'Bombs more precious than children'

[sellitman]

'Bombs more precious than children'
Hamas TV shows daughter telling suicide bomber mother she will 'follow her path'
Yaakov Lappin
Published: 03.22.07, 21:44 / Israel News
A 'music video' broadcast on a Palestinian Hamas TV station on Wednesday had a simple message for its viewers: Carrying out a suicide bomb attack is more important than raising one's children.

The video, broadcast on al-Aqsa TV, was made available by Palestinian Media Watch and can be viewed on YouTube.

It features a young Palestinian girl singing to her mother who is preparing to carry out a suicide bomb attack.

"Duha, daughter of suicide bomber Reem Riyashi, sings to her mother," the caption on the video read. In 2004, Riyashi killed four Israelis after blowing herself up on a border crossing between Israel and Gaza.

More: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3380073,00.html



These are the people we are suppose to negotiate with?

[bemildred]

1. Yep, you need to negotiate, otherwise this will continue.

How else you going to stop it?

[sellitman]

2. Negotiating with Terrorists isn't an option.

Let them renounce this kind of violence and admit to Israels right to exist and they will have all the negotiating they need, They would have their own State so fast it would make their heads spin.

[bemildred]

3. Pointing at the endless list of deranged loons created by Israeli

government policy of violence, theft, harassment, repression and starvation will not resolve the conflict. The first thing to do when you are hitting yourself in the head with a hammer, and your head hurts, is to put the hammer down. If you like things the way they are, of course, there is no need for change.

[cali]

11. Israel is not solely responsible for the deranged loons

The culture that creates them also bears some responsibility. You seem unable to recognize that fact.

Having said that, I believe that Israel does bear a great deal of responsibility and their refusal to talk to the new Unity Government is reprehensible.

[HamdenRice]

13. If it's the culture, how do you explain the Rabin & Barak years?

If I recall they were like the golden years of the Israeli and Palestinian conflict. I remember reading stories about Israelis taking day trips to go shopping in Palestinian towns, Palestinian and Israeli business people creating joint ventures, and Israeli tourism to Jordan and Egypt taking off. I remember an incident when a deranged Palestinian (or Jordanian?) shot or stabbed an Israeli near the Jordan border and Arafat went to the family to offer condolences and was welcomed.

Can you imagine a time when one killing by a psychotic was big news and led to just more reconciliation?

Presumably Palestinians have the same culture then that they have now.

It seems to me that when it was obvious that progress was being made, even if there were big disputes and big problems to solve, things were remarkably peaceful.

[cali]

30. How do you explain

Munich and the Olympic athletes? Look, I've been clear: Israel gets a great portion of the blame, but the Palestinians are responsible, to at least some degree. It's so typical this total one sidedness.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. It's total one-sidedness to point out it's not culture????

Because just like bemildred, the poster yr replying to didn't say that only Israel was to blame...

[cali]

38. Violet, violet, violet

It's perfectly reasonable to read this:

"Pointing at the endless list of deranged loons created by Israeli..."

as blaming solely the Israelis.

It's laughable to see you and bemildred denying it. Not surprising, but pretty funny.

[Violet_Crumble]

44. Neither HamdenRice nor bemildred solely blamed Israel...

In the post of HamdenRice's where you accused them of solely blaming Israel, they weren't even talking about blame, but pointing out that it's not culture...

And when it comes to bemildred's opinions on things, I have this zany belief that bemildred is far, far better equipped to say what his opinions are than anyone else in this forum. And his opinion is that neither the Palestinians nor Israel are solely to blame....

[wellst0nev0ter]

35. Wow, Reaching Back To 1972 Are We?

And somehow the grownups were able to negotiate with the man who was responsible for that attack, creating that "idyllic" time in the I/P conflict.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

49. I think the explanation is clear...

I can understand the fury of the terminally dispossessed, watching the so-called civilized nations play games.

[pelsar]

32. didnt happen..

it was a jordanian solider who shot a bunch of israeli school children and it was the king of jordan who went to visit..and the king was very welcomed..

the jordanians also guard their border very well and have prevented multiple attacks upon israelis

not arafat.....

[HamdenRice]

39. It was a Jordanian soldier, but Arafat definitely went

and was welcomed. It was a very peaceful time of reconciliation between not just Israel and Jordan, but Israelis and Palestinians.

[pelsar]

51. nope.....do some research...

Many Israelis were touched by Hussein's condolence call, including Yehezkel Cohen, whose 13-year-old daughter Nirit was killed in last Thursday's shootings. "I really love him. Despite the sorrow, I say this: I hope and believe in King Hussein and a real peace."

