a degree ... Sickening.
It would be like me saying I don't like Islam b/c of Hamas's interpretation of it.
it would really be helpful avram if you could site something i specifically said to bolster your argument, because i have not ever said i don't like judaism or zionism because of the extreme fanatical zionists.
You have 'lumped' us into one BIG group
seriously, cease w/these allegations. i am extremely aware not all zionists can be lumped into one category, i have refuted your accusations about what i do and do not think repeatedly. i am perfectly capable of distinguishing between fanatics and extremists and i have already told you i have zionist friends, i support jstreet (zionists for the most part). in one form or another for some reason you continue w/this format, no different than this: I don't have time to go through 80 odd posts and find where you DID say you don't trust (or believe) Zionists.
so you can either get it and move on, or you can continue to focus on your (unsupported) fantasies about who i am and what i think.
moving right along. for some reason you keep addressing the character of the loyalty oath that means something to you, and nothing to me.
wiki zionism
Zionism is the international Jewish political movement that originally supported the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine, after two millennia of exile. The area is the Jewish Biblical homeland, called the Land of Israel (Hebrew: Eretz Yisra'el). Since the creation of Israel, the Zionist movement continues primarily as support for the modern state of Israel.
i'm going to assume this is correct. this is my reference.
No this is perhaps a 'form' of Zionism.
great, well i will be addressing, for the sake of this conversation, THIS FORM of zionism, zionism as a political movement. it is a political point of view. i have offered links to liebermans words, and the words of others the oath includes loyalty to this political movement.
so, with this in mind, will you please explain to me (and it is not necessary whether you agree, or disagree w/this oath to answer the question) how threatening to dissolve ones israeli citizenship without swearing an oath to this political point of view, is different than the 1935 law i referenced earlier?
I think it's disrespectful and that's not how you improve a country. Is that enough of an answer?
not quite, because you addressed prayer in scholl and pledging allegiance to the flag, and military service, but not my question which is more in line w/acknowledging the underlying fascist implications of the oath. wrt seeks unity by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or a race. Fascist movements promote violent conflict between nations, political factions, and races as part of a social Darwinist view that conflict between these groups is natural and a part of evolution. Fascist governments permanently forbid and suppress all criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement
Avram believes Zionism = the right of the Jews to have a homeland.
yes, i totally get this, i have no problem with this, it is perfectly reasonable, as every single person should be able to call some country home, and have a homeland. and zionism in itself is not the topic i care to address as i feel it is irrelevant to the question i am asking which is more akin to "why should anyone be threatened w/having their citizenship revoked if they do not swear loyalty to a particular frame of mind, or political movement?" if israel is a home for jews, one would have to lump all jews into a common mental attitude, or frame of mind, to produce these results..and isn't that requiring all jews to be zionists, requiring the political loyalty to the zionist movement as be the underlying requirement to call israel their homeland, instead of just being jewish?
in that case, one could be a zionist and not a jew for citizenship, no? in fact i hear many russians w/citizenship are not jewish at all.
I think if Jews want to stay in Palestine, it's their choice if the Fatah/Hamas govt accepts it.
and if a palestinian government didn't accept it, you would respect that? or do you still think it would be up to the illegal settler to decide?
you see avram, this is why i prefer the idea of countries being for all the citizens inside of it. but given that israel is not allowing most palestinians citizenship, then it stands to reason the future state of palestine would have the same option. and by expanding the settlements (100,000's since bush's closed eyes presidency) and likely 100,000's more between now and whenever a propased P state becomes a reality) if all those illegal expanders get to remain, what would be the point of having a P state at all? w/separate roads and all, so jim crow? and all those people having israeli citizenship. this seems totally illogical. and the rightwing extremist parties, they support this.
would the political party in power get to decide what version of zionist loyalty people would have to take an oath towards?
ps, i read a rather interesting review of a yale book by Rachel Shabi an israeli/iraqi jew. Not the Enemy Israel's Jews from Arab Lands
In this remarkable, page-turning book, Rachel Shabi lays bare the painful division within Israeli society between Ashkenazi Jews, whose families come from Eastern Europe, and Sephardic or Mizrahi Jews, who come from the Arab countries of the Middle East. Herself from an Iraqi Jewish family, Shabi explores the history of this relationship, tracing it back to the first days of the new state of Israel. In a society desperate to identify itself with Europe, immigrants who spoke Arabic and followed Middle Eastern customs were seen as inferior; David Ben Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, famously described them as lacking the most elementary knowledge.Sixty years later, Mizrahis are still much less successful than Ashkenazis, condemned, often, to substandard education, low-quality housing and mockery for their accents, tastes and lifestyles. Through a combination of archival research and personal interviews, Shabi brings to light the prejudices that permeate Israeli society and demonstrates how they affect Mizrahi lives and hopes. Even more importantly, she argues that the treatment meted out to Mizrahis reflects a wider Israeli rejection of the Middle East and its culture, a rejection that makes it impossible for Israel ever to become integrated within its own region.
nyt
To many here, it is increasingly likely that Mr. Netanyahu’s government will consist exclusively of parties from the right, which oppose a Palestinian state and favor expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank, making it much harder for him to exercise his pragmatic penchant.
"Rachel Shabi"
She's been ripped to shreds already by quite a few prominent Mizrachim - there is truth to what she says however. There was issues in the 1950s, and I still see them today (now the Ethiopians have the brunt of these issues sadly it seems). At least this also debunks the myth that Israle was a 'European state' when most of her population until the 1990s was of 'Arabic' origin. For more:
http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.com/2009/02/not-enemy-rachel-shabis-book-on-ethnic.html
"seriously, cease w/these allegations"
Why is it allegations when you said, "isn't that zionism?" (quoting you). You are defining Zionism by Wiki - that wouldn't stand in any university. How about I give you a book title with 'Essays on Zionism' by the 'main thinkers' of the Zionist movement (Ahad Ha'am, Herzl, Jabotinksy, Rav Kook, Buber etc) and you'll see how diverse the movement really was (and even their goals were totally different).
""why should anyone be threatened w/having their citizenship revoked if they do not swear loyalty to a particular frame of mind, or political movement?""
I don't think this is the case, nor will it get to this. But if you were an Israeli, I'm 100% positive you'd be as irked with the continual help offered to Palestinian extremists by Israeli Arabs and their inability to do national service etc. Again, this division has more to do with the fact that Jews/Druze/Christians will serve the country in one way or another, Arabs will not ... I don't think dissolving citizenship is the right thing to do (and you shoudln't be looking at me as Liberman's 'answer book' - or moral compass) but I don't think betraying your counry is right either.
"if israel is a home for jews, one would have to lump all jews into a common mental attitude, or frame of mind, to produce these results..and isn't that requiring all jews to be zionists, requiring the political loyalty to the zionist movement as be the underlying requirement to call israel their homeland, instead of just being jewish?"
No, loyalty to ISRAEL. Haven't you ever heard the joke, 2 Jews, 3 opinions? we never agree on anything - be it Zionism or whatever. But if you're living here, loyalty to the country is something we can agree on - we might not agree with her policies etc but that doesn't mean we're not 'loyal' to her.
"and if a palestinian government didn't accept it, you would respect that? or do you still think it would be up to the illegal settler to decide?"
So be it - I won't respect it just like I don't respect the ethnic cleansing of Arab Jewry in the last 50 years but I'll understand it. They don't want Jews there, their country, their rules. I don't see how you'd think the 'illegal settler' would have any way to decide if it's an independent Palestinian state.
"but given that israel is not allowing most palestinians citizenship"
Those in annexed territores were offered it (Golan Druze refused, most of East Jerusalem arabs have it) ... That's why the West Bank and Gaza have lawyas been problematic.
"in fact i hear many russians w/citizenship are not jewish at all."
I don't think 'most' is a fair word here. There are a lot definitely. This is due to the Law of Return going by Hitler's definition ...
"nyt"
That's why he's pushing for a Kadima-Labor-Likud spine?
I don't think 'most' is a fair word here. There are a lot definitely.
that is why i used the word 'many', it doesn't mean most.
Why is it allegations when you said, "isn't that zionism?"
it wasn't. i referred to this statement You have 'lumped' us into one BIG group . albeit zionism means different things to different people, so in that sense i very much understand there are many different kinds of zionists, but here is what i don't understand, and maybe you can help me understand it. are there any zionists that do not believe israel should be , or is, a jewish state? are there any zionists who do not believe jews need there own distinct homeland? (as opposed to making their individual homeland where ever their home is, whether in the US, or israel, or africa?
the reason i ask this is my impression of zionism, is that it is territorial in nature. whereas judaism is not, it is cultural. the culture is varied but not by hebrew nature not nationalistic. whereas the oath is nationalistic in a secular zionist way, at least from the parts i copied upthread, "support for Israel as a Jewish State." therefore it demands that the jews within it, who may interpret their culture in a non nationalistic or non zionist way, well, it fuses judaism w/zionism. it also determines israel to be a jewish state, before defining the borders of that state, and the concerns for citizens of that state who aren't jewish, or jewish citizens who may regard israel as their homeland, but not exclusively so, like citizens who respect a more traditional sense of what israel was intended to be as in the balfore agreement. so it seems it is putting the cart before the horse w/regards to all of the citizens. israels has christian and russian (ex) citizens who aren't jewish, but they are presumably accepted because they are zionist?
so how is making a nationalistic oath confirming, not a constitution or the declaration of state, but instead a nationalistic oath of ethnicity of a culture that some do not define as nationalistic?
i know it seems confusing, but just to give you an example.. what if americans were required to make a loyalty oath to america as being a multi religious multi ethnic nation?
it is, right? but christians don't think it is. they think it is a christian nation. lots of red staters don't even like the idea we have hispanics here. can you imagine making them take an oath this was as much their nation as some recent immigrant from mexico in the last 10 years? what if they didn't want to take the oath, and the red stater who's family had been here since the 17th century was threatened w/loosing his citizenship?
furthermore, what if you believed israels 'defense' wasn't defense at all, but instead made it unsafer. what if you thought the safety of israel was dependent of the peace provided towards or with palestinians, and you know joining the idf was going to make you kill palestinians, and danger israel. what if you had to take an oath that would lead to something you thought was immoral and would only lead to the destruction of your country?
i don't think americans would like it if we found out we would be stripped of our citizenship if we refused to say the pledge of allegiance. in fact we are protected by our first ammendment from having to make such oaths.
it sets a dangerous precedent and is unamerican.
No, loyalty to ISRAEL
i should have been clearer, the oath, according to the reports i sited was loyalty to ISRAEL as a jewish state. i think israel should figure out its borders first, before it starts making oaths about who its citizens are within those borders.
"nyt"
That's why he's pushing for a Kadima-Labor-Likud spine?
Netanyahu? or the reporter?
i don't see the nyt reporter as 'pushing', i thought is was reporting rather accurately, at least according to the report i heard last night of tipzi not joining him. as for Netanyahu, maybe he ought to rethink his radical policies if he is serious about getting moderate thinkers to support him. israel is headed on a collision course no amount of propaganda can alleviate..
"No, loyalty to ISRAEL
i should have been clearer, the oath, according to the reports i sited was loyalty to ISRAEL as a jewish state. i think israel should figure out its borders first, before it starts making oaths about who its citizens are within those borders."
I don't think the 'Jewish State' thing is necessary - if you're loyal to Israel (but yes, borders need to be defined, agreed), you won't pull the stunts we see here far too often by various parts of our minority.
"i thought is was reporting rather accurately, at least according to the report i heard last night of tipzi not joining him."
'Reporting accurately' and yet Bibi, publically, has said he wants a 'broad' coalition with Livni and Barak. So how is that, and I quote, "increasingly likely that Mr. Netanyahu’s government will consist exclusively of parties from the right". If Tzippi and Barak join, which I have a feeling they may balk for a chance at another election in 1-2 years time, then it's the government every wants (bar Hamas ... I do find it odd you go on and on about loyalty, and not a peep about the Fatah AND Hamas Charters which talk about the destruction of Israel).
"as for Netanyahu, maybe he ought to rethink his radical policies if he is serious about getting moderate thinkers to support him. israel is headed on a collision course no amount of propaganda can alleviate.."
you mean economic peace? that's 'radical'?
your last sentence perhaps again illustrates how incapable you are of seeing the 'grey' areas. From defining Zionism by one definition (even when that eliminates the millions of left wing Zionist Jews who believe in a two state solution by the green line etc) to not once talking about the issues on the other side that are stalling peace or a solution for both nations. Let's talk about their side - you seem to be such an expert on what's wrong within Israeli society (plenty) and how we treat our neighbors so badly (aye, we do a lot) - what about the Palestinians? Are they angels here?
btw, Israel has been on this collison course for decades ... When we hit the asteroid, I'll let you know.
you mean economic peace? that's 'radical'
i mean no state for palestinians and expanded settlements. i think that is what livni objected to also.
Bibi, publically, has said he wants a 'broad' coalition with Livni and Barak.
yes, well obama says he wants bi partisan support on his plans, why don't you see how that is working out! a bunch of republicans and fox news are spreading rumors about succeeding from the nation! hey, when the US invaded iraq they wanted iraqi support. it means nothing what someone alleges regarding a broad coalition if their policies remain their policies and they haven't shown an ounce of benf=ding. actually that is wrong, he did seem quite willing to bend to liebmenns racist sounding oath.
So how is that, and I quote, "increasingly likely that Mr. Netanyahu’s government will consist exclusively of parties from the right".
to be fair, the quote was To many here, it is increasingly likely
because....so far rumor has it the kadima and labor says they are forming an opposition....which means the chances, according to their own words, means there is an 'increase' in the liklihood of them not joining Netanyahu. (as opposed to livni coming out of the meeting saying she was likely to join, them there would have been an increase she would join) which doesn't mean the situation might reverse. it just means that people who are going to assume the words of the livni match the actions (some people actually believe politicians) think the liklihood is increasing Netanyahu will have to get the votes somewhere else. well, he could always say 'oh my, i don't want to be associated w/these rabid rightwingers who i happene to agree with about so many things, therefore i will refuse to appraoch them and give up this opportunity to be prez". highly unlikely. therefore absent kadima and labor (according to there own statements) To many here, it is increasingly likely he will get the support from the rabid wacko zionist on the extreme right.
but naturally he would rather appear moderate. it just that he doesn't want to act in moderation. hey, i have an idea..how about israel doesn't have a state, how about they just have economic peace. sound moderate? i didn't think so.
the right will give him the votes he needs to form the government. maybe. but i really don't know, she will probably cave and israel will keep on keepin on thwarting peace via allowing palestinians refugees to actually have a state like almost everybody else on the friggin globe.
if you're loyal to Israel ...you won't pull the stunts we see here far too often by various parts of our minority
what kinds of dissent are you objecting to in your democracy? don't you know loyalty comes in many forms? do you have any idea how many times i have been accused of being anti american! one persons loyalty is anothers dissent. that is why we have the first amendment. it is also why, i presume, service in our military and people taking the oath of office make an oath to our constitution.
this is why it is putting the cart before the horse to initiate a loyalty oath to something as yet undefined. maybe they should take an oath to the declaration of state, with all its nebulousness. actually i shouldn't say that, it is actually very clear and inclusive. it even includes people who pull stunts!
I don't think the 'Jewish State' thing is necessary -
that is good to hear from you personally, but don't you find it rather odd so far there has been no definitive description of this oath? anyway, what you do or do not think is necessary is rather beside the point, or my question. what is relevant is what this proposed oath actually entails.
and not a peep about the Fatah AND Hamas Charters which talk about the destruction of Israel
wasn't that israel's (unofficial) position wrt the prior set up in palestine. or do you believe all those palestinians just 'depopulated' and 'disserted' and 'abandon' their homes? (this is the lingo used to describe tsuba, i was reading about it yesterday).