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9703/16/israel.hussein/index.html


its not hard with google....arafat never did such a thing

[HamdenRice]

52. You are making some very faulty assumptions

First, that the incident you found, in which six (not one) person was shot, and King Hussein offered condolences, is the same incident. The incident I recall, as my original post mentioned, occurred when, I believe, either Rabin or Barak was prime minister. Your own cited article mentions Netanyahu was pm.

Second, you are assuming that if it was the same incident, just because you found Hussein offered condolences, that Arafat did not also do so.

[pelsar]

90. no i just happen to know some history....

and arafat never visited an israeli family with condolences......if he did it would have been front page news and not very difficult to find on the internet....i cant ..perhaps you can

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Culture creates the deranged loons?

Isn't it the conditions that create them rather than culture? After all, Israel has it's share of deranged loons, and just like with the Palestinians, I see that as being due to the conditions the I/P conflict has created rather than due to culture....

[bemildred]

23. Never said they were.

Palestinians are not solely responsible for Israeli culture either. Nevertheless, from either side, if you let the deranged loons run around loose, then that's what you get.

[breakaleg]

4. In some ways I'd like for them to recognize Israel. Because then we'd likely see that those few

little words didn't yield the results Israel claims and they'd have to find another mantra.

[sellitman]

5. Do you think for one minute

that the Palestinians would recognize Israels right to exist if Israel went back to pre 1967 borders?

The Palestinians don't believe that...why would Israel?

[breakaleg]

7. Yes. I think they do already recognize Israel but it's their leaders who are waiting

until a resolution before saying those words. Why should they recognize Israel while there are no peace talks? While Israel doesn't recognize Palestinians right to exist? It's all very one sided.

[sellitman]

18. Since when has Israel denied the Palestinians the right to exist?

It certainly wasn't when they gave up the last large piece of land won during the 6 day war. I think you have your story a little crooked. Show me were the Palestinians have given up on driving Israel into the sea. I'd love some proof.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. The Likud Charter certainly denies it...

And it's totally incorrect that Israel has given up the last large piece of land 'won' during the Six Day War. The West Bank is still under Israeli control...

[msmcghee]

24. Is Israel governed by Likud's Charter? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

26. No more than the Palestinians are ruled by the Hamas Charter n/t

[msmcghee]

28. Well, I don't think that's quite as easy to say.

It kind of depends on whether Hamas or Fatah has more guns on the street on any given day.

Israel is still burdened by that old parliamentary system and their various parties are governed by the rules of law last I checked.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. It's every bit as easy to say...

It's got nothing to do with who out of Hamas or Fatah has more guns or pretending that the Likud Charter doesn't apply to how the Likud Party operates. The fact of the matter is that both the Palestinians and Israel at various times and in various manners have tried to deny the right of the other to exist....

[msmcghee]

36. Of course the Likud party operates according to . .

. . the Likud Charter. The Likud Party however, does not control Israel. They only form part of the government.

I don't think you or anyone else knows exactly what connection exists between the PA and the militants who fire the rockets - although we do know that Hamas takes credit for a good many of them - not the PA. So in some important respects it appears that the Palestinians are somewhat controlled and suffer for the actions of Hamas - and not the PA.

The Palestinians have had a long sting of governments (or quasi governmental militant factions) that were dedicated to the destruction of Israel. As far as I know Israel has never had a government with that policy toward the Palestinians.

I suspect though that eventually, if peace becomes a hopeless mirage in an ever hazier future, that Israel will tire of the constant state of war and killing and may adopt even more stringent defensive policies that would help more Palestinians see the wisdom in living someplace other than next door to Israel.

That may be their only reasonable alternative.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. And the Hamas Charter doesn't control the Palestinians...

And with the announcement of a unity government, Hamas only forms part of the government....

Of course Israel has had governments that have been hardline when it came to the future of the Palestinians, and have not recognised their right to exist in their own state consisting of the West Bank and Gaza....

The reasonable alternative you described is ethnic cleansing and there's nothing reasonable about that at all...

[Tom Joad]

40. A classic statement MsM. certainly says much about your perspective.

thanks for sharing.

And you call it "defensive" Policy.
taking chutzpah to a whole new level.

[msmcghee]

41. Yes, I am very honest and open with my views.

I don't try to hide them and say something else here. I try to say exactly what I see from my perspective.

I have no allusions that I am right. My conclusions are just the best I can produce with what I know right now. My hope is that some day someone will challenge my views (views that may be wrong) with the same honesty. That's the only way I would know if I was wrong.

I'll continue being patient.

[Tom Joad]

42. I have no illusions that entertaining the thought of crimes against humanity

such as ethnic cleansing, will in any way bring peace.
I see we differ on that.

[msmcghee]

43. Discussing such a serious matter . .

. . I'd think you would use something more substantial than buzzwords.

It's really a more complex issue than that.

Imagine that you were destitute and on your last ropes - but a kind deceased relative gave you a house to live in. But it turned out to be in a bad neighborhood next to several violent racist neighbors who didn't like "your kind". They kill your dog and wound one of your kids the first week and thereafter periodically fire guns through your walls. Further that your neighbors claim that they intend to continue harassing you until you are either dead or leave the neighborhood. The cops are also a bit racist and when called in either do nothing or tend to side with your neighbor.

I'd say you've been dealt some pretty crummy cards. You don't have many choices at that point - especially if there's no chance you could move anywhere else.

You could kill their dogs too and start firing your gun at their kids and through their walls at all hours. But that's not like you to become a violent racist yourself just because you had the bad luck to move in next to some.

But, if the years go by and despite repeated efforts on your part to make peace with them - their attitude only worsens and becomes more entrenched - if they keep shooting their guns and making your life an endless nightmare - if they raise new generations of grandchildren and teach them to hate you - at some point you will lose hope for the future and your patience. At some point you may not care so much about the hardships your own defenses may exact on your neighbors' lives for example.

But if the end result of your defending your family's lives is that the more violent of your neighbors decide to move away - perhaps both because of the hardship it imposes on them and their frustration at not getting rid of you - why is that so bad? Wouldn't that be better than an all out war that would result in many of your racist neighbor's children being killed?

In the real world sometimes life comes down to choices just like those - both in urban neighborhoods and across international borders. Just like pelsar's helicopter pilot's two choices. Both of them shitty choices - but a decision must be made. It's important IMO to have the humanity to realize that bad choices like that are sometimes the only choices available to good people - and discussing them openly is always better than throwing around buzzwords IMO.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. Calling ethnic cleansing a 'reasonable alternative' is disgusting...

And that's what you called it....

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

47. I know you said that ethnic cleansing is a reasonable alternative...

What you don't seem to understand is that there is no way anyone who calls themselves a progressive should ever be trying to justify ethnic cleansing, and that's what you've done.

Is there any possibility you could stop trying to put words into other people's mouths? I have never stated a preference for a war that kills children and innocent civilians. Unlike you, I see a future where a fair and just solution to the conflict will happen and both Israelis and Palestinians will live in peace...

And don't even try to compare yr justification of ethnic cleansing with pelsar's helicopter scenario. Unlike you, he wasn't advocating ethnic cleansing of an entire population. As I recall I answered his question pretty soon after he asked it, though he didn't like my answer....

[Tom Joad]

48. It is not a choice between a great crime against humanity, and continued conflict.

Why do you suppose, in that magnificent mind of yours, that those are the only alternatives?

[Tom Joad]

50. Let's hear some details... how is this "relocation" going to be carried out?

How are the orders enforced? What if Palestinians refuse orders?

How is the transportation arranged? Are people placed on the back of Army trucks or what? Renting a record number of Uhaul trucks?

And a not small detail... where are the people of Palestine going to relocated to? What place on earth do you think Israel should allow them to reside?

[Tom Joad]

54. You still haven't answered my question. I would like to hear details of how

you think this transfer of the Palestinian population might take place.
It will be difficult logisitcally, no?
Where will they go that will be acceptable to Israel?
And what of Palestinians who will not submit to such a fate?

Please share.

[msmcghee]

55. Your questions are absurd and bear no realtion . .

. . to the ideas I expressed in my several posts on the topic. I don't mind challenging questions on topic. Ask a serious question and I'll give you my honest answer but I take too much time on my posts to waste it on silliness like this.

[Tom Joad]

56. How is it absurd? Simply asked how such a program might be carried out.

Haven't you thought this out?

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[Tom Joad]

59. Believe me, relating to you is the very, very opposite.

[Tom Joad]

65. Ethnic Cleansing as war crime and crime against humanity.

http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/ethnic-cleansing.html

(This article is specifically dealing with crimes in Bosnia, but what was a crime there, and what was a crime that was carried out by some of the most notorious regimes of the 20th century, is still a crime anywhere it might be undertaken. Anyone that suggest the solution might be resolved by the transfer of either the Jewish or the Palestinian population should consider this before suggesting such a solution.)
Emphasis added

Ethnic cleansing is a blanket term, and no specific crime goes by that name, but the practice covers a host of criminal offenses. The United Nations Commission of Experts, in a January 1993 report to the Security Council, defined “ethnic cleansing” as “rendering an area ethnically homogenous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area.” It said ethnic cleansing was carried out in the former Yugoslavia by means of murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, extrajudicial executions, rape and sexual assault, confinement of the civilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian areas, and wanton destruction of property. The Commission’s final report in May 1994 added these crimes: mass murder, mistreatment of civilian prisoners and prisoners or war, use of civilians as human shields, destruction of cultural property, robbery of personal property, and attacks on hospitals, medical personnel, and locations with the Red Cross/Red Crescent emblem.