Let's talk about their side
i can totally understand why you would want to change the subject of israels rabid right zionists and your potentially future rabidly expansionist rightwing zionist government policies.
israel is headed on a collision course no amount of propaganda can alleviate..
your last sentence perhaps again illustrates how incapable you are of seeing the 'grey' areas.
you mean the 'grey area' where palestinians will find future happiness without their own state thru economic peace? lol. you crack me up.
even when that eliminates the millions of left wing Zionist Jews who believe in a two state solution by the green line etc
excuse me? how. by all means explain to me how left wing Zionist Jews who believe in a two state solution by the green line don't support the reestablishment of israel as a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine.
"i mean no state for palestinians and expanded settlements."
Sadat, 1979.
Madrid, 1991.
Wye, 1996.
I think those 3 events, and every war (but '82) should lead you to re-consider your thesis.
"to assume the words of the livni match the actions "
As you said, politicians. She's trying to get as much as possible for her party - one way or another. Time will tell but she'll just be another hypocrite if she refuses as she was blabbing on about unity before the election 'once kadima wins'.
"To many here, it is increasingly likely he will get the support from the rabid wacko zionist on the extreme right"
How many of these rabid wacko zionists do you think live in Israel?
"israel will keep on keepin on thwarting peace"
And there you go again, 100% blame on Israel ... I've yet to see you say one thing about the other side 'thwarting' peace. Oh well ...
"what kinds of dissent are you objecting to in your democracy?"
It's quite obvious, no? Helping suicide bombers. Selling weapons to Hamas (Jews have been caught doing this, they'll rot in jail for a long time). Running over Israelis with a bulldozer. Killing 15 year olds studying in a Yeshiva. That is what pisses off Israelis. Everyone has a reason to be angry at the state, one way or another ... it's just most of us (including most Israeli Arabs) won't find a way to get people killed because of it.
"but don't you find it rather odd so far there has been no definitive description of this oath? "
Let me think. I'm a politician. Israeli public opinion is shifting to the right. The 3 Jerusalem attacks perpetrated by Israeli Arabs are fresh in their mind. They're pissed off with Lebanon/Gaza still. How do you sell them a party? I very much doubt you'll see this loyalty oath, and if it is, it will be more about the army/national service (as I said) and how that relates to your status/tax exemption etc.
"wasn't that israel's (unofficial) position wrt the prior set up in palestine"
I think it was partially the Irgun's stance (ie, don't shoot at us, we leave you alone. Example: Abu Ghosh. Fire at us, we'll say good bye to your village), partially the Benny Morris stance - ie win the war and ensure Israel survives.
Take any historian that's not biased one way or another, he'll tell you Arabs were kicked off their land and others deserted. The exact split we'll never know (ie %).
"Let's talk about their side
i can totally understand why you would want to change the subject of israels rabid right zionists and your potentially future rabidly expansionist rightwing zionist government policies."
Why is it that I'm not surprised by this? Oh well, at least you put the word rabid twice in one sentence. Well done.
"you mean the 'grey area' where palestinians will find future happiness without their own state thru economic peace? lol. you crack me up."
No, but if we offer 'em a state and don't help them economically (ie ensure the money isn't spent on Hamas's favorite past time), they won't be happy either ...
"by all means explain to me how left wing Zionist Jews who believe in a two state solution by the green line don't support the reestablishment of israel as a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine."
Going by your 'quote', "The area is the Jewish Biblical homeland, called the Land of Israel". Do you know how big that land mass is?
This is the 102nd post in this thread - As I said earlier, we're going in circles and on and on.
So how about we wrap it up with your closing argument and what you see happening in the next 10 years. I'll respond to balance it out as our loyal readers should understand that you don't like to discuss the issues of Hamas/Fatah in this conflict (for what reason, that's between you and you) and the fact that both nations screwed each other non-stop, with help from the 'impartial' West & the 'we love the Palestinians' Arab world.
your last sentence perhaps again illustrates how incapable you are of seeing the 'grey' areas.
"you mean the 'grey area' where palestinians will find future happiness without their own state thru economic peace?
No, but if we offer 'em a state and don't help them economically (ie ensure the money isn't spent on Hamas's favorite past time), they won't be happy either ...
bib isn't offering them a state, none of the extremists right are. don't dodge the issue.
.....
your last sentence perhaps again illustrates how incapable you are of seeing the 'grey' areas. From defining Zionism by one definition (even when that eliminates the millions of left wing Zionist Jews who believe in a two state solution by the green line etc)
by all means explain to me how left wing Zionist Jews who believe in a two state solution by the green line don't support the reestablishment of israel as a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine.
Going by your 'quote',
you are dodging again,' my quote' did not define zionism solely in terms of the biblical proportions of 'greater israel'. my 'quote' from wiki, the part i used, again..defined zionism AS
Zionism is the international Jewish political movement that originally supported the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine, after two millennia of exile. The area is the Jewish Biblical homeland, called the Land of Israel (Hebrew: Eretz Yisra'el). Since the creation of Israel, the Zionist movement continues primarily as support for the modern state of Israel.
their are TWO options in this quote. one of them addresses the modern state of israel w/the 'primarily' (grey area) caveat. the other addresses 'Eretz Yisra'el'. within the 'primarily' caveat there is plenty of room for those who support the green line.
the point here, is israelis can't seem to decide within themselves how much they support expansion, which i suppose is the whole point of not having defining borders. this is why having an oath being loyal to 'the state of israel', when israelis are still arguing what that means. so you did not answer me wrt your accusation. explain to me how left wing Zionist Jews who believe in a two state solution by the green line don't support the reestablishment of israel as a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine.
you called me incapable of seeing these distinctions, this is your ammunition, a mere one of your latest ad hominems for evading acknowledging the dangerous radical road israel is on. your definitions of 'stunts' regarding what this oath is for, you should know perfectly well 'loyalty to israel' is loosely worded and subject to interpretation. what about the audacity to show up and protest against israeli genocial approach to palestinians? some might consider that disloyal.
you mean economic peace? that's 'radical'
i mean no state for palestinians and expanded settlements."
Sadat, 1979.
Madrid, 1991.
Wye, 1996.
divert, your specialty.
So how about we wrap it up with your closing argument
how about you keep on keepin on evading the radical road israel is on, keep pretending the millions of people living under a brutal occupation for going on 60 years is all happening because israel is 'responding' to threats, and never the cause of offense but always 'responding' top it off w/some strawman, a few ad hominems, and then i will balance it out w/some reality, once again.
Take any historian that's not biased one way or another, he'll tell you Arabs were kicked off their land and others deserted.
then he would be liars, because everybody knows lots of palestinians were murdered so israel could make a state, then and now. they weren't all kicked off or 'deserted' (abandoned my ass).
How many of these rabid wacko zionists do you think live in Israel?
what difference does it make? just enough to have a rabid wacko zionist agenda of expanding illegal settlement that thwart peace and prevent a palestinian state from ever happening.
and the fact that both nations screwed each other non-stop
what planet are you on? do not equate the militarized state of israel w/an occupied people living in poverty on rations of water and searches and humiliation. they are not a friggin nation avram. so don't say both nations. if they had a nation, we would not be discussing this. don't even pretend they were offered a soveriegn nation, they weren't. that's why your president was murdered.
I think those 3 events, and every war (but '82) should lead you to re-consider your thesis.
BTW, IN CASE I HAVE NOT MADE MYSELF CLEAR, no matter how much i reconsider, and i don't care how many excuses you come up with, no amoiunt of reconsidering will make it reasonable to accept palestinians have no right to a country, and it is never ok to thumb your nose at illegalities like expanding illegal settlements on other peoples private property.
it is extreme policy, not only bordering on fanaticism, but fanatical.
I think it was partially the Irgun's stance (ie, don't shoot at us, we leave you alone. Example: Abu Ghosh. Fire at us, we'll say good bye to your village), partially the Benny Morris stance - ie win the war and ensure Israel survives.
oh spare us this drivel. quit framing everything like israel is always responding. no way no how was the policy to allow palestinians to live in their homes on the proposed land for an israeli state. if there was link to it. link to the official policy that said unless palestinians shoot first they are all allowed to stay put. or by all means point us in the direction of the big slap down Irgun received by stirring the ant pile to ensure all those hundreds of villages got 'depopulated'. do not pretend the only way israel got a state was to effectively 'depopulate' large swaths of land from the original populace. it is still going on, and it is criminal. i'm tired of these excuses that require large doses of unreality to assume palestinians, unlike everyone else on the planet are for the most part regular people who want regular freedoms and regular homes and regular rights, and israel, like all colonizers, seek to expand their land to encompass as much of the natural resources (like the water in the WB, and the oil reserves off gaza's coast).
lets not pretend the illegal settlements on palestinian land are a result of palestinians 'shooting first'. that is not the case now, nor was it ever the case, it is just excuses.
never, never do you consider palestinian illegal actions, be it the suicide bombings, or rocket attacks, never do you accept they in fact could be retaliating. obviously the humiliating conditions and abuses lead to retaliatory actions. you expect others to be pacified while your militaristic nationalism beefed up w/billions of war funds for hightech weapon systems and all that goes along with it, is to be viewed as somehow a necessity born out of reaction.
the word is in on what you inplied was inaccurately reported ""increasingly likely that Mr. Netanyahu’s government will consist exclusively of parties from the right". "
Netanyahu fails in last-ditch bid for broad coalition
and do you want to hear his excuse???
Livni wanted Netanyahu to commit to the two-state principle. But the Maariv newspaper pointed out that the Likud leader knows all too well that "if he comes out with such a declaration at this time, his natural partners on the right will grumble, mutter something about betrayal and leave."
so it appears bibi, who claims he wants a broad coalition and a unity governemt is 'caught' between his radical zionist policies, and his natural partners in the radical zionist rightwing, and...livni, the moderate middle who is willing to offer the palestinioans a state. and what does he do? well, he sides w/the right of course. here's the thing any first grader can figure out. IF HE REALLY WANTED A UNITY GOVERNEMNT W/KADIMA, he would have plenty of votes so that it would not matter if " his natural partners on the right will grumble, mutter something about betrayal and leave."
offering to accept your opponent surrendering to your radical agenda is not much of an offer.
"Before and after the elections I promised to act for a unity government and I was willing to make important concessions," Netanyahu said after his talks with Livni, adding that he had been willing to give Kadima the foreign affairs, defence and finance portfolios.
he's willing to bend over backwards about everything except his radical zionist fanatical position wrt illegal settlements and denying palestinians a state on their own land. geee, how ungenerous of him.
With a right-wing coalition now a strong probability, there are fears it would torpedo a Middle East peace process that is already in virtual limbo.
hmm, torpedo? hjow is that so different than 'collision coarse'? maybe you should write the AFP and tell them they cannot see the 'grey areas'.
i skipped an important word, now inserted:
i'm tired of these excuses that require large doses of unreality to assume palestinians, unlike everyone else on the planet are for the most part "NOT" regular people who want regular freedoms and regular homes and regular rights
Annie ... After trying to read all your posts, I feel sorry for you.
Examples:
"no amoiunt of reconsidering will make it reasonable to accept palestinians have no right to a country,"
Who said that? Have you snapped mentally? I said a FEW times on this thread, I am for two states.
"Take any historian that's not biased one way or another, he'll tell you Arabs were kicked off their land and others deserted.
"then he would be liars, because everybody knows lots of palestinians were murdered so israel could make a state"
Yes, many Arabs and Jews were killed in the '48 war. Many Arabs lost their homes, as I said. Many left, as the British and Arab historians attest to. No one denied this. They're not 'liars' because they see the 'whole' event, not only one side's story through narrow eyes.
You're a smart girl, you have made me think throughout this long winded conversation. I do honestly feel sorry for you* and only wish you the best.
*Call it crutch, or respond with 'divert' (it's sad you cannot condemn Hamas but alas, you 'want 2 states' so I guess you're my 'ally') or 'rabid' (your new favorite word).
Who said that? Have you snapped mentally? I said a FEW times on this thread, I am for two states.
avram, did you forget we are discussing a subject? not eachother? i do believe it is the right wing extremist fanatical racist zionists policies that do not accommodate for a palestinian state, that is who 'said that'. we are discussing your government, not you personally. at least i am, you seem to have found your nitch focusing in on the ad homimen strawmen.
perhaps if you want to make this personally you can elaborate why it is you consider yourself a right wing zionist, and defend the right wing bib, but claim to be for 2 states. but that is not really the point, i am talking about israel's radical policies, not yours.
(it's sad you cannot condemn Hamas
i just referred to 'palestinian illegal actions' in the last post. this request for my personal condemnation is an old tired game on the internet , so i will go ahead and ignore this tactic as it's stupid and beneath you.
if you care to condemn hamas (again), just do it. feel lucky i don't refer to israel as a militaristic terrorist state. i am being polite.
you have made me think throughout this long winded conversation
i am glad of that. last night i attended a meeting of a local pro palestinian peace group i have been having exchanges w/on the internet mostly thru being on their email list. it was rather amazing in that these women have been plugging away for over 15 years on their little grassroots fundraising. i really didn't know what to expect. what do palestinian activists look like?
one of them had a little white bun on the top of her head. they looked like a knitting group. i was the youngest one there. the 'mentor' of the group leader, she just died in england at the age of 87
Esme Sully, died last week at the age of 87.
She was passionate about Palestine, and it was her who first got me fired up to DO something, way back in 1976, when I first met her. I had been interested and sympathetic towards the Palestinains since the 1950s, but did not start to be active until I met Esme and her daughter Belinda....
She continued to send me magazines about Palestine when I came to America, even though all the information was available on the Internet!
She sent me the article on Ya'ir Hilu, one of the 12th grade Refuseniks, and I surfed the Internet to find out more about him, stumbling on JVP, and JVAO in the process, and have never looked back.
At the tender age of 81, Esme decided to go out to Palestine to lie in front of bulldozers to stop them destroying Palestinian homes. She said she had had a good life, her husband had passed away, her children were now grown-up and off her hands, most of her life was behind her, so if they killed her it would be no big deal. Off she went, and gave the IDF soldiers hell, giving them all a piece of her mind! Ironically, Rachel Corrie was killed soon afterwards.
Since then she has been my constant cheer leader, writing passionate letters and giving me support for my Palestinian work in place of my own family in England who hold my work for Palestine in contempt. She was a constant encouragement, and I shall sorely miss her.
what amazes me is the intense opposition even a group (of very few ladies) get from aipac! they get harassed for having there little booth at the county fair. the events they plan are for anywhere from 30 to 100 people. this is the state of activism in little communities all over the US for a palestinian state. these women are all for the most part jewish. they work and align w/jvp (jewish voices for peace) over in Berkley, and they will never give up. so if you are an ally avram, and really want to improve the situation, don't support right wing political groups, because the situation as it stands in untenable, and becoimes moreso every day.
the last event they held was at a local (my small town) presbitarian church. the preacher along w/members of their congregation go every year to the WB, and work on the olive groves, planting trees and tending them. the news was just announced at the meeting last night that this preacher was so mad becuase he just heard israel pulled up all the trees they planted last year. their is some law of israels that says if the orchards lay barren for a certain amount of time the land can be confiscated or spmething. so they go work the land because many of the inhabitants no longer have access to it. and then every year israel pulls them up again.
what hope do these people have? and when people have no hope what is their motivation to keep on going. and this is how you get suicide bombers avram, by taking peoples hope away. this is what normal people all over the world think. israel has gotten its way for a long long time and nothing has improved. it is time to do it another way now.
from Haaretz:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has relayed messages to Israel in the past week expressing anger at obstacles Israel is placing to the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip. A leading political source in Jerusalem noted that senior Clinton aides have made it clear that the matter will be central to Clinton's planned visit to Israel next Tuesday.