Perpetrators of such crimes are subject to individual criminal responsibility, and military and political leaders who participated in making and implementing the policy “are also susceptible to charges of genocide and crimes against humanity, in addition to grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of international humanitarian law,” the 1994 report said.

International law took up the question of the systematic expulsion of civilians, and the barbaric practices associated with it, after World War II. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 forbids "individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country." The actions are grave breaches of the Fourth Convention—war crimes of particular seriousness.

[breakaleg]

22. Take a look at the conditions under which Palestinians are forced to live.

Do they have a state? Anything close to it?

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. The vast majority of Palestinians have supported a peaceful resolution

to this conflict for a long, long time:

"Polling Data

Some believe that a two-state formula is the favored solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict, while others believe that historic Palestine can’t be divided and thus the favored solution is a bi-national state on all of Palestine where Palestinians and Israelis enjoy equal representation and rights. Which of these solutions do you prefer?

Two-state solution: an Israeli
state and a Palestinian state
52.4%

Bi-national state on all
of historic Palestine
23.6%

No solution
9.4%

One Palestinian state
7.4%

Islamic state
2.9%

Others
2.0%

Don’t know
1.0%

No answer
1.3%


Source: Jerusalem Media & Communication Center
Methodology: Interviews with 1,197 adults in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, conducted on Jun. 21 and Jun. 22, 2006. Margin of error is 3 per cent."

link:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12493

___________________________


another survery from Near East Consulting:

February 2007 -- link: http://neareastconsulting.com/surveys/all/p22/out_freq_q27.php

Support ot opposition to a one-state solution in historic Palestine where Muslims, Christians and Jews have equal rights and responsibilities?

Support: 70.4

Oppose: 29.6

_________________

for a wide range of polls Near East Consulting monitors Palestinian opinion on a regular basis producing a wide range of surverys:

http://neareastconsulting.com/

[barb162]

9. I think the election poll voting in Hamas is more important

Hamas doesn't recognize Israel and wants Israel destroyed.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Hamas won the election based on domestic issues...

They didn't run a campaign about destroying Israel, and people voted for them because of the corruption of Fatah officials....

[oberliner]

12. This poll might be of interest

http://www.alternativenews.org/news/english/palestinian-poll-on-final-status-issues-borders-refugees-jerusalem-water-politics-democracy-20070304.html

[Douglas Carpenter]

27. thank you...interesting polls

sometimes they can seem contradictory. But they sometimes reflect what people would consider ideal versus what they would consider minimally acceptable and possible or probable.

sometimes they reflect what one might believe in theory versus what they might believe down here on planet earth

recently both from polls and personal experience I find tremendous pessimism which contrast greatly from the early and mid-90's.

[pelsar]

8. the irony....

thats gaza for you:


israel must break the "cycle of violence"

israel must do something dramatic

israel must let the palestinians govern themselves

israel must remove the roadblocks....

israel must pull back to the intl border.....



__________

so much for that mantra......

[barb162]

10. Thanks for pointing that out.

There's lots of denial about Palestinians having responsibility for stopping violence, isn't there?

[Violet_Crumble]

16. Both sides need to stop the violence...

Don't you agree?

[Tom Joad]

25. Where would this "State" be? Israel has basically annexed much of the West Bank

Is Israel going to
a) remove 400,000 Jewish settlers (or will settlers remain in a mixed state with mostly Palestinians?)
b) move the Wall? Or will Palestinians be forced to accept the Wall as the border?

[Tom Joad]

17. Imagine, someone saying they prefer death to living without freedom? Has that ever happened before?

March 23, 1775
"Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death"
Patrick Henry

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

21. When talking about terrorists...

..it's probably a good idea to be clear about who yr referring to, because I'm getting the very strong impression from yr posts that when you refer to terrorsts, yr referring to the Palestinian people rather than referring to the minority of people within their population who have carried out terrorist attacks....

[ProgressiveMuslim]

53. I think that is not an accurate way to frame that, Violet.

That logic makes it sound like Palestine is similar to Iraq, with a small percent of insurgents, who really do not have popular support. I don't think that's the same in Palestine. The numbers of individuals who have committed terrorist acts are small, but I would wager that a large portion of the population thinks they have the right to resist by any means necessary, and believes that Israel should not be able to sit back and enjoy the benefits of occupation with no price.

Your statement assumes that peaceful resistance will ultimately be effective in ending the occupation, and I don't know that that's true.

I think the basic question remains. How does a stateless civilian population cast off a brutal military occupation? Especially when the military occupation is comprised of nearly all the civilians of the occupying country? Especially when that country is backed by a world power which is fundamentally uninterested in the morality or justness of the situation, and is basically given the military occupier carte blanche to do as it pleases, even when those actions fly in the face of international law?

I don't think it's quite so simple.

Who says they do not have the right to use any means? The occupier and its backer?

Isn't it kind of insane to think that the worse moral crime is the death of a relatively few civilians of the occupying power, rather than the decades long occupation which deprives life, liberty, education and other basic human rights on a daily basis?

To suggest, as previous posters have done, that the occupied are fundamentally uncivilized is outrageous beyond comment.

[msmcghee]

57. I'm glad you're still posting. Even though . .

. . you're not Palestinian yourself you seem to be well tuned in to their worldview.

As is typically done here your posts totally ignore the reasons for the occupation. As most of the rest of the world knows it is that the occupied territory is used by militants dedicated to the destruction of Israel for their terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. As long as that is the case Israel has no option that would result in fewer Israelis dieing from those attacks.

At every time in the past when Israel has relaxed the restrictions (or before they were imposed after '67) - some Palestinians declared it was because Israel was weak and therefore ripe for attack and proceeded to increase those attacks.

When the restrictions become more severe, the number of attempted attacks also increase, although the successful ones decreased - as is the case today. This indicates to Israel (I assume) that onerous restrictions are the only thing that saves Israeli lives. Do you really expect Israel (or any other state in a similar situation) to relax their restrictions on Palestinians so that more Israelis will die?

That you need to be reminded about this continuously in this forum says a lot about your views and goals (mainly your ability to honestly discuss the situation recognizing that there are sound reasons for Israel's actions) and I assume your statements say a lot about the goals of Palestinians generally.

But I don't mind reminding you about the reality of the situation when you forget.

[Douglas Carpenter]

62. when you use the phrase "most of the rest of the world"

Now I am not saying that holding a minority opinion on a matter makes that opinion invalid. But on the particular and more general issue of Israel, I trust that you do realize that outside the United States and Israel itself and only a few other places, your views are very much in the minority and would almost certainly be considered extreme almost anywhere else:

Israel and Iran share most negative ratings in global poll

link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/03_march/06/poll.shtml

"The country with the highest number of mostly negative responses overall is Israel (56% negative, 17% positive), followed by Iran (54% negative 18% positive), the United States (51% negative, 30% positive), and North Korea (48% negative, 19% positive).

Israel also stands out for having the largest number of countries (23 of 27) viewing it negatively. Iran is regarded unfavourably in 21 countries, the United States and North Korea in 20.

link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/03_march/06/poll.shtml


"For the first time, the poll measured public opinion on Israel, and the results are hardly flattering: An average of 56 percent of those surveyed finds Israel's influence to be mainly negative. It's not surprising that people in Muslim-majority countries don't like Israel. But in no European country surveyed does more than 20 percent of the population have a positive opinion of Israel's influence. In only three countries polled—the U.S., Nigeria, and Kenya—does Israel find support among strong pluralities."

link:

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/3889

[msmcghee]

63. Do you understand the term "context"?

I said, "As is typically done here your posts totally ignore the reasons for the occupation. As most of the rest of the world knows it is that the occupied territory is used by militants dedicated to the destruction of Israel for their terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians."

Notice I did not say that the rest of the world likes Israel - which is what your long post was trying to disprove. But what difference does it make? How about if I said, "As some in the rest of the world know . . "

In that case my point that the poster's comments " . . totally ignore the reasons for the occupation" - still stand perfectly well.

Which means that you are not addressing my point but bringing up an irrelevancy - which is also typical.

[breakaleg]

64. If the reasons for the occupation as so pure, how do you explain the settlements?

Israel has clearly stated it's policy of "creating facts on the ground" with respect to the occupied, not disputed, territories so that they get to keep all the land they grab.

That doesn't sound like what you describe.

[msmcghee]

66. I find the settlements puzzling.

If you had read my several posts yesterday on the topic I said that the settlements could in part be Israel's desire to have more than one reason to justify their presence in the territories.