Ahead of Clinton's visit, special U.S. envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell is expected to issue a sharply worded protest on the same matter when he arrives here Thursday.
"Israel is not making enough effort to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza," senior U.S. officials told Israeli counterparts last week, and reiterated Washington's view by saying that "the U.S. expects Israel to meet its commitments on this matter."
and then afterward, just like the olive trees, israel will bomb gaza again. (first they will get 'intellegence' that 'confirms' hamas 'intends' to 'kidnap an idf' which will justify killing a bunch of palestinains, and then the rockets will resume, and then israel will 'respond' to the rockets..and there we go again..or maybe they will have a ceasefire so israel can plan and prepare for their next war).
and you are sorry for me? frankly i think you have some people closer to home to direct your sorrow towards.
'no amount of reconsidering will make it reasonable to accept palestinians have no right to a country'
reasonable = moderate
no moderate policies in site for israel/palestine, now that's really sad.
our local channel 26 played this movie last week.
Occupation 101 Part 1
pt 2
this is an excellent segment
pt 3
the rest of the segments are available in the column on the right @ the links. i highly recommend.
avram, thank you for saying you wish me the best. that is very sweet of you. i wish israel the best too, but i fear you may not agree w/me in terms of what 'the best' means. to me it means equality and civil rights for all and all those good things.
'rabid' (your new favorite word).
oh now, i am not the only one
In his “Double Standard Watch” column in the Jerusalem Post on February 15, 2009, Dershowitz referred to the SJP students at Hampshire as “a rabidly anti-Israel group,” “the virulently anti-Israel group called Students for Justice in Palestine,” “the anti-Israel group,” “the anti-Israel students,” and “the anti-Israel student group.” Meanwhile, Dershowitz invoked “bigotry” six times as the underlying motive of “the anti-Israel students,” while demanding that the college punish the SJP students for their “bigotry.” Here is what Dershowitz wrote in this regard: “There must be a price paid for bigotry”; “singling out only Israel for divestiture is bigotry plain and simple”; “this bigoted resolution” (describing the Hampshire students’ divestment initiative); “Students and faculty [at Hampshire] too must understand that bigotry has its cost”; “decency cannot survive with the kind of double standard bigotry directed only against the Jewish state”; and:
Hampshire is a small college without much influence. But those who are conducting the national [divestment] campaign see their “victory” at Hampshire as an opening wedge with which to get other more influential universities to follow suit by adopting similarly bigoted proposals. This is a cancer that is threatening to spread around the world, and it must be stopped where it began—at Hampshire.
pinkslip israel! we're broke and we can afford to fund oppression! either economically or morally.
"at least i am, you seem to have found your nitch focusing in on the ad homimen strawmen."
ok
"just do it. feel lucky i don't refer to israel as a militaristic terrorist state"
I've seen much worse, so again, please go ahead if it makes you feel better. It doesn't bother me anymore.
"Occupation 101 Part 1"
For any person who wants more, just google the first few people in the clip. You'll see how radical the people producing and contributing to the film. While a lot of what they say is fact, they've embellished a lot (I know from first hand experience) ...
In order to see a solution 'one day' (probably not in my life time), we need an honest approach where look at the pain through both nation's eyes, not just the Israelis or the Arabs. Once enough leaders arise on both sides that are aware of the injustices committed against both people, perhaps we'll move on.
Last but not least:
"Sadat, 1979.
Madrid, 1991.
Wye, 1996.
divert, your specialty."
I was just showing you that you don't know the history of this country that well, or its internal dynamics. Those dates are all peace 'pushes' or 'treaties' of the right wing ... There's a reason in Israel, most say, "The right makes peace, the left War" ...
Have a good week. Will do my best not to respond anymore.
we need an honest approach where look at the pain through both nation's eyes, not just the Israelis or the Arabs. ....."The right makes peace, the left War" ...
all right, well let us look at this piece of news from both side's (we cannot look at it from both nations eyes, because palestinians are prevenyed from having a nation, because of israel)
Israel planning mass expansion of West Bank settlement bloc
The plans propose the initial construction of 550 apartments in Gva'ot, located near Alon Shvut in the Gush Etzion settlement bloc, followed by construction of another 4,450 units at a later stage. At present, Gva'ot is inhabited by 12 families. The neighboring settlement of Bat Ayin, which has about 120 families, is slated to receive another 2,000 apartments, according to the plans.
Rimonim will get another 254 apartments if the plans are approved, and expansion plans are also in the works for Einav and Mevo Dotan. All three of these settlements are east of the separation fence.
Ma'aleh Adumim has included planned construction in the E-1 corridor in its sewage treatment plans. That corridor, which links Ma'aleh Adumim to Jerusalem, is eventually slated to hold some 3,500 apartments.
Nearby Kfar Adumim's sewage treatment plan predicts that the settlement will double its population "in the coming years," to 5,600 inhabitants. And in Eshkolot, the Civil Administration instructed the settlement to draw up a sewage plan adequate for a population five times its current one.
i saw a movie recently where a families grove which had been there for generations was completely uprooted in one day to make way for the sewage for a proposed settlement. land for israeli excretion comes before a palestinian state. what kind of honest assessment do you propose for this expamsion? what kind of pain will it entail for israelis to make this expansion? arn't these new inhabitant mostly for new immigrants. it seems even someone who moves to israel next week will have more rights than the owners of this land.
we need an honest approach where look at the pain through both nation's eyes
once again, this would be a very good start, but their aren't 2 nations. we have one rapidly expanding nation and millions of people squeezed into smaller and smaller corridors w/prison conditions.
good day to you avram
madrid 1991
Those dates are all peace 'pushes' or 'treaties' of the right wing
After the Gulf War, the US sought to stabilize its position in the Middle East by promoting a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Despite their turn against the PLO, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were anxious to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict and remove the potential for regional instability it created. The administration of President Bush felt obliged to its Arab allies, and pressed a reluctant Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir to open negotiations with the Palestinians and the Arab states at a multilateral conference convened in Madrid, Spain, in October 1991. Shamir's conditions, which the US accepted, were that the PLO be excluded from the talks and that the Palestinian desires for independence and statehood not be directly addressed.
so the 'push' did not address statehood?
In subsequent negotiating sessions held in Washington, DC, Palestinians were represented by a delegation from the occupied territories. Participants in this delegation were subject to Israeli approval, and residents of East Jerusalem were barred on the grounds that the city is part of Israel. Although the PLO was formally excluded from these talks, its leaders regularly consulted with and advised the Palestinian delegation. Although Israeli and Palestinian delegations met many times, little progress was achieved. Prime Minister Shamir announced after he left office that his strategy was to drag out the Washington negotiations for ten years, by which time the annexation of the West Bank would be an accomplished fact.
sadat '79
Only the Egyptian-Israeli part of the Camp David accords was implemented. The Palestinians and other Arab states rejected the autonomy concept because it did not guarantee full Israeli withdrawal from areas captured in 1967 or the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. In any case, Israel sabotaged negotiations by continuing to confiscate Palestinian lands and build new settlements in violation of the commitments Menachem Begin made to Jimmy Carter at Camp David.
hmm, again..this proposed 'treaty' did not address an independent palestinian state.
wye, '96
The key issues such as the extent of the territories to be ceded by Israel, the nature of the Palestinian entity to be established, the future of the Israeli settlements and settlers, water rights, the resolution of the refugee problem and the status of Jerusalem were set aside to be discussed in final status talks.
The PLO accepted this deeply flawed agreement with Israel because it was weak and had little diplomatic support in the Arab world. Both Islamist radicals and local leaders in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip challenged Arafat's leadership. Yet only Arafat had the prestige and national legitimacy to conclude a negotiated agreement with Israel.
The Oslo accords set up a negotiating process without specifying an outcome. The process was supposed to have been completed by May 1999. There were many delays due to Israel's reluctance to relinquish control over the occupied territories, unwillingness to make the kinds of concessions necessary to reach a final status agreement, and periodic outbursts of violence by Palestinian opponents of the Oslo process, especially HAMAS and Jihad. During the Likud's return to power in 1996-99, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu avoided engaging seriously in the Oslo process, which he distrusted and fundamentally opposed.
source
perhaps one could debunk this this source by way of linking to another interpretation that demonstrates israelis willingness to enter into negotiations that address an actual independent soveriegn future state for the palestinian people?
has israel ever done that?
is this incorrect:
President Bush and U.S. Secretary of State James Baker responded to the post-Gulf War environment by proposing new schemes for peace in the Middle East. While most of the Arab states were supportive of the American efforts, Israeli Likud Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir insisted on retaining the occupied territories. The Bush Administration urged Shamir to lay aside "the unrealistic vision of greater Israel and accept a solution with the Palestinians that would guarantee Israel's security and fulfill minimum Palestinian political claims."8 Although a significant gap between Israeli and Arab positions continued to exist even in the post-Gulf War era, James Baker managed to narrow these differences and facilitate suitable conditions for negotiations.
In the final preparation for negotiations, Baker met with several representatives from the occupied territories and gave them assurances concerning American intentions.9 These representatives were willing to participate in the Madrid Conference and the Washington negotiations only after a behind-the-scenes approval by the PLO of the composition of the delegation that would go to those meetings. At the time, most Palestinians were hopeful that negotiations would bring them concrete results, following George Bush's speech on March 16, 1991, in which he stated that "a comprehensive peace must be grounded in U.N. Security Council resolutions 242, 338," and in which he affirmed the "principle of territory for peace." For George Bush, this principle meant providing for "Israel's security and recognition," and at the same time for "legitimate Palestinian political rights."10 These rights were generally understood by the Palestinians to include their claim to sovereignty and statehood in the West Bank and Gaza.
The PLO and the Palestinians eventually began to realize that peace cannot be achieved without justice, and that the results of the Madrid Conference and the Washington negotiations fell short of the requirements. For instance, the Palestinian "right to self-determination and statehood" was never recognized as a basis for negotiations
so how could israel ever make a claim it entered into peace negotiations with even the idea of a sovereign palestinian statehood as a result?
has it ever? what is 'economic peace' without the principle of territory for peace?
i think an honest look is what we need, and in all honesty i don't see israel as ever being serious about a future state for palestine. it seems any concessions that abandon the zionist dream of a 'greater israel' have not actually been broached in any serious tangible form of negotiation.
While a lot of what they say is fact, they've embellished a lot (I know from first hand experience) ...
perhaps you would care to isolate a portion you observe to be 'embellished'. when you name something a 'broken bones' campaign, and there are photos of idf children (they looked very young) pounding stones with their fists onto palestinian bodies, no embellishment is really needed.
do you really think if this keeps up the palestinians will one day wake up and surrender to the idea of living in permanent occupation? tbhe longer this goes on the worse it is for israel. can you see this?
these people jews and arabs, are intrinsically linked together in this holy land you call home. one of these days they will find a just peace. that, i believe, is inevitable. sooner than later avram, because the status quo for israel at the present time is untenable. it is like a festering wound on our planet, and the zionists are not pulling their weight towards a peaceful resolution. they are asking as a precondition to be acknowledged as the rightful sovereign owners in existence to this holy land, without ever even offering to acknowledge their adversaries inherent rights to self determination in the region.
you are all too willing to condemn your adversaries tactics, while never addressing the source of their grievance. the grievances of israel cannot be compared because you already have a state which you wish to be more and more secure, and more and more expanded, before ever truly addressing (in a formal way, not in 'Sadat 1979, Madrid 1991, or Wye 1996) the right of determination of your adversaries.
the only way this will ever fly, is if the world acknowledges the exceptionism of the idea of jews as being god's chosen people, with god ordaining the holy land for jews.
this concept is rooted in fanatical zionism, and is untenable.
ha ha ... you cannot stop, can you?
Annie at her hypocritical best:
you are all too willing to condemn your adversaries tactics, while never addressing the source of their grievance.
Annie showing she again struggles with splitting Judaism / Zionism from one another:
this concept is rooted in fanatical zionism, and is untenable.
Annie showing she cannot blame the Arabs for any of the problems we see today:
hmm, again..this proposed 'treaty' did not address an independent palestinian state.
Doesn't someone who's so smart 'wonder' why Sadat refused to take Gaza, or why Huessin refused to take any responsibility of the West Bank during the '94 peace treaty? Doesn't someone who's so smart wonder why the the aforementioned leaders' countries refused to establish a Palestinian state from 1949 to 1967?
Btw, 'fromoccupiedpalestine' ... Yes, that source is as 'fair' as Meshal is (well, this may be a bad comparison in your eyes).
Again, I think this is going on and on ... I think you're debating to try and solidify some sort of opinion in your mind ... Yes, even your favorite friend Avigdor Lieberman said he wants two states and would leave his West Bank home for it. I'm glad all 3 of us have something in common ...
(lastly, the internet is a wonderful tool in that it allows every single person to back up his point of view one way or another. Balance is a nice word, or 'common sense' as you like to refer it to it, which you sadly lack ... It takes two to tango Annie ... Israel, the Arabs & the Palestinians (all of us), ya see?) have screwed up time after time since the 1920s ... If only you had enough honesty to understand that and debate like that ...)
Good God! They're still here!
Avram,
... It takes two to tango Annie ... Israel, the Arabs & the Palestinians (all of us), ya see?) have screwed up time after time since the 1920s ... If only you had enough honesty to understand that and debate like that ...)
Sad to say, she doesn't, Avram. But don't feel bad, she can't even do it with her own country.
Annie,
do you have any idea how many times i have been accused of being anti american! one persons loyalty is anothers dissent.
What, making this debate personal, Annie?
You assume that you are accused of being anti-American because you may have opposing views? That's not it at all, Annie. You are accused of being anti-American because you behave like you would give "aid and comfort" to those who would do your country harm. Must I remind you of TAI, the insurgent supporter you cozied up to?
As for a loyalty oath, I don't know about Israel, but ours goes something like this:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all."
Wait, let me go google it and see if I remembered it right...
Ooops, forgot "indivisible". That should come before "with liberty". Freudian slip, maybe?
It's an oath that I have recited many times in grade school. And it is an oath that every new American citizen takes at his or her swearing in ceremony.
Oh, and I see that the Obama administration is declining to attend the U.N. conference on racism unless the final document drops all references to Israel. Score one for Obama.
"Oh, and I see that the Obama administration is declining to attend the U.N. conference on racism unless the final document drops all references to Israel. Score one for Obama."
I actually think this may be a mistake - I think the US (& Israel for that matter) should be there. Not to add legitimacy to some obviously biased and hateful literature, but to offer a 'moderate' point of view and discussion. By not attending, it seems we may have something to hide.
Here's the most recent example (today) of who Lieberman's 'loyalty oath' targets ...
"An Israeli citizen suspected of being a prospective Hezbollah spy was indicted on Sunday on charges of contact with a foreign agent.
Ismail Saleiman, a 27-year-old man from the Jezreel Valley town of Hajajra, is suspected of being in contact with a Hezbollah operative and planning to spy on Israel for the terror group.
Police and the Shin Bet security service arrested him February 5, but the incident was placed under gag order until Sunday, when Saleiman was indicted in the Nazareth District Court.
Saleiman's lawyer, Smadar Ben-Natan, said Sunday that her client never had any intention of causing damage to Israel's security"
... I hope this makes it a bit clear for you now ... This happens far too much, we even have Arab MKs doing it!
lyn, i suggest you read the thread before jumping in out of context wrt my issue w/the proposed oath.
do you have any idea how many times i have been accused of being anti american! one persons loyalty is anothers dissent.
What, making this debate personal, Annie?
no, i was not. i was using a common example to make my point(in bold), as was very clear from the usage, which by the way, is a useful example of how our oath (which btw, we are not threatened w/loosing citizenship if we do not make) is inclusive, unlike liebermans proposed fascist oath. again, trying to jump in and rescue avram is all well and good, but i will not be engaging you further on this thread.
Annie at her hypocritical best:
you are all too willing to condemn your adversaries tactics, while never addressing the source of their grievance.
you think i'm hypocritical? i know what israels grievances are. they don't like it when the occupied get restless and fight back. all those billions in war funds and they can't seem to make an anti ballistic weapon to defend themselves from those little homemade rockets. (oh, i forgot, you claim they come from iran).
here is someone with some spine. only in israel, our kowtowed press would never print this.
jerusalem post
First we left the Gaza Strip in bloodied ruins. Then we raised up a politician who, with his appeal to racism, militarism, fear of alien "subversives" and the yearning for a strong leader, fits the classic, textbook definition of a fascist.
And now, what is the talking point for our hasbara (spin) campaign? The surge in global anti-Semitism.
It's hard to avoid the impression that for the champions of Israel Right or Wrong, the surge in global anti-Semitism - which is real enough - came as a godsend. Finally, Israel and its lobbyists could get off the defensive about civilian casualties, white phosphorous and Avigdor Lieberman, and go on the offensive against synagogue firebombings, chanting mobs and boycotts.
........
the chorus of condemnations of anti-Semitism from Israelis and pro-Israel nationalists has a dual purpose - to fight anti-Semitism, which is good, and to neutralize criticism of Operation Cast Lead and the spread of Israeli fascism, which is cynical and morally deadening.
.....
Today's surge in anti-Semitism began with a war in which the Jewish state killed its enemies at a ratio of 100-to-1, then made a political giant out of a former bouncer whose campaign slogan was "Only Lieberman understands Arabic."
To compare Israel's predicament today with that of the Jews of the 1930s is disingenuous in the extreme. Today's rise in anti-Semitism was provoked not by Israel's weakness, but by its abuses of power, first against the Gazans, then against Israeli Arabs. The difference is night and day.
......
It's also disingenuous to imply, as hasbara does, that the entire wave of anti-Israel sentiment in the world is tainted by anti-Semitism. (To pro-Israel lobbyists, it's fair and acceptable to acknowledge that Israel is not perfect. Anything beyond that is suspect.)
.....
Let's stop fighting immoral wars. Let's stop laying siege to a tiny, destitute country. (That might stop Gazans from firing rockets at us, too.) Let's stop holding 10,000 Palestinian prisoners. (That might also help us get Gilad Schalit back.)
And finally, let's stop electing fascists to the Knesset. And if this is too much to ask of ourselves, let's at least have the decency not to bring them into the government. And if even that's beyond us, if we're going to have fascists as cabinet ministers, if we go so far as to have one for finance minister or foreign minister, then let's not complain about the next surge in global anti-Semitism, because we will have provoked that one, too.
avram, i believe the ha ha laughs on me. it is you who initiated the idea of ending this conversation (i did not ever agree to take you up on your offer), you who repeated it and you who cannot stop, can you? it was you who said Will do my best not to respond anymore.
i have not made that claim, nor do i have any intention of doing so.
... I hope this makes it a bit clear for you now ... This happens far too much, we even have Arab MKs doing it!
do not be disingenuous. i'm sure israel has laws to deal w/alledged spies, just like any country. that is a far cry from a proposed undefined loyalty oath to cleanse the country of dissenters.
you know what my issue w/the oath is, the potential political nature of it. there were numerous sources i presented that framed the oath NOT as an oath to isrtaels declaration of state. until israel has a constitution and defined borders and zionism is open to interpretation regarding exactly what it means to be israeli, expecting people to make an oath, or threatening them w/stripping of citizenship is colliding w/fascism.
don't keep throwing up examples that any fool would find reasonable. it is like saying to an anti torture person 'if they were going to blow up the world and you could stop it w/torture..bla bla bla, obviously legalizing torture opens the door to abuse, just as the oath does, because the definition of israsel is fluid, and was defined that way by the founders, to include ALL jews, not just ones who think like you or whoever is in the political fashion of the moment.
btw, I do apologize for coming back to talk to you ... I find the conversation, although I know it does little to make you think or question your extremely 'black/white' views, stimulating (as I mentioned earlier, you've made me challenge some of my opinions which is healthy). I also like to ensure that your bias is not left unanswered. In a way, we 'moderate' each other though I do think I'm moderate 'politically'
I do think I'm moderate 'politically'
i like to think you are too, really. even w/the reasonableness with which you support the oath. it's just that sometimes things that sound reasonable leave open so much room for interpretation, and i think i demonstrated earlier how a fascist governments in the past have created laws that later have justified illegal actions (the yoo torture memos are another example)
you don't have to apologize to me for continuing the dialogue. obviously i wouldn't be here if it wasn't important to me. i also find it interesting you call yourself rightwing, defend this lieberman fellow, tho you arn't a 'supporter' of him, and call yourself moderate. i would think you would be comfortable w/more of kadimas affiliates, its not like they are 'left' or anything.
christian peacemaker films
the children killed in Gaza would all have been terrorists in twenty years anyway.
Radical Christians? no way! You must be kidding.
"i also find it interesting you call yourself rightwing"
I'm of Begin's school of though. You defend your people and faith, but you know when to make painful decisions for the better of your people, and her neighbors.
"defend this lieberman fellow"
I don't defend him - I think he's done some bad stuff (illegal money laundering etc) that should ensure he's not in politics. He is, but then again so is Olmert, as was Sharon. I find some of the things he says 'stupid', I find some of the things he says 'smart'. I think he's been made out to be this 'villain' and I disagree with that just as much as I did when people portrayed Livni as a 'dove'.
"tho you arn't a 'supporter' of him"
Every politician can improve his country for the better ... and when they get into power, they cannot hold certain 'thoughts' and succeed in this country & world. I hope he proves me right.
"i would think you would be comfortable w/more of kadimas affiliates"
I think Kadima and her 'rise' was a joke. I think their 'need' to offer Abbas everything is right, I just think they're doing it poorly (as did Sharon with the disengagement). I find most of their politicians are as corrupt as the man who founded the party. They don't really care much about the faith it seems, and that - no matter how little or much you observe - is part of this country's 'spine'.
That being said - I favor two states as soon as possible. I favor giving Abbas and his 'moderate' govt a chance to succeed and live side by side with us in peace. I favor land swaps (and would have no issue if for example, Egypt wanted to give half of Sinai to the Palestinians). I just don't think it's happening anytime soon.
Radical Christians? no way! You must be kidding.
not so sure i would call those filmakers radical. did you watch it? that was an idf soldier who said that, not a christian i presume, they just recorded it.
"defend this lieberman fellow"
I don't defend him
well, you have defended his policies. that's the same thing in my book, i don't know much about his personal life/problems.
I favor land swaps (and would have no issue if for example, Egypt wanted to give half of Sinai to the Palestinians).
ok, so you favor israel swaping land for the west bank. how about this, since israel wants to choose what part of the palestinians lands it wants to swap, what would you think about the palestinians choosing what part of israel they wanted in return?
here's the thing avram, israel was already built on land that belonged to palestinians. and now you are inhabititing the most furtile land in the proposed palestinian state, w/all the water and such. of course you want to swap it w/land of your choosing, but how is this equitable, or fair? why is it ok for palestinians to always get the short end of the stick. do you think their lives and values are worth less than yours? about being pro another country giving land to palestinians. yeah, what's so flexible about that? you can't give away (or trade) something that doesn't belong to you. why would you have an issue with anyone else giving land to palestinians anyway?
don't you think it is extreme policy to be expanding on land that isn't yours? how can a person consider themselves moderate, when part of that moderation includes making allowances for thieves? (that is a common term for someone who steals something) how much does israel pay palestinains for use of their land? and so much of it goes for newcomers, for israels expansion, the bill footed by the government (or our government for all i know)
so to you, it feels like your views are moderate, because you agree w/them, and live with them. but can you see how someone looking from the outside, might think it looks like you are justify thievery? (well, you are). wouldn't a moderate person think illegal expansions was extreme? if my neioghbor did this to me i would think he was a fanatic, no?
can you see how someone looking from the outside, might think having soldiers from a neighboring land, patroling your own land, and arresting people for going from village to village on their own land, can you see how this might look to a rational person from without, looking in? does it occur to you you may be indoctrinated to viewing an otherwise aberration as moderate policy?
I favor two states as soon as possible.
so you accept 2 states, as long as israel chooses where they are? (and you think this is 'moderate'?) but you do not favor a palestinian state on palestinian land, where their homes are, their orchards?
speaking of that 1935 law, as it reads, it sounds rather reasonable and moderate, depending on how one considered it, doesn't it?
March 2nd, 2009
Two-state solution, Mrs. Clinton? Not so fast
he and Netanyahu are not prepared to be pressured when Hillary Clinton arrives today on her visit as secretary of state into repeating the undertaking given by successive Israeli governments to working with the Palestinian leadership to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. That, Shalom said, would be to pre-judge the outcome of negotiations. As another Netanyahu aide, Dore Gold, told us last week, the prime minister-designate wants to be sure of limitations on the sovereignty of any Palestinian state before agreeing to its existence.
what good is a state w/out sovereignty?
Yes, even your favorite friend Avigdor Lieberman said he wants two states and would leave his West Bank home for it.
a state w/sovereignty? anything else would just be window dressing. what good is it to have a state if israel controls it?
this is what i linked to earlier, you called it biased:
the Palestinian "right to self-determination and statehood" was never recognized as a basis for negotiations
maybe reuters is 'biased'?
so, in your own words, tell me you believe in a 2 state solution w/2 sovereign nations.
I think most Israeli governments are scared of the same thing (example: Southern Lebanon & Hamaza).
2 states isn't an issue - it's the day after and due to their fear, the leaders want to ensure they can fall back on something if (when?) it goes wrong.
It's not an easy call - as you make it seem - but the lack of sovreignity is an issue and should only be temporary (as if a 'trial' period), if instituted. Reason? See previous examples ...
it's the day after and due to their fear, the leaders want to ensure they can fall back on something if (when?) it goes wrong.
their fear? you mean the fear a palestinian state might get nuclear arms like israel has? and wipe it off the map.
the lack of sovreignity is an issue and should only be temporary (as if a 'trial' period), if instituted. Reason?
trial period? deja vu. and if palestinians don't perform up to israel standards it can be reneged?
are you familiar w/the story of the princess and the pea? you frame israel as if she is feigning like a southern belle. this has been going on for 60 years, delay delay delay.
what do you think of this?
Israel is Crossing the Line
According to a piece that will appear in tomorrow's Haaretz, Barak Ravid writes that these red lines and instructions of Israel to the U.S. will be presented to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:
this framing of israel making demands of the US is gruesome. we don't owe israel jack sh*t. you can read the haaretz piece at the link.
But this kind of instruction manual on what red lines can be tolerated or not is pretty outrageous -- and borders on the type of irresponsibilty and consequences of what a Taiwanese declaration of independence from China would mean.
In other words, if Taiwan wants to declare independence from China -- so be it, but America will not be there as a stabilizer, defender or buffer. And if Israel has the audacity to make America's strategic choices -- particularly in public -- then Israel can bomb away -- but needs to know that such an act will irreparably harm US-Israel relations. A collision with Iran has nothing to do with Israel -- despite Obama's and Lieberman's and Cheney's and Clinton's and McCain's rhetoric.
"their fear? you mean the fear a palestinian state might get nuclear arms like israel has? and wipe it off the map."
That's ridiculous, even from you.
I thought you could be rational. What happened in Lebanon and Gaza after Israeli withdrawals? Can you even acknowledge that?
Let's not get into Nuclear weapons. Israel has never threatened to use them against anyone, bar **it seems** during the Yom Kippur War when the country was on the verge of extinction (if you were alive, you may have been ecstatic). They're not there for use (unlike the reason for Iran's acquisition), they're there for 'show' ...
"are you familiar w/the story of the princess and the pea?"
Are you familiar with the tortoise and the hare? You see, the hare had exactly what he really wanted in 1947. He had Jerusalem as an int'l city and a dominant chunk of Mandate Palestine (ie Jordan and Israel and West Bank and Gaza). He decided he wanted it all and decided to try and win it all in a race against the tortoise ...
**awaits a link from Annie saying the Arabs didn't reject the 1947 partition plan and that it was all the Zionists' fault because an 'independent' Arab state was taken away**
That's ridiculous, even from you.
i was snarking you. glad you like my sense of humor.
Let's not get into Nuclear weapons. Israel has never threatened to use them against anyone
i know i know we aren't supposed to mention israels nukes, we are supposed to focus on the one's iran is alledgedly trying to make even tho Iran has never threatened to use them against anyone either. don't you think it is a little absurd for an israeli to tell ME to 'not get into Nuclear weapons, considering we endlessly hear about the big iranian threat on a daily basis, all from 'official' anon sources of course. loooove the propaganda here.
arvam, why are you talking about 1947? i thought you already chafted me for mentioning lukid circa 99? can we be more..present. and besides, israel does not remotely act like a tortoise (more like a hare), and we all know palestinians did not have exactly what he really wanted in 1947. in the months before Israel was declared hundreds oif thousands of people were run off their land to make way for you know who.
1938 Ben-Gurion : “after we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.”
1948 Menachem Begin: “The partition of the Homeland is illegal . It will never be recognized. The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever“.
"i know i know we aren't supposed to mention israels nukes, we are supposed to focus on the one's iran is alledgedly trying to make even tho Iran has never threatened to use them against anyone either."
When was the last time an Arab president talked about Israel being destroyed soon?
Your quotes are rather irrelevant considering we've both agreed that politicians don't 'follow slogans' when they're in office. The reality as a leader changes a lot of how you act (it's rather evident in Israeli politics).
"and we all know palestinians did not have exactly what he really wanted in 1947."
So getting Jordan and getting a good chunk of what is today 'Israel' was not enough? You wanted all of it?
"in the months before Israel was declared hundreds oif thousands of people were run off their land to make way for you know who."
Can you offer a 'credible' source for this? I don't mean one of your 'palestinians.are.always.right.com" websites, but a website of a renowned historian who says 'Before May 1948, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were expelled off the land?'
(Maybe they were expelled for the 800,000 - 1,000,000 Arab Jews? Who is that a diversion you don't care about the brutality of that expulsion?)
Annie - Not sure about you, but this blog entry from B is the last one on his page ... so once it drops, I most likely won't check it. As we BOTH know we'll start up again in the next Israeli/Arab/Zionist post* by B, I say let's wrap it up like this:
We disagree on many points but we both want two states for two people, me with land concessions - you on __________ (you can fill in the blanks. We both want peace in the Middle East and we both like Humus.
Salaam aleikum
*Bassam, this is not an invitation to post a new one tomorrow! :)
We disagree on many points but we both want two states for two people
ok avram, let's call it a wrap. it's been a slice.
Editing my last comment as I accidentally put 'Arab' instead of 'American' (it wasn't meant to offend, sorry):
"it's been a slice."
Please define (I'm not up-to-date on American slang)
Have a good day (morning? night?)
i posted an explanation last night (w/a link and all) but blogger ate my post!
a slice is short for 'a slice of life'. it references reality. if you google slice of life you can read more about what the expression means.
check this out Animator of award-winning Israeli movie tackles Gaza
Saw this last week ...