The Palestinians have done a good job of convincing others that Israel does not need to be there to defend Israel - which is counter factual IMO.

In this case there is a need to defend the settlers who's lives would be in mortal danger the moment the IDF left the area.

But I don't know - I still think its a puzzle.

[breakaleg]

68. I think you find it puzzling because it doesn't match up with the image you have of

Israel's good intentions. Whereas I see the settlements no as an unexplained aberration, but as the core of the present intentions. I'm not saying it started out that way, but it's certainly a focus of theirs today. And those settlements present a different picture to the Palestinians than the stated policies of Israel.

How can anyone who lives in the occupied territory look at those settlements and really believe it when Israel claims to want peace? It just doesn't jive.

[msmcghee]

70. Please don't take this as an underhanded insult . .

. . but it is refreshing to get a post from you like this, that actually discusses ideas. I am interested in your ideas - and others' ideas here. No matter what insulting things have been said in the past I am always ready to put that behind and focus on ideas with any poster here.

I understand your points in this post and I think they are good ones. You are right in that I see Israel's intentions as defensive - to protect Israel from terrorism.

Based on their own statements and actions that they take credit for - I see the militants intentions as ridding the ME of Jews.

I am open to argument on that view but I have not seen much to convince me otherwise.

[Douglas Carpenter]

67. no I guess the presence of 450,000 settlers in the Occupied Territories

along with well over a hundered settlements all in violation of International Law which according to B'tselem - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territoris - take up along with their infrastruction more than 40% of the West Bank - is completely irrelevant as to the reasons for the Occupation."


"Taking control of the land in the West Bank




http://www.btselem.org/english/Settlements/Land_Takeover.asp

Israel has used a complex legal and bureaucratic mechanism to take control of more than fifty percent of the land in the West Bank. This land was used mainly to establish settlements and create reserves of land for the future expansion of the settlements.

The principal tool used to take control of land is to declare it "state land." This process began in 1979, and is based on a manipulative implementation of the Ottoman Lands Law of 1858, which applied in the area at the time of occupation. Other methods employed by Israel to take control of land include seizure for military needs, declaration of land as "abandoned assets," and the expropriation of land for public needs. Each of these are based on a different legal foundation. In addition, Israel has assisted private citizens purchasing land on the "free market."

The process employed in taking control of land breaches the basic principles of due procedure and natural justice. In many cases, Palestinian residents were unaware that their land was registered in the name of the state, and by the time they discovered this fact, it was too late to appeal. The burden of proof always rests with the Palestinian claiming ownership of the land. Even if he meets this burden, the land may still be registered in the name of the state on the grounds that it was transferred to the settlement "in good faith."

Despite the diverse methods used to take control of land, all the parties involved - the Israeli government, the settlers and the Palestinians - have always perceived these methods as part of a mechanism intended to serve a single purpose: the establishment of civilian settlements in the territories. Accordingly, the precise method used to transfer the control of land from Palestinians to Israel is of secondary importance. Moreover, since this purpose is prohibited under international law, the methods used to secure it are also unlawful.

Israel uses the seized lands to benefit the settlements, while prohibiting the Palestinian public from using them in any way. This use is forbidden and illegal in itself, even if the process by which the lands were taken were fair and in accordance with international and Jordanian law. As the occupier in the Occupied Territories, Israel is not permitted to ignore the needs of an entire population and to use land intended for public needs solely to benefit the settlers. "

http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp

[msmcghee]

69. Well, the occupation started in 1967.

At that time there were no settlers as I understand it. I hear accusations that it is Israeli colonialism. But that seems to be belied by the 8000 settlers who were forcibly removed from Gaza by the IDF.

Like I say - it's a puzzle.

[Tom Joad]

71. But there still remain 400,000 settlers in the West Bank.

Fifty times the number that were removed from Occupied Gaza.

[Douglas Carpenter]

72. and the removal from Gaza included more than doubling the settlement development

on the West Bank including a whole new settlement in the Jordan Valley:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6210721.stm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/27/AR2005082701113_pf.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/26/news/mideast.php

[msmcghee]

73. Neither you nor TJ have addressed my guess . .

. . that it might be due to Israel's desire to have more than one reason for the presence of the IDF there.

[Douglas Carpenter]

74. I would would not dispute that they may have many reasons why

they might want to occupy and steel Palestinian land and resources.

including some rather far out reasons -- Thank to Scurrilous for this one:

A group supporting Jewish settlements in the West Bank is urging American Jews to buy homes there. Three fairs promoting the sales take place in South Florida today.