I'm sure you saw this too:
http://mesi.org.uk/ViewNews.aspx?ArticleId=2048
i have been following the incredible caravan journey of Viva Palestina w/daily updates thru friends of friends. here is the one i received today via email
GROWN MEN CRYING...THE SIEGE IS BROKEN...
ON THE DAY THE PROPHET WAS BORN
And they entered side by side like heroes, some on foot some in their vehicles, tears, smiles, hugs, flowers. It was historic, it was legendary. Gaza we are here. We have fulfilled the promise - Viva Palestina! The lifeline from the people of Britain to you, the people of Gaza, has arrived.
We have broken the barriers, we have opened closed borders, we have defied the odds,we have overcome the challenges across thousands of miles and three continents. We are here to be with you, to embrace you, to share your tragedy with you.
After another morning of intense negotiations, a deal was reached to allow all of the members of the convoy to go through. In the end, Viva Palestina had to make the sacrifice of agreeing that some vehicles will have to cross the border from the Al Ouja Israeli controlled crossing point. This includes our mascot, the fire engine and the boat. This was due to the restrictions imposed by Egyptian law governing the Rafah Crossing.
A tearful Talat Ali told me that 'Rafah is the most beautiful crossing in the world', he also said that the time , effort and sacrifices put in by all the Viva Palestina family meant that history has been made today - on the day the prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was born.
George Galloway made an emotional speech thanking the people of Gaza for the wonderful reception and assuring them that for Viva Palestina and in our millions, “WE ARE ALL PALESTINIANS!” George also reiterated that the people of Palestine have voted and that their voice should be respected.
Today the convoy will head along the Salah Eddine road towards Gaza City witnessing along the way the destruction and death caused by the Israeli war machine. Along the way they will be greeted by the people of Gaza who will know that Viva Palestina is here and that they will NEVER BE ALONE.
Farid Arada
i have been reading daily many incredible stories plus many many photographs including whole towns and villages lining up to greet them along the way w/festivities. so good of you to pass on this sad negative press avram. i wonder if it was staged, nah! i'm so sure a lots of egyptians were very angry people would try to help these war torn people. probably somebody wanted to make sure a negative story would come out so the nyt and people like you know who would have something to pass along.
Are you showing 'support' for a movement organized by George Galloway?
**shakes head in disappointment**
(Maybe Israel can find some guy who makes anti-Islamic statements and get him to walk into Sderot with missile deflectors! Then we can call him a 'hero' when he says 'We are all Israelis')
Did your friend like getting stoned by Egyptians?
"i wonder if it was staged, nah! i'm so sure a lots of egyptians were very angry people would try to help these war torn people. probably somebody wanted to make sure a negative story would come out so the nyt and people like you know who would have something to pass along."
What a funny piece this is ... So basically, if you're anti a story, "It's staged" and if you're pro a story, "It's real"?
Ha ha ha ... Let me guess, when Hamas killed Fatah members and shot them in the leg, or the coverage of throwing them off roof tops was released, that was 'staged' too so the 'nyt and people like me' could attack!?!? Ha ha ha ... And when Jordan butchered thousands of Palestinians during 'Black September'? That was staged too! And I bet 9/11 was staged too by those evil Zionists and Neo-Cons!!!! Sheesh, now I get it!
Sometimes I wonder if you create a 'reality' when you read the news:
News that disappoints me: STAGED, false
News that makes me happy and supports my cause: 100% FALSE, no rebuttal allowed.
Come on Annie ... You surely can't be this blind.
More 'staged' news about this all Arabs support 'Viva Palestina' convoy:
"Sunday, March 8, it was stranded at the northern Sinai town of El-Arish by 1,000 Egyptian police who refused to grant them entry to Gaza."
"Clashes left 24 members of his pro-Palestinian group injured."
(they were probably fake injuries done during rehearsal of the 'stoning')
"but sent the British "Viva Palestina" convoy of 12 ambulances, a fire engine, and $1.4 million dollars, to try and enter Gaza through the Israeli crossing at Nitzana."
(Wonder why the Egyptians sent them to Israel's border crossing? STAGED!!!!)
"Before setting out from London, three members of the Galloway group were arrested by British police in the northern town of Preston on suspicion of planning terrorist attacks overseas"
(ooooh they may have wanted to stage a fake suicide bombing, like the one by those two Brits in Tel Aviv a few years ago which 'staged' killed a few Israelis!)
ha ha, apologies to anyone I've offended with my 'stage' mockery
more 'proof' of a staging:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXDwVmP7F68
ha ha ... even Galloway (I hope he's not your hero like he is to Hamas, the peace lovers) made commetns about ...
staged ...
ha ha, I haven't stopped laughing all day ...
Thank you Annie.
ha ha did you pull this again Annie?
"i was snarking you. glad you like my sense of humor."
B/c yes, then I do like your sense of humor! ha ha staged ... Still smiling! :)
lol, did you watch and understand the video you posted avram? when there are 100's of police around escorting the group, they make them stop, don't allow them to leave and stand around til nightfall while allowing others to come in and plument a vehicle w/stones, that is my idea of 'staged', especially when they wait until nightime and all the power is cut.
Are you showing 'support' for a movement organized by George Galloway?
of course. frankly i don't care who is organizing to bring relief to the victims of war, nor do have feel apologetic about it.
you are showing to be a very callous person. very sad indeed.
convoy website
here is the way they describe it (note at the link it was a very small part of the trip):
Update 12:00 GMT
As some of you are reporting, there has been a couple of incidents that put the convoy initially on a knife edge. Some of the convoy began to drive as the authorities were trying to split them up into smaller groups, this then got heated, a few scuffles broke out and security re-inforcements were called in, bulldozers blocking the convoy path and it got very tense.
However I have personally spoken to people there as well as others who have spoken to friends & familly and even convoy leaders including George who confirm the situation has again calmed and it has now been negotiated that the convoy can come together and cross together. Lets hope this remains and everything does remain calm, our thoughts and prayers with all those present on the convoy.
....
Breaking News - 1500 GMT
Further obsticles; It has now become apparent that the convoy will not enter today, howver Insh’Allah they will cross tomorrow.
George Galloway went to the Rafah crossing and refused to enter without the convoy. He is now in intense negotiations with the Egyptions for them to stop creating these unneccessary problems and allow all members to cross.
The Israeli’s are adament that they will not allow the fire engine, the boat and a power genrator to cross through Rafah and instead want them to cross into Israel, where chances are they will vanish into thin air. They also want the “Long live Palestine” contingent from Libiya consisting of 100 vehicles to cross through Israel, all members of the convoy are strictly opposed to this. and they are remaining fim with the slogan “we came togehter, will will enter together”
I’ve been told that the Egyption police and Military are still acting in a very hostile manner towards convoy members. The members of the convoy however have remained patient and steadfast and are currently playing a friendly football match with British contingent v’s Libiyan contingent. If only a decision for crossing could also be decided through a football match between the convoy members and the egyption police, as i’m sure the convoy would definately win, we’ve got some talented players in the British contingent.
The convoy is currently stationed in the town of Al Arish, about 40 km from the Rafah crossing point.
Breaking News - 16:30 GMT
Negotiations so far are proving successful, agreement has now been reached to allow the fire engine, boat and the power generator thorugh with the rest of the convoy into the Rafa crossing.
The convoy now intends to set off for the crossing after Fajr (morning prayers) tomorrow. So for the meantime they remain in Al Arish, i’ve also been told that the power has gone in the town and there is no electricity even in the houses in the town and it’s pitch black, another ploy to limit the exposure of the convoy.
Breaking News - 17:20 GMT
I have just spoke to brother Naveed (A-Team), he says that during the power cuts there have been some incidents, where “locals in the town” began attacking the generator with stones and other projectiles and then after a while the lights came back on. A short time later the power again went off and this time projectiles were thrown towards the convoy vehicles and 5 memebrs of the convoy have been injured some with gashes accross their head. Vans and trucks have also been grafetied with anti-Hamas propaganda.
They are now due to have a meeting of how to counter-act this problem and it looks like they may have to be alert throughout the night and take shifts to guard the vehicles and the members of the convoy.
so, the convoy was delayed overnight, the power went off and then in the presence of all the military escorts, they were attacked. makes for excellent fishwrap after a long successful voyage.
once again avram, how reliable you are for highlighting this incident, i still very much think was 'staged', otherwise the 100's of egyptian military and police must be very very inept. i wouldn't want them escorting me if it is so easy to 'penetrate' thru all that 'security'.
lol, hey avram, i googled your report. debkafile? lol. how israelicentric of you.
three members of the Galloway group were arrested by British police in the northern town of Preston on suspicion of planning terrorist attacks overseas.
do you have any other reference for this? besides debka, which doesn't even bother mentioning the 100's of trucks and vans of supplies in the convoy? where's your 'israel is so sorry for the victims of war' face.
"Are you showing 'support' for a movement organized by George Galloway?
of course. frankly i don't care who is organizing to bring relief to the victims of war, nor do have feel apologetic about it."
Aren't you Iraqi? I guess 'an enemy of my enemy is my friend' ... Sad you can support this person but oh well - just don't go preaching to people who stand by neo-cons, are just plain hateful, or those who sell the 'street' for oil.
I'm glad you googled it was Debkafile. I have no issue with that (nor did I claim it was a Reuters article, like you've done in the past to mislead the lazy ... **cough cough**) - I will look for other sources (as sometimes they do post some weird stuff, the best being: Arafat to use toy airplanes for suicide attacks).
If you think that was 'staged', ok. I mean, it's sad but I will use that excuse too from now on when something happens I don't like. Lieberman says something hateful, "Ooooh it was staged! He doesn't even know how to speak English!"
You crack me up ... Thank you for all the smiles. Have a great 'rest of' week
Annie,
Since you're good at Google, google "galloway convoy arrests terrorism"
All the first articles link to what Debkafile reported ... Oh well, guess they had it right there ... STAGED! :)))))
Since you're good at Google, google "galloway convoy arrests terrorism"
ok, i did
The Respect MP George Galloway has called for an investigation after police stopped a convoy taking aid, toys and medical supplies to Gaza and arrested nine people under anti-terror laws.
All nine men arrested on the M65 near Preston last Friday have been released without charge, but the organisers of the Viva Palestina convoy, which is headed by Galloway, said that aid donations dropped by 80% after news of the arrests.
Police stopped three vehicles and arrested six men from Blackburn and three from Burnley under the Terrorism Act. The 100-vehicle convoy left without them and is now in Morocco.
"Nine innocent people were prevented by the police from joining our convoy," said Galloway. "The timing of the operation is seen locally as an attempt to smear and intimidate the Muslim community, and I must say they seem to be right. Photographs of the high-profile snatch were immediately fed to the press to maximise the newsworthiness of the smear."
and this proves what? more staged events for the press. one would think you didn't want food and clothing to go to these victims.
and you're laughing about it? where's your sense of decency?
Aren't you Iraqi? I guess 'an enemy of my enemy is my friend' ... Sad you can support this person but oh well
you have a reading comprehension issue. you ask me if i was showing support for a 'movement', now you are morphing this into a 'person'.
Have a great 'rest of' week
something tells me i'll be hearing from you before the end of the week. for someone who alleges they want to end this thread you one would think they would have simply googled 'its been a slice' and let it die a natural death. instead you seem to be fluffying your zionist feathers for all there worth. just another opportunity to experience the inhumanity of man on man.
Ha ha Annie, I asked you about a term I had not heard before, you responded and said, "check this out Animator of award-winning Israeli movie tackles Gaza"
So I responded in part ... Don't be blaming me - you lit the fuse on this one (I'm not angry about it at all though, I hope you're not either).
"more staged events for the press. "
STAGED!!!
I asked you, and I quote, "Are you showing 'support' for a movement organized by George Galloway?"
You replied, "of course"
So no need to walk away from it and 'claim' I didn't mention Galloway in my original question, a man that many Iraqis hate ...
"instead you seem to be fluffying your zionist feathers for all there worth. just another opportunity to experience the inhumanity of man on man."
This had to be a staged comment! There's no way Annie would write something that could be oh so painful! The indeceny!
"you didn't want food and clothing to go to these victims"
Who staged this comment!?!?
I didn't say that ... nor even imply it. But alas, you will do anything to try and make your point ... Even when there isn't one to really argue with (ie, I posted a news source that used '100% confirmed' news ... I don't post things only confirmed by Iranian newsources Annie, or at least I try not to!)
Don't be blaming me - you lit the fuse on this one
i'm not blaming anyone, i am simply pointing out the obvious. no one needs to light your fuse, its on autopilot.
avram i am showing 'support' for a movement that brings food and clothing to go to victims of war. i am not walking away from this in the least.
I didn't say that ... nor even imply it.
great. excuse me for misinterpreting your question about my support of a movement.
do you also support this movement, or might you be unsupportive because george galloway is affiliated with it? is your angst against george galloway stronger than your desire to help civilians who are in dire need. you ask me if i was supportive of a movement affiliated w/galloway, not if i was supportive of galloway, affiliated w/a movement. so, are you supportive of this movement, yes or no? no need for denials of implications, just spit it out.
I posted a news source that used '100% confirmed' news
you crack me up. you proudly post a half baked arrest likely cause by racial sterotype and hyped up press to discredit the convoy and then claim it is 'confirmed' without adding the little detail charges were never brought against any of the people and they were all released, after the timely newsbite the relief was associated w/terrorists!
and you call that 100% confirmed? do you even know what staging events means? anyone can confirm an event happened, it has no bearing on WHY it happened or HOW it happened or WHO made it happen.
imagining the rock throwing was some organic event that occurred as a result of local angst against relief for war victims and not coordinated by whoever was ochestrating holding the convoy back overnight (authorities)and having access to the power grid (authorities) is rather foolish. what person would risk running afoul of the law w/1000's of police present. and mysteriously succeed uncaught! but it made a great news story. we have the potential terroist story at the beginning fo the trip, the rioters at the end, and viola,,all it takes is little propaganda pawns such as yourself to promote this '100% confirmed' talking pt, and were on our way to making history.
little myth makers, take a bow.
are these staged comments Annie? or must i respond to them seriously?
i feel it's the former ... would you agree?
I agree citizens of the Gaza need food and medicine ... Just like citizens of Sderot need mental support ...
I would struggle, were I in Gaza, to take help from a man who screwed my brothers in Iraq ... It's just me though ... To each his own.
Btw, I'm sure you read today that Hamas condemned rocket fire against Sderot today ... Heck, they're even more tolerant than you! Probably staged though by the little myth makers!
"no one needs to light your fuse, its on autopilot."
Ha ha ... forget Dreamer, you should be a stand up comedian .... I didn't post the link to a 'political issue' ... You did ... but even that you can't see, can you Ms (or Mrs.?) Right
Have a good evening!
are these staged comments Annie? or must i respond to them seriously?
i feel it's the former ... would you agree?
I agree citizens of the Gaza need food and medicine ... Just like citizens of Sderot need mental support ...
I would struggle, were I in Gaza, to take help from a man who screwed my brothers in Iraq ... It's just me though ... To each his own.
Btw, I'm sure you read today that Hamas condemned rocket fire against Sderot today ... Heck, they're even more tolerant than you! Probably staged though by the little myth makers!
"no one needs to light your fuse, its on autopilot."
Ha ha ... forget Dreamer, you should be a stand up comedian .... I didn't post the link to a 'political issue' ... You did ... but even that you can't see, can you Ms (or Mrs.?) Right
Have a good evening!
"I would struggle, were I in Gaza, to take help from a man who screwed my brothers in Iraq ... It's just me though ... To each his own."
Just to explain my attitude more - this is relevant (though not in scope or 'people') to Israel accepting reparations from the Germans in the 1950s. I don't remember figures, but many Israelis were against, many for. I think, and I guess it may have been different were I alive back then, I would have been in the 'against' camp.
I just came back from a 'Hina', a traditional pre-wedding festivity for 'Mizrachi' (of Arabic) Jewry. It was great, just sad to hear the stories of the Jews of Sa'ana and how amazing a community it once was ...
Btw Annie, I like to say that I do think you're very smart and passionate. I admire what I think you want for the Palestinians (I'm not sold you really want a fair 2 state solution, so for Israelis - I don't know if what you want is good). I do however think you are very misleading with some things you post (ex: Post a link and claim it's from Reuters when it's from Iranian media. ex2: claim Israeli kicked out millions of Palestinians before 1948 and refuse to offer a source) and that you have little ability to be critical about 'your' (if you're Arabic) people's roles in pushing this conflict out of hand (The Israelis have done their fair share, as I say, 'two to tango').
A solution comes when both people can grasp a) the pain of their neighbors (I'm working hard on improving this for myself - I wish you'd do the same) and b) the fact they've both made horrible, stupid mistakes throughout 'this' conflict (I believe it started a long time ago, but we'll say since 1948).
I look at Mandela's amazing ability to forgive and try and forge a joint future as a potential example - though here it will be 'two' futures of two 'brothers/sisters' side by side.
Have a good night
as I say, 'two to tango'.
i will remember that line the next time someone mentions the holocaust.
i'm not clear how galloway screwed up iraq. there were hundreds of people on that convoy. being an MP he was probably able to facilitate things running someone smoothly. are you asserting iraq would be loverly today had their been no people protesting the war?
i am not arab and i don't know why you would assume i am. i would be perfectly (absolutely!) content w/an equal rights feasible 2 state solution, as i have stated previously. this doesn't mean little cantons surrounded by walls w/israelis occupying the hilltops in the west bank mind you.
i'm not going to bicker w/you about 47/48. i probably over reacted because you made some crazy allegation things were AOK in 47 which everyone knows they most certainly were not. when the 30 year passage secret documents became available ('78) and lots of information became available, i think it was ben gurion in a letter to his brother who made the plan clear but i'm not going to drag up any quotes because the list is loooong. so i know i am not always right. no, i had not heard any news of hamas from today. we don't get news of hamas here in the msm aside from the zionist lingo.
i feel sorry for lots of israelis, but i think it is more self inflicted as israel is the obvious aggressor imho. i feel very sorry you have to make due w/the myths of your founding and living in a society where people get death threats for speaking the truth. when scholars are denounced and shunned for speaking the truth. the constant backstabbing and behind the scenes shinigans to muzzle people that can take place when people threaten the zionist hegemony. i feel especially sorry for jews w/a conscious who have to endure so much pain happening in their name. i think i mentioned a few weeks ago about the poor girl who broke down at the gaza meeting about the dread of even speaking out around her relatives. my girlfriend told me a couple weeks ago it breaks up families and susan (our mutual friend) can't even talk about it w/her husband! her husband gave my friend a book on the holocaust for god's sake when she tried to talk to him about palestine. and she's jewish! of course she knows about the friggin holocaust. as for sedot, doesn't it occur to those people they are living on ex palestinian graves and villages? why don't they find a village somewhere else for heavens sake. seriously, what do you expect? you have an open air prison w/people suffering from the blockade. israel makes some gesture of moving out the settlers all the while planning to bomb the living daylights out of gaza once they leave. planning for months and months. this is untenable. there is no equalty in the suffering, therefore i find it unlikely normal people are going to weigh the sympathy equally. of course any mother who looses a child is going to suffer, but there are 100 times more mother palestinian mothers suffering than jewish ones. it is normal for people to symathize w/the victims, and israel is the aggressor here, cleary.
I look at Mandela's amazing ability to forgive and try and forge a joint future as a potential example
it is hard to forgive when the blood hasn't dried, but i am ready to forgive israel as soon as you guys quit your settlements on palestinian land and start considering equal civil rights for all the people of the palestine region. gaza was not a stupid mistake, it was a massacre. the rockets were a response to suffering. anyway, since you are so ready to 'balance' this pain, how about israelis acknowledge the right of a palestinian state PRIOR to eating your next meal. this demand that palestinians acknowledge israles right to exist when obviously it is them who's right to existence is threatened every single minute down to the last aspirin or clean water or food or shelter...
i am worn out on israel victimhood. sorry, that is just how i feelit has been shoved down our throat for way way to long. but i have worked a long exhausting day so my flexibility factor is not on maximum. so no, when you instigate a massacre i do not feel the same about innocent people living on stolen land who have a choice of where they live. if they were behind walls and not allowed to leave then i might feel differently, but that is not the case. and it also makes no sense w/all the technology on the world why israel doesn't have any anti rocket missles for these little homemade rockets. maybe you should get your government to invest in some security devices, the defensive kind, not the offensive kind. and realize if palestinians had rights like every normal person in the world they would not be resiting the genocidal conditions with which the zionist government makes them live under.
that is just how i feel. and i know very well there are some amazing people in israel, i am having dinner w/one (well known activist) on tuesday. they sure have their work cut out for them. i do feel very sorry for you too, but i am hopeful vecause i know people can change, and you sound like you are having some willingness wrt seeing things from another perspective.
but for a solution to come about, you really don't need to feel the pain of your neighbors. you just have to realize it is immoral to be the judge and jury and hold the jail keys. the solution will come about when israel quits imagining god made them the winner.
here is what i think may be a very motivating factor. the world is watching and the likelihood they will start not caring about palestinians and symathize w/israel is practically nil. as time goes on it will just become worse, so you can stave it off another hundred years (the drip drip genocide model), or kill them all in one fell swoop. OR, religuish control and hopes and dreams of the greater israel scenario. frankly, i think the 2 state solution (the sooner the better) is the optimun plan of the 3 choices. i am certain this will come about eventually, it will just take israel changing course. otherwise, your enemies are going to keep resisting, because no one could live in submission forever. so while it may take two to tango, israel has control of the dance hall, the dance floor, the band, the bouncers, the whole ball of wax, and the palestinians are in crutches and starving, think about that next time you turn on you music and feel the beat.
its been a slice! g'night.
"i will remember that line the next time someone mentions the holocaust."
I'm sure this is your humor, but as I know you're smart girl, I won't bother!
"i'm not clear how galloway screwed up iraq."
Do you think there's a reason Iraqis called him a 'Saddamist'?
"i am not arab and i don't know why you would assume i am."
Hence, I said "if you're..." (As I didn't know)
"things were AOK in 47 which everyone knows they most certainly were not. "
Ma'am, things were not good between Arab and Jew for centuries - dhimi, govt conversion laws, pogroms, synagogue burnings, blood libels ... The relationship between Jew & Arab (not Moors or Ottomans) has been strained, despite some good, quiet periods. I/P is only a 'evolved' version of the same conflict that has been harassing both people.
"i feel very sorry you have to make due w/the myths of your founding and living in a society where people get death threats for speaking the truth"
This makes no sense, but ok.
"i feel especially sorry for jews w/a conscious who have to endure so much pain happening in their name"
A typical response from someone who struggles to understand Jewish history and the obvious longing of Jews for a homeland (just look at the prayers, that are a wee bit older than Zionism).
"as for sedot, doesn't it occur to those people they are living on ex palestinian graves and villages?"
And here you are showing your true colors and FINALLY I might add. It's 'ok' to rocket Sderot because it stands on 'Palestinian graves and villages' (proof if you want). I'm glad I now know why you refuse to condemn rocket fire (or other attacks on Israel)
"i am ready to forgive israel as soon as you guys quit your settlements on palestinian land"
But you've implied that even "Sdeot" is "Palestinian land" ... Tell me, what isn't Palestinian Land in Israel proper (just so I know how you view the Annie '2 state solution')
"gaza was not a stupid mistake, it was a massacre"
if you call 600 Hamas dead out of 900-1000 people a 'massacre', ok.
"the rockets were a response to suffering. "
Right, and so are the suicide bombings, and the attacks on schools etc. I didn't see the Jews doing this in World War II, or for that matter, the Palestinians in other Arab countries (well when they did, they got butchered and never did it again, see "Black September"). But whatever lets you excuse the attacks on innocent civilians.
"how about israelis acknowledge the right of a palestinian state"
Most of us do ... We even elected Olmert to bring us two states. The Palestinians elected Hamas, whom you won't talk about because they 'upset you' b/c they want to destroy Israel, right? Or is their charter another 'myth'?
"do not feel the same about innocent people living on stolen land who have a choice of where they live"
Again, your true colors finally rise to the surface ... If we wanted to talk 'property', we'd have to talk about Ottoman land records (which I doubt either of us know enough about)
"maybe you should get your government to invest in some security devices, the defensive kind,"
The wall has stopped almost all attacks from the West Bank ...
"i know very well there are some amazing people in israel"
I'm sure I know what kind of 'activist' s/he is ... I just wish you were 'honest' enough to see the 'horrific, evil' people within Palestinian society but alas, they are just victims and **tear** they only kill because of the Israelis (you sound like Amnesty, they are now blaming Israel for the Palestinian abuse of Women's rights ... ha ha, yah ok - I guess what we see in the rest of the Arab world is 'Israel's fault' too)
"i do feel very sorry for you too"
No need ... I am confident by the time I go, the groundwork will be set for two states and hopefully, a strong 'moderate' Palestinian movement will rise and stand in peace with the Israelis (both in their own countries).
"it is immoral to be the judge and jury and hold the jail keys"
hmmm what about Egypt and Jordan during 1948-1967? do you feel they did the same thing?
"israel quits imagining god made them the winner."
Right, another 'diversion' line ... and a poor one at that considering most Israelis are not religious and many religious are 'ultra orthodox' (who live here, but aren't really enthralled with the idea of a 'state')
"it will just take israel changing course"
As usual, you think only 'Israel has to change course'. Do you see who leads the Palestinians? Do you think 'they' (we won't mention their name as you're afraid of them, I know) need to change course? Peace doesn't come when ONE SIDE makes changes, it comes when BOTH SIDES makes changes - now re: land, only Israel has to of course (well not Gaza but West Bank) but attitude etc: BOTH. You just don't grasp that for some reason.
"its been a slice!"
What does that mean?
Just again, why I think it's critical the Arab 'mentality' changes drastically (ie two to tango, especially if a peace is possible. As I said before, land is all Israel's responsibility - the attitude is both):
"If the Jews left Palestine to us, would we start loving them? Of course not. We will never love them ... They are enemies not because they occupied Palestine. They would have been enemies even if they did not occupy a thing."
Muhammad Hussein Ya’qoub
Now this is not 'all' Muslims, or even a majority of them. But we all know (at least those who are willing to 'talk' about Hamas) how powerful the minorities are in the Arab-Islamic world and if so many of their figures (be them religious or not) are willing to say this (it's Hamas's ideology too), then peace will never be possible, be it in 1 state, 2 or 54.
I'm sure this is your humor
you're so smart!
Ma'am, things were not good between Arab and Jew for centuries
not sure i agree w/you on this point.
re myths This makes no sense, but ok.
you know, a land without people etc, and palestinians 'abandoning', and the list goes on ans on..
what do you mean FINALLY I might addi am showing my true colors AS IF it never occurred to anyone why palestinians have gotten the short end of the stick? it doesn't take a rocket scientist to state the obvious, not have i ever hidden it. what's to hide! they have a name of it 'the right of return'. however you cannot ever take a leap of non logic to presume this means i think it is 'ok' to kill anyone, ever. but is it understandable? OF COURSE! this pressure to 'condem' is just propaganda tactics. i can't condemn a persons resistance to inhumane conditions? do i wish it wasn't so? of course. it makes much more sense to relieve the pressure rather than try to solve the problem thru dealing w/the response. that would be like constantly cleaning up a leaky bucket rather than fixing the pipe that's leaking into it. stopping the flow of water into the bucket rather than constantly moping. 'i'm condemning the bucket's leaks!'. it is a natural course. condem the plumber for refusing to fix the pipes!
But you've implied that even "Sdeot" is "Palestinian land"
ah the strawman! what would you do without him??????? i did not imply anything of the sort, i said EX palestinian land.
Tell me, what isn't Palestinian Land in Israel proper (just so I know how you view the Annie '2 state solution')
since israel has undefined borders i am not the person to ask what is and isn't your land. as far as i am concerned until palestinans have a land they can call there own i am operating in the equal opportunity offender mode. iow nothing about israel is proper, therefore there is no israel proper just like there is no palestinian proper. there will always be palestine (the holy land) what country/countries reside in it is fluid like time. certainly i can't spoeak for what will be in hundreds of years, just now. so define the borders, you tell me.
i call 1300 dead and thousands wounded a massacre.
I didn't see the Jews doing this in World War II
that is because the war ended in 4 years. something tells me after 60 you would have seen worse had they had the ability. or do you imagine you would have resided in those conditions for a century w/no violent recourse.
But whatever lets you excuse the attacks on innocent civilians.
go look in the mirror, because you have invested quite alot excusing many more times of innocents. like a thousand percent more.
"do not feel the same about innocent people living on stolen land who have a choice of where they live"
Again, your true colors finally rise to the surface
you can dress this up however you want but the result is many palestinians had their land stolen from them. lots of it, not all of it. those settlements on the west bank, that land is being stolen. this will not be resolved until palestinians have a land they can call their own. cart before the horse wanting israel defined prior to dealing w/the one who were there before. and don't ask me to go back thousand of years, thats just dumb. ottoman bottonman BS. this is present day. this is about as absurd as justifying native americans asserting legality over the entire US. go hang out w/the religious fanatics for this blathering.
The wall has stopped almost all attacks from the West Bank ...
again NO comment on anti rocket devices. you would think a modern day man who can design anti nuclear missles could come up w/a plan, but no. what would you do for justification w/out those little rocket attacks that your own intellegence briefing said were not from hamas during the pre slaughter period prior to invading gaza on nov 4th and murdering people.
"israel quits imagining god made them the winner."
Right, another 'diversion' line ... and a poor one at that considering most Israelis are not religious and many religious are 'ultra orthodox'
sorry, i forgot your personal prop is some ottoman times justification.
Do you think 'they' (we won't mention their name as you're afraid of them, I know) need to change course? Peace doesn't come when ONE SIDE makes changes,
huh? i am all for the elected representatives of the palestinians and israelis coming to some agreement which would require BOTH SIDES changing course. of course it isn't me ignoring hamas, i think it is israel denying them a place at the table. howe hypocritical accuse me of not acknowledging hamas when it is the zionist policy to banish them from existence. a place at the table avram which mean ISRAEL CHANGING COURSE. not israel demanding who will or will not be allowed to negotiate. so as long as their is one people calling the shots your whole concept is squewed. make that screwed.
google 'its been a slice' or 'a slice if life'
As I said before, land is all Israel's responsibility - the attitude is both
dude, if the situation was reversed and palestinains wanted jews to have an attitude adjustment prior to religuishing control of the land but while you were adjusting they kept invading and picking off the population and this had been going on 60 years. please, just get off it. nobody is going to ignore the fact that israel is REQUIRING its right to exist *when it is thriving) PRIOR to any negotiation. this is ass backweards when it is israel who hold the keys to whether palestinians eat and move around and live and die..
i'm not a puppet that jumps to memri's daily does of BS mar 12th propaganda! you are such a tool.
we all know (at least those who are willing to 'talk' about Hamas) how powerful the minorities are in the Arab-Islamic world
really? why don't you tells us about how much power hamas has in relation to israel. in fact, tell me all about the powerful forces in the middle east w/all the nukes. tell me about the powerful forces that impact the foriegn policy of my country. tell em about all those powerful muslim voices in mhy congress and my white house. tell me about all the power these voices weild over my life and my taxes. tell me about the power to choose who will and will not be allowed to be the chairman of the National Intelligence Council for the superpower. don't talk to me about power until you face head on the catostrophic power the israel lobby has on my country and this world.