<snip>

"A Jerusalem-based settler organization today will try to convince some South Floridians to underwrite settlement expansion by either buying or financing the building of West Bank homes.

"It's an investment, but also a statement of ideology," said Alon Farbstein, a representative of Amana, the activist arm of the Israeli settlement movement Gush Emunim. "People are always looking for ways to help Israel."

<snip>

"Individual U.S. citizens have purchased homes in the disputed West Bank territories before. But activists from both sides of the political spectrum say that this is the first time the American Jewish community has been targeted to directly subsidize settlement expansion.

A growing number of American Jews are buying property in Israel and the Amana campaign seems to be riding on the current trend. In some upscale Jerusalem neighborhoods, for example, about half of all homes sales are to non-Israelis, many of whom are U.S. citizens.

But unlike other building projects in Israel, the Amana campaign is not meant to provide Americans with vacation homes in the Holy Land, but rather allow settlers to live in the West Bank for a price they can afford."

http://www.miamiherald.com/884/story/44682.html

[msmcghee]

75. Would you also not dispute that Palestinian militants . .

. . have many reasons (they've stated them) why they kill Israeli civilians (to create a Palestine from the river to the sea) - and thereby take all of the land of Israel?

In Israel's case the occupation is the reason that the number of Israeli civilians killed by terrorism is far lower than it would be if the IDF were not there. That certainly seems like reasonable justification to me.

PS - Aren't we kind of spinning our wheels here?

[Tom Joad]

76. You have already stated what you see as the solution.

What's more to discuss?

[msmcghee]

78. I did? What is that? n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

80. dupe

[Douglas Carpenter]

81. what is being created is a Greater Israel -- from the Jordan to the Sea

that is actually possible and there is a lot more evidence that is actually happening.

and a lot more Palestinians are being killed almost all on occupied Palestinian land :

"According to B'Tselem's research, from January to December 27, 2006, Israeli security forces killed 660 (4005) Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and in Israel . This includes 141 (811) minors. At least 322 (1920) of those killed did not take part in the hostilities at the time they were killed. Another 22 (210) were targets of assassinations. In the Gaza Strip alone, since the capture of Cpl. Gilad Shalit, Israeli forces killed 405 Palestinians, including 88 minors. Of these, 205 did not participate in the fighting when killed.

Palestinians killed 17 (701) Israeli civilians in 2006, both in the West Bank and inside Israel . This includes 1 (119) minor. In addition, Palestinians "

http://www.btselem.org/english/Press_Releases/20061228.asp

[breakaleg]

77. Those settlers were re-settled in the West Bank and I believe during that same year

there were 14000 settlers added to the West Bank.

Puzzle solved. ;-)

[msmcghee]

79. I am not sure what you are saying.

I only stated that at the time of the '67 War (when the WB was under Jordanian occupation) there were no Jewish settlers there (I could be wrong.)

[breakaleg]

82. I was referring to the second half of your post where you mentioned the removal

of 8000 settlers from Gaza. You seemed to be offering that as proof that Israel is not participating in colonialism. Yet, those settlers were not removed from all occupied territories. They just moved from one settlement to another.

Along those same lines, if you look at the attempted sale of homes in the occupied territories that's currently happening in a few place in the US, you'll see words like ideology. Now, what ideology could this be? When groups representing Israel go abroad to push expansion of settlements along ideological lines, then I don't see how anyone can still believe that the settlement enterprise is solely about defense.

--snip from above--
"It's an investment, but also a statement of ideology," said Alon Farbstein, a representative of Amana, the activist arm of the Israeli settlement movement Gush Emunim. "People are always looking for ways to help Israel."

[msmcghee]

83. I was offering no proof of anything.

I only said that it could be interpreted as contrary evidence of colonialism. My words were, "But that seems to be belied by . . "I also said again that it is a puzzle to me.

There is also evidence that could be interpreted to support a colonialist explanation.

Maybe Israel wants a lot of tokens ready to trade when and if negotiations actually occur. I don't know.

Added to expand on that idea:

Maybe Israel thinks that only something extraordinary like the chance to make Israel remove hundreds of thousands of settlers by force from the WB would give the Palestinian negotiators sufficient credibility with their own people to even engage in peace negotiations with Israel.

Maybe Israel believes that if that actually results in peace it would be worth the anguish and bitterness it would cause within Israel to finally bring the conflict to an end.

Like I say - I don't know.

[msmcghee]

87. To be fair, I think its also possible that Israel . .

. . intends to annex part of the WB - perhaps up to the wall.