"Ma'am, things were not good between Arab and Jew for centuries
not sure i agree w/you on this point."
Give me a country and we can discuss some of the things, bar the far too common 'dhimmi' rule written about in most books ...
"i can't condemn a persons resistance to inhumane conditions?"
Interesting - so can mexicans start bombing California and Texas due to the difficulties in their world as they the US DOES sit on occupied Mexican territory? What about Panama & Colombia? Should we go on? Or do you realize the kind of pandora box you've opened in your attempt to 'get away with' basically saying 'It's ok to fire & kill innocent Israelis due to the 'occupation'' ... The sad thing is that had the Jews killed Germans and Europeans freely throughout WWII and you were alive, you probably would have been furious.
"i call 1300 dead and thousands wounded a massacre."
Can you then provide a good source denying not only the Italian source (which the IDF challenged - 600) and the IDF source (which no one challenged, 600 of 900 were Hamas)
"I didn't see the Jews doing this in World War II
that is because the war ended in 4 years."
World War II lasted 6 years ma'am, and 33% of World Jewry was wiped out. Now granted, you probably don't even realize that more Palestinian refugees were butchered by THEIR OWN PEOPLE than Israel but their own people, if you cared to read history, didn't really take nicely to when it happened (Check out Syria's record ... or JOrdan's ... or Kuwait's ...)
"you would think a modern day man who can design anti nuclear missles could come up w/a plan,"
They're obviously trying ... Look how long it took to find a 'solution' to suicide bombings ... Wait, over 15 years ... I'm sure you were angry it took us that long too!
"Right, another 'diversion' line ... and a poor one at that considering most Israelis are not religious and many religious are 'ultra orthodox'
sorry, i forgot your personal prop is some ottoman times justification."
Thanks for proving you have no clue what you're talking about in this instance.
"if the situation was reversed and palestinains wanted jews to have an attitude adjustment"
Do you even know what happened on this land, when the 'Palestinians' (well really the English, but who cares about it!) did to the Jews? Maybe they decided killing us, or joining Hitler, was the best way to change our attitude! And tell you what, it worked in the Arab world to a 'tee' (but I know you hate talking about the Arab Jews, unless you can use them to attack Israel - heck, I do that all the time too though!)
"i'm not a puppet that jumps to memri's daily does of BS mar 12th propaganda! you are such a tool."
Yet again, why debating you (if you want to be honest and not some psycho on the Israeli right) is near impossible. Everything that shows how sickening the attitude of many Arabs is towards Jews, you called it 'staged' ...
Listen, as you've yet again proven your inability to have a fair debate where you can look at the faults of both people equally, perhaps we should try a ceasefire again and you not start posting links? Unless you want to blame that link on me and say I staged it as I was on 'auto pilot' ...
Yours,
'The Tool'
so can mexicans start bombing California and Texas due to the difficulties in their world as they the US DOES sit on occupied Mexican territory?
what would be their reasoning for bombing us? what kind of resistance are you talking about? i am not following your analogy. last i heard we have not encircling mexican regions and appropriating them. when we did, and they fought us, no i would not have condemned them for the alamo and the like.
but as i recall there was some sort of resolution. the people of mexican hertitage that live in those regions who have remained in both california and texas are now citizens of those states. we don't round them up, seclude them in one county, deny them citizenship, put a wall around them, control there land and food and continually attack them since then. but if we had, and it was still going on i am afraid i would find it rather difficult to condemn them for resisting their condition. the finali of that conflict ended over a centiry ago, where as there is no finali to your 60 year war. it is still going on because these people are in limbo. no group of people are going g to live in perpr=etual limbo and stagnation. we had a civil war here. do you think the loosers are in permanent secondary staus here?
go back to the drawing board with you analogy. but just to wet your whistle you may consider there are gang war w/heads being cut off right across our borders, very much w/citizens and actors from our side involved. i do not see us invading mexico as a solution going from house to house and having searches where we can freely shoot people for resisting.
but hey, if you want to consider the 48 conflict 'over' and israels past being only the past (like our war w/mexico) consider for the rest of eternity the losers and all their offspring being in permanent prison mode. kind of like if gitmo was times one million and we kept them on the island and even their children became our prisoners forever. sound reasonable?
israel is not mexico, not by a longshot. nor is Panama & Colombia.
however, we have don't our share of messing around in both those countries, including guatemala and chile. how convenient of the US imperialistic designs to fight covert wars in other locations. we are not interested in their land, only their resources. and they are very far away so a normal person will not be coming here to seek retribution for the death and mayhem we have cause in their country. but lets take columbia. i am sure you are likely familiar w/the massive killings we have supported there, of peasants and such. if it was going on for 60 years and not resolved and we had hit squads and such (which wer have had) and someone came here and blew themselves up, someone who's family had been suffering because of our greed for over half a century, well i think it would be the cart before the horse asking me to condem their action. what is it they say about pulling the mote out of your own eye. eradicate the cause. resolve the situation. israel is full of people who want the greater israel (either for religious or political reasons), this is likely the cause of the unresolve in the situation.
basically saying 'It's ok to fire & kill innocent Israelis due to the 'occupation'
ah the strawman crutch again avram. i am basically not saying anything of the sort. in fact i specifically said it is never ok to kill innocent people. you would love to frame this as me opening a pandoras box but thus far only by your strawman assertions can you establish this.
The sad thing is that had the Jews killed Germans and Europeans freely throughout WWII and you were alive, you probably would have been furious.
i am not following you. could you elaborate on this theory and how you got there based on a model of my words? or is this based on your strawman?
"the rockets were a response to suffering. "
Right, and so are the suicide bombings, and the attacks on schools etc. I didn't see the Jews doing this in World War II
that is because the war ended in 4 years."
World War II lasted 6 years ma'am, and 33% of World Jewry was wiped out.
your point? are you asserting if WW2 had dragged on for 60 years and jews had the means and opportunity to turn the tide they would never had responded to their suffering by firing rockets onto civilian areas? doesn't that seem a little odd since obviously they have no compulsion against killing civilians in their quest now. what exactly is your point? do jews have some moral highground to massarce civilians now because they didn't in WW2? you are loosing me w/your lack of logic.
Can you then provide a good source denying not only the Italian source (which the IDF challenged - 600) and the IDF source (which no one challenged, 600 of 900 were Hamas)
i have no further interest in playing a numbers game over death tolls w/you, go ahead repeat that one italian source ad nauseum, i could care less. its BS.
sorry, i forgot your personal prop is some ottoman times justification."
Thanks for proving you have no clue what you're talking about in this instance.
i do believe you used the 'jews have been in palestime since the ottoman' rational in the last post. some thousands of years ago thing. you just did it, excuse me for being too lazy to go read it again, find it yourself.
this is getting boring. FYI staging is what memri does. it has an agenda and it finds and promotes actors to fullfill that agenda always to an end it desires, demonizing islam. you want me to focus on some obscure egyption mullah memri posted on its website yesterday for the very purpose of people like you having fodder to debate people like me??
as i said, i'm not your tool.
perhaps we should try a ceasefire again and you not start posting links? Unless you want to blame that link on me and say I staged it as I was on 'auto pilot' ...
we did not have a ceasefire avram because we are not at war. as i stated before i will not be 'giving up' until it suits me. it is you who wants to end this, not me. you have total control over your own posting so by all means, give up defending the indefensible. you have only yourself to blame for yourself posting here, you can take total responsibility for your own actions can't you? or do you only work in the equal opportunity zone where you will only conceed to the degree i am willing to equalize israels inhumanity to man to that of the crimes of palestinians.
it takes two to tango avram, and one would imagine that the history of your people should be the first to inform you all sides are not equal. people in conflict do not all hold the same responsibility. life and war is not fair or balanced that way, that is why people take sides on where they lie in terms of what aligns with their personal sense of morality. contrary to your assertions this debate has been 'fair'. that is unless you find yourself at a natural disadvantage having to rely so heavily on strawmen and such. you have the tougher position to debate, and one cannot expect it to be easy defending such immoral actions as have occurred in recent history.
now, either i am right regarding this auto pilot, or you have an opportunity to prove me wrong.
tag your it.
"in fact i specifically said it is never ok to kill innocent people"
You say it, and yet you have yet to condemn kassam rocket fire b/c "as for sedot, doesn't it occur to those people they are living on ex palestinian graves and villages?" ...
There's a reason you don't talk about hamas and the issues they cause BOTH people - Now Bassam has blasted them, but you won't talk about them. Call it 'straw men', call it 'ad hominem crutch', make up lies (still waiting for you to say 'I have no proof whatsoever that millions of Palestinians were kicked off their lands before 1948' ... 'anger' excuse doesn't really work), or deny historians who are renowned worldwide because they don't agree with you.
Fact is, you preach on and on about what Israelis need to do ... and I've agreed with some of your things a lot. There needs to be a radical shift within Israeli society to push the 2 state solution in order that both people can build a future. There's a lot screwed up here, and I've never ONCE denied it (or for that matter, the wrong we've done to our neighbors pre and after 1948). That's the difference between me and you ma'am ... I can talk about 'good' & 'bad' because this isn't about an 'internet debate' like it is for you. I live here and the more they suffer, the more WE ALL suffer ...
I don't believe peace will come to this region (especially as long as Hamas and various organizations blast on about destroying Israel) ... I know you think they're all 'invented' by Memri (even though Bassam in one of the blogs confirmed the sickness of their quotes) ... Once you realize that, I think you'll come off as a far more honest, well intentioned poster. Anyone who 'refuses' to speak about Hamas or the Arab hand in this conflict, and ONLY talk about the wrongs committed by Israel is not motivated by a 'solution' ...
"there are gang war w/heads being cut off right across our borders, very much w/citizens and actors from our side involved. "
I've read a little about this - but not in depth to really comment on it (in a discussion), apologies.
"israel is full of people who want the greater israel "
There are a lot of people, yes. And the Palestinian territories are filled with people who want to destroy all of Israel. Wait, can we say that? Or me admitting some (it's lessening continually in my opinion) people live in 'la la land' is all you look for, for while you try to pretend that those living in 'la la land' on their side are just 'memri created' or 'staged' etc ...
It's been a slice!
you won't talk about them.
hello! i am talking about them, i am just not saying what you want to hear.
Call it 'straw men'
ok, i will you are unable to take me on in this arena because the lack the abiltiy or willingness to hear what i have to say, and therefore you insist on arguing your strawman.
There needs to be a radical shift within Israeli society to push the 2 state solution in order that both people can build a future. There's a lot screwed up here, and I've never ONCE denied it (or for that matter, the wrong we've done to our neighbors pre and after 1948). That's the difference between me and you ma'am ... I can talk about 'good' & 'bad' because this isn't about an 'internet debate' like it is for you. I live here and the more they suffer, the more WE ALL suffer ...
i know it must be excruciating at times and very difficult. i agree it is very different for us, you and me. if it serves to to consider this as solely an 'internet debate' for me, so be it. frankly i cannot understand how labeling me in the midst of passionately saying how this impacts you is worthy of your emotions but i have accepted you need to make things personal about me and this is a form of doing it.
if it makes it any more real (my involvement) i could add that someone i know thru my affiliations who lives quite near to me is lying in a hospital in tel aviv right now and it is very touch and go (lobotomy/protest/WB)whether he will live or die. i have not mentioned that earlier because i didn't see how bringing my personal involvement or relations into this conversation would enhance it.
but i might add, there are many many jews in my life, american jews. and this is very personal for thwm, and by extention for me. these would include relatives. i have more to say on this but i am late for an engagement and haven't ewen finished reading your post.
your passion speaks for itself. i do have confidence and optomism, i will get to the end of your post when i get home.
avram, i am tired but i will respond further to your post tomorrow, i wanted to say a few things
Anyone who 'refuses' to speak about Hamas or the Arab hand in this conflict, and ONLY talk about the wrongs committed by Israel is not motivated by a 'solution'
i have nit refused to speak of hamas avram. here is the situation. speaking about who does what when will not bring resolution. this is not going to be a therapy session, nor should it be. we have a few logistics we need to confront.
let's hit the basics. material things, tangible things, things we need to survive including land, food medicine etc. these are my concerns.
israel has everything
palestinains have nothing.
israel is the physical road block to palestinians having something.
you want to talk right and wrong and have a moral lesson firsat. you've had 60 years of that. people are starving and i am not interested in squeezing blood out of a turnip. palestinians have a turnip.
here are the facts as i see them.
israel is either going to have to kill them all,
keep them as prisoners
aor give something up.
now you tell me, what the F difference does it make what i say about hamas? the only thing they have left to give you is anger and their deaths. they are friggin tapped out.
what can i cay, they have their fanatics too, just like all of us?
so what? so what arvam? get the f over it. you have your fanatics, we have our fanatics, they have theirs. so what. quit making it about what you want them to do and look at the facts.
lots of people on team israel want what bwelongs to them and they keep getting it. that is unsustainable.
give it up. asking me to condem them is fruitless. it serves no purpose whatsoever. we've heard it. all of it. forever and ever. hamas has rockets. i get it. and idf have lots of weapons. i get that. and israels hate jarabs and arabs hate jews. i get that too. now between the time of now and the time you figure this all out and have amillion therapy sessions could israel please pass the friggin butter becaus somebodies starving.
who morals are better is besides the point. the point is, while you can rest in your home and bath and internet and eat and travel, your adversaries are physically suffering.
and me condemning hamas will not aliviate that. not one little eeny teeny bit. because the only thing that will make a difference is if they have the freedom to have this debate in the same comfort you have. and siv=ce you are the one occupying them you need to release. not me, not them, you. israel needsto step up to the plate or stay the same or finish them off. but i will tell you this much. most poeple will not be blaming some radical egyptian cleric memri is pointing to.
seriously, if i were in there shoes, i'd probably be completely off my rocker by now. i'd be a total nutcase. when you drive people to that, they don't always surrender. sometiomes they ask themselves what is life worth living for, and if i go down, why shouldn't they. that is how you get suicide bombers avram..
you want me to condem them? can they eat first?
"speaking about who does what when will not bring resolution"
And yet, you continually speak about what "Israel does" ...
"israel has everything
palestinains have nothing."
Glad you think Gaza is nothing. But as I said earlier in this thread, the 'land' responsibility is ours entirely quite obviously. I just wish you'd see how important the 'attitude' and the strong attitude against the "Jews" is in their world ...
"they have their fanatics too, just like all of us?"
Do you know what their charter says? Do you know that they are the 'chosen elect' of the Palestinians. What does that tell you? You go on and on about 'Greater Israel' and this issue with Hamas doesn't bother you AT ALL.
"and me condemning hamas will not aliviate that"
I never said it would - but it does make you a far more 'balanced' poster and not one who spends 100% of her time slamming Israel 'claiming' she wants a solution. If someone wants a solution, they see problems both sides caused.
"seriously, if i were in there shoes, i'd probably be completely off my rocker by now."
Would you have gone on massacres in the 1920s too? Or celebrated Hitler's final solution as the Mufti did? Or would this have only started in 1948? or 1967? I guess you'll call this 'straw men', but alas, the 'off my rocker' actions started long before Israel ... and I doubt it was staged too.
"you want me to condem them? can they eat first?"
So once more people have food on their side (I think something like 20% of Israelis are also 'in that bracket' now too sadly), you will condemn their attacks on innocents and their charter's goal of destroying Israel? I'm glad!
Awesome Annie,
This is the latest I've read about the Mexican gang wars you mentioned briefly:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/03/14/mexico.bodies.found/index.html
Do you have any more good sources on that (please, nothing that is too radical)?
Thanks
Avram,
I'm not awesome (:D), but here is a blogger who has visited Mexico recently. He has written a couple of posts about what is happening down there.
Thanks Lynette, some interesting stuff there.
You're not still reading all our posts, are you?
sorry for all the typos in that last post, i was so exhausted when i wrote it, and frustrated, and the letter were flying off the keyboard.
I just wish you'd see how important the 'attitude' and the strong attitude against the "Jews" is in their world ...
i do. i absolutely do. and i also see how strong the attitude against the "Arabs" is in your world is.
i think the whole world sees this. we see it. i see it, you see it, Bassam sees it. we all get it. many of you guys don't like eachother, with good reason.
And yet, you continually speak about what "Israel does" ...
yes, well i would like to be talking about things israel can do to bring resolution. because she is holding all the cards. my point was that it does seem rather futile to be asking what palestine can give up since they don't have anything.
Glad you think Gaza is nothing.
why? am i supposed to be impressed with the shape of gaza?
Hamas doesn't bother you AT ALL.
i'm not so sure how hamas bothering me or not is going to make a palestinian state. i posted hamas rise to power over and over and nobody seemed to want to discuss it at all.
hamas didn't just 'appear'. maybe we should review all of the options the palestinians had, that israel respected. fatah? life was so good w/fatah? US/IS was arming them for a civil war. did fatah protect the people from israel expansion?
Ironically, it was Israel which encouraged the rise of the Palestinian Islamist movement as a counter to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the secular coalition composed of Fatah and various leftist and other nationalist movements. Beginning in the early 1980s, with generous funding from the U.S.-backed family dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, the antecedents of Hamas began to emerge through the establishment of schools, health care clinics, social service organizations and other entities which stressed an ultra-conservative interpretation of Islam which up to that point had not been very common among the Palestinian population. The hope was that if people spent more time praying in mosques, they would be less prone to enlist in left-wing nationalist movements challenging the Israeli occupation.
While supporters of the secular PLO were denied their own media or right to hold political gatherings, the Israeli occupation authorities allowed radical Islamic groups to hold rallies, publish uncensored newspapers and even have their own radio station. For example, in the occupied Palestinian city of Gaza in 1981, Israeli soldiers—who had shown no hesitation in brutally suppressing peaceful pro-PLO demonstrations—stood by when a group of Islamic extremists attacked and burned a PLO-affiliated health clinic in Gaza for offering family planning services for women.
my field of study in school was psychology. frankly i think the palestinian population is traumatized. my understanding is they were a very secular culture prior to the nabka. it stands to reason whatever they are now is largely a result of their conditions. and the same w/israel. the difference being those conditions are radically different. frankly i don't think israel would be in the position its in without the massive backing of the US. and i don't think palestine would be in the situation its in without the mettling of the world community.
but it does make you a far more 'balanced' poster and not one who spends 100% of her time slamming Israel
i don't care if you think i'm balanced. do you care if i think you are balanced? it may interest you to know i do not spend 100% of my time slamming israel. i actually have a bit of a life. i've been reading up on the iraqi sculptor Ahmed Fadaam and i went to school today and helped a friend move. you should try not to focus on me me me me. neither of us are 'balanced'. life isn't balanced. opinions are not balanced. people have opposing views. otherwise we would be in this conversation. if you think you can balance all of israels acts as responses to palestine, and thereby 'balance' the coverage, it is futile. the situation is not balanced.
i don't want to talk about you and me, its stupid and not productive.
why are you bringing up the 1920's?
let's talk about right now. if any person had lived thru the last massacre in gaza, had been one of those people who had witnessed children getting killed..i don't know what they would be capable of frankly.
can they eat first?"
So once more people have food on their side
i was speaking metaphorically. by food i meant the basics in life. food shelter safety, no war zone, access to their land, a home a state access to good education.
yes, when palestinians have all that, if they elect radicals i will condemn them. but you never know, once people aren't living in radical conditions, they may act differently. whats your excuse? israelis are not living in radicsal conditions, and they are still radical.
our goals are different. i want a poeaceful resolution to a problem . i am not asking you to condem israel, i am asking israel to give up its control of power over palestinians, and stop the expansion. your goal seems to be to get me to condemn hamas,
why? what differenc will it make whether i condemn hamas? all those people will still be suffering. you act like condemning hama will make israel change, it won't. read the article. it is the shorter version.
just a warning, i will be ignore your obsession with me condemning from here on out. it is pointless. it is also a game i've encountered before. do you guys share strategies? this isn't an american cultural thing , this 'condemning' argument format BS.
avram and lyn, i wish i knew more about the mexico situation than the regular new but i don't.
mexico has some serious issues w/law enforcement and corruption but the national army is strong. this has been going on for a long time and i know bordering texas in juarez there is a serial murderer a few years ago. there is some stuff i read about, ongoing involving the drug war but i don't have enough clrity about it to post it. i could maybe dig up some links. this is an ongoing problem.
2 summers ago i knew someone who was murdered in one of the pot growong communities by the mexican mafia. they are running growing operations out of there and totally ruthless. they murdered someone from the res communtiy, res police or something. indian. they are ruthless, the mexican mafia. i also lived on the border for many years in arizona. the mexican mafia is not something to mness with. but the police there are very corrupt.
many times you find that in law enforcement because people who are attracted to control are attracted to the police, and prisons. the same way pedophiles will be attracted to schools. so while it isn't the majority by far, it is present. and it make them very dangerous. infiltrators.
but i have confidence in mexico. the people there are so wonderful. i've been there many many times and lived there for 2 months. very warm generous giving people. here is what i don't think they should do: an airbombing campaign.
i do think we should help, but not sure how. let the mexican government sort things out for the most part. the biggest thing we could do, really imho, is legalize drugs. control it. tax it. it would be a big industry. it is a big industry. medical marijuana is big buisness here. countries w/legalized drugs have less crime related drug situation and besides, our prisons are crammed w/drug convicts.
the money is here and they want to control the trade from mexico. legalizing it would make it cheaper, make money for the governemnt, allow the government oversite. hemp.
but thats just my idea, i don't know if it would really stop the murder and crime. but we definitely won't solve anything by collectively punishing the mexicans by bombing them. jeeeeeeez!
i feel really bad for the cops who are threatened and killed. if you don't go along they kill you. they are fanaticas. but eventually there own people will control them and thats how it should be. because if an outsider comes in and does it and their is colladertal damage, the people then choose sides, and thats when you run the risk of them feeling more safe with the criminals then with the law enforcement. you have ot empower the law enforcement that is not corrupt. that is what we should have done in iraq. very sad.
but i am not so worried. it is very localized and mexico is a wonderful country. it won't fall apart. they have gone thru a lot. the situation w/some of the indigenous communities i know something about. some horrid massacres in recent decades. the government can be quite severe. but i don't think the country will unravel. not by a long shot. this is about controlling the US market of drugs. and there are A LOT of people on our side making a killing, and they certainly aren't all mexican.
"i see it, you see it, Bassam sees it. we all get it. many of you guys don't like each other, with good reason."
finally - a bit of progress. so if you see there is a problem in their attitude towards Israel AND Jews (it's not just Israel driven sadly, otherwise I'd be far more optimistic), then how come you don't 'demand' that changes when Israel leaves land to create Palestine?
"because she is holding all the cards. "
In one arena, we both agree. But in the 'attitude' arena, you have already said there is a problem ... So surely that has to bother you too.
"why? am i supposed to be impressed with the shape of gaza?"
Depends what kind of shapes you like!
"hamas didn't just 'appear'."
No they didn't - but now that they're a reality, surely you see issues with their charter's goals and their non-stop incitement ...
Israel backed Hamas once ... Yes, because they thought it was a better option than Arafat's Fatah. I'm not sure they were wrong then, they had to choose one to strengthen.
"frankly i think the palestinian population is traumatized"
Agree, I still don't find this a reason to pull some of the stunts they do.
"and i don't think palestine would be in the situation its in without the mettling of the world community."
I somehow doubt it - even you can admit there was no 'independent' Arab state there before Israel. England (& before it the Ottmans) were in control. So with strong population currents moving in, something would have given (no one knows what I guess)
"do you care if i think you are balanced?"
I try to be balanced because a solution will only come with balance.
"you should try not to focus on me me me me. "
But I'm debating with 'you you you you'
"why are you bringing up the 1920's?
let's talk about right now."
Ignoring history, and as I've mentioned before the long 'crack' in the relationship between Jew & Arab, means we won't fix this (it's not about land in my opinion). There needs to be a fundamental change in the attitude of Arabs to a Jewish state here, and there needs to be amongst many Jews to accept being neighbors with a Palestinian state.
"no war zone"
this whole region is a war zone ...
"israelis are not living in radicsal conditions, and they are still radical."
ha ha ... a) thanks for the generalization of all Israeli society and b) I'm rather certain you're not stupid enough that you don't realize what 'radicalizes' Israelis (let's start with 8,000 rockets or Hamas and what they spew or Iran or Syria or Hezbollah)
"i want a poeaceful resolution to a problem "
peace doesn't come when once side gives another side everything she deserves, when that side doesn't get what she deserves too. You can't see that, but peace (going by the two Israel has signed with Jordan and Egypt) is about compromise ...
"your goal seems to be to get me to condemn hamas"
Well considering you want 'a peaceful solution', surely Hamas doesn't play into your equation with their goals of eradicating Israel. That's why I'm not sold you want a 'peaceful solution' (or should I re-phrase, a 'realistic solution')
"you act like condemning hama will make israel change"
Right, once you condemn Hamas, there will be peace! I'm waiting!!!
"i will be ignore your obsession with me condemning from here on out."
You ignore a lot of stuff Annie ... I'm used to it already. Maybe when you post another 'Oh millions of Palestinians were kicked off the land before 1948), you'll ignore my requests for sources again in hope that you don't have to admit you ignore historical facts too ...
"it is also a game i've encountered before. do you guys share strategies?"
... you guys ... yes, Awesome Annie does let it slip sometimes.
"this isn't an american cultural thing"
I wouldn't want to be American, so I'll take that as a compliment! Thanks!
forgot to mention ... ha ha when you condemn Israel throughout this thread, what are you if ...
"this isn't an american cultural thing , this 'condemning' argument format BS"
ha ha ... Are you an Icelandic cultural thing? Maybe Cameroonian?
Avram,
You're not still reading all our posts, are you?
lol! No, actually I'm not. I just stop by every now and then to see if you are still here and then skim you. Annie is predictable, so I tend to skip most of her stuff. But I still find an Israeli's perspective interesting. A lot of people on these blogs tend to speak only from the Palestinian perspective.
I, like you, believe in a more balanced approach to evaluating a situation.
Good luck. :)
then how come you don't 'demand' that changes when Israel leaves land to create Palestine?
a very good question i have already addressed! i think it is entirely reasonable to demand the animosity stop. but notice your wording there avram. you are finally NOT putting the cart before the horse. my understanding is, israel is demanding requirements of palestinians PRIOR to giving them land. that has been it all along. and as long as it does not meet israels demands, they don't get a state. but israel hasn't even demanded that of its own people.
again, i think when israel leaves land to create the official palestine state, then it is entirely reasonable to expect each country to respect the inhabitants in the other. what if it was israel sitting in limbo and it was up to the palestinians to be the judge and jury of whether the jews were 'friendly enough' to turn over land? see what i mean? i thought i made myself clear in my last post when i said this
yes, when palestinians have all that, if they elect radicals i will condemn them. but you never know, once people aren't living in radical conditions, they may act differently. whats your excuse? israelis are not living in radicsal conditions, and they are still radical.
people have a right to resist, if you take away the need to resist, you take away justification for retaliation. israel knows this, that is why they are so determined to ALWAYS frame their actions as a 'response'. even tho the are the aggressor. this is the advantage of playing 'victim'. except when you look at the people and the collective punishment it is fairly obvious who the overwhelming majority of victims are.
this is why it isn't balanced.
But in the 'attitude' arena, you have already said there is a problem ... So surely that has to bother you too.
i'n no longer addressing the personal remarks. pointless. But I'm debating with 'you you you you'
forget about me, focus on the topic. drop the crutch. stick to policies and ways to move forward.
am i supposed to be impressed with the shape of gaza?"
Depends what kind of shapes you like!
your point? is this a joke?
we won't fix this (it's not about land in my opinion).
really? how quaint. you don't think palestinains not having a state and the right of determination is relevant? how about you SEPARATED the part that isn't about the land, and deal w/the land issue because i can tell you straight up land is EXTREMELY important to israel, and palestinians alike.
There needs to be a fundamental change in the attitude of Arabs to a Jewish state here, and there needs to be amongst many Jews to accept being neighbors with a Palestinian state.
well they need to grow up, who died and made them the king. besides, so what? obviously you got a state without acknowledging palestinian rights. this should not be up to israel, i am sure if they had their druthers boths sides would rather have all the land. stretch your reality and think of both sides as being equals. shocking, how..balanced is that?
There needs to be a fundamental change in the attitude of Arabs to a Jewish state here, and there needs to be amongst many Jews to accept being neighbors with a Palestinian state.
i believe this has been covered by me:
dude, if the situation was reversed and palestinains wanted jews to have an attitude adjustment prior to religuishing control of the land but while you were adjusting they kept invading and picking off the population and this had been going on 60 years. please, just get off it. nobody is going to ignore the fact that israel is REQUIRING its right to exist *when it is thriving) PRIOR to any negotiation. this is ass backwards when it is israel who hold the keys to whether palestinians eat and move around and live and die..
you'll ignore my requests for sources again in hope that you don't have to admit you ignore historical facts too ...
i guess you like chewing on this bone so much you just overrode me saying this, on the 12th at 9:23, that would be 6 days ago i addressed this, quite promptly as i recall
i'm not going to bicker w/you about 47/48. i probably over reacted because you made some crazy allegation things were AOK in 47 which everyone knows they most certainly were not. when the 30 year passage secret documents became available ('78) and lots of information became available, i think it was ben gurion in a letter to his brother who made the plan clear but i'm not going to drag up any quotes because the list is loooong. so i know i am not always right.
do you understand that? i over reacted by asserting the purges started 6 months earlier than they did. however, there was a plan prior to the purges, prior to 48, and this is confirmed by statements made that are held in the archives in UK that were released in 78 after 30 years.
do you want me to find those racist quotes that make it very clear the purging of villages was an intention not a 'reaction'. because i can dig them up. it ain't pretty.
... you guys ... yes, Awesome Annie does let it slip sometimes.
a little paranoid there avram! lol, you crack me up i was referencing the right wing blogger's i'vre encountered on iraqi blogs. i do believe it was our bud rhus who harrassed me for months to condemn anyone in iraq who would seek to bring down the government. (check archives or ask anyone who was present) the exact term, exactly. over and over. and now it appears the US may be undermining maliki...hmmm. wonders never cease. so NO, i was not talking about jews! i don't think the condemn kings rhus or jefferey were jewish. when i said it wasn't american i meant it isn't anything i run into as a norm in arguing prior to the political blogs. maybe it is just a coincidence you and rhus both are asking me to 'condemn' something. weird. it seems very unusual. i googled 'are you going to condem' and found this from freerepublic (right wing). maybe this is a new thing i should be getting used to. its stupid, asking your opponent