Maybe Israel sees that as the minimum acceptable plan that can reasonably safeguard the lives of its citizens - based on Israel's perception that the Palestinians have rejected any sincere desire to live in peace with Israel for forty years now - and continue their attacks.

Maybe the wall is Israel's bottom line. I don't know.

[breakaleg]

91. The Wall is meant to encompass the settlements first and foremost.

A security wall could have been built on Israeli land and still brought security. It was chosen where it was to annex the land.

It's interesting that Israel's bottom line is not based on any fair or equitable distribution of land based on any previous UN resolutions, or green lines or demarcation points at the end of the various wars.

[msmcghee]

92. You said,

"A security wall could have been built on Israeli land and still brought security. It was chosen where it was to annex the land."

I am sure you believe that. That doesn't mean it's true.

Israel is the state under attack from the territories by those wishing to destroy it. Any state under such attack will do what it needs to do in its power to defend itself.

Obviously it is safer to have barriers and checkpoints well beyond your enemy's side of the border than along the border. The idea is to keep the enemy away from the border.

Of course in this case there is no border - remember the Palestinians refused to negotiate for it because it would require them to recognize Israel's right to exist.

If the attacking state loses some of what it considers its land as a result of the nation it is attacking defending itself - then to me that just means that they made some very bad choices.

[breakaleg]

93. If

you were to leave out certain inflammatory words from your posts I would make more of an effort to answer them. I know you feel that Israel is under attack, they are terrorists, they are in the wrong and just about all of Israel's actions are those of defense. Why restate them in every post? It's like that is your all-encompassing excuse and we've had the same conversation since I've been here. I'm tired of it. Aren't you?

[msmcghee]

94. I did not see any inflammatory words in my post.

I was politely responding to your post wherein you again stated your belief that Israel intends to annex the WB - which you repeat in almost all your posts.

I am not so impolite that I would ask you if you ever get tired of repeating it. I just try to come up with better ways to say that I think you are wrong.

[breakaleg]

95. Thanks. nt

[pelsar]

88. your wrong...

most of the settlers from gaza have remained in the south of israel....not having gone to the westbank.... (i think you just made that up didnt you?)

[breakaleg]

96. Israel breaks promise to U.S. with settlement

West Bank housing for settlers ousted from Gaza approved despite pledge

JERUSALEM - Israel has approved a new settlement in the West Bank to house former Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip, officials said Tuesday, breaking a promise to the U.S. to halt home construction in the Palestinian territories.

--snip--

The settlement will house 23 families who were evacuated when Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip last year, and will eventually house 100 families, Tal said. "I estimate that within two or three weeks the foundations for temporary housing will begin," he said.

----

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16361120/

----

Most sources as of September, 2005 say there were 12000 new settlers in the West Bank. As for the information I was thinking of, I read it here, or linked from here.

[pelsar]

60. having the right is not always the smart thing to do...

your write: Who says they do not have the right to use any means? The occupier and its backer?

History is pretty clear on this...the palestinians have used every violent means at their disposal....and the net result is lives that keep getting pushed in to smaller and smaller areas with less and less freedoms.

Every small opening allowed (letting women and kids pass the checkpoints easily, the elderly, the sick, those with humanitarian passes to israeli hospitals, etc were exploited to use to kill israelis. And one by one new orders were issued tightening up those regulations as israelis were killed, cumulating in the wall and checkpoints that are now being handled with microphones and glass divisions.

yes, i would say that is their "right"..i would also say its pretty dumb...and its even dumber to keep telling them to continue on the same path.

________

the sad fact is, and i can recall discussing this with someone while overlooking the Erez entrance (gaza to israel) while the palestinians lined up for work....we can keep on going like this, it may be uncomfortable, it may bother my "liberal bones"...but in the end, after my stint i drive back home to my suburban home, etc, and read about the happenings in the paper while someone else takes care of the borders....The palestinians dont have anywhere to escape to......and they're lives simply keep getting worse and worse.

poor strategy......they might want to change it, but then its their choice.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

61. I would agree that this strategy is not the most effective

but I don't think that their chosing to use it is beyond the pale.

I don't believe that previous or current Israeli governments seem too interested in a just and lasting peace though, so I doubt if "smarter" tactics would be any more successful.

I remember back in the heyday of the occupation, Pelsar, when Gazans could drive to Al Aqsa and provide for their families by working in Israel, and when Israel had a steady stream of cheap labor, could exploit all the natural resources they chose, and dance the night away safely in Tel Aviv discos...

Is it better to live a half-life or none at all?

[pelsar]

84. smarter tactics were never really tried..

and thats what its all about......the palestinians had a real people uprising with intifada I.....which woke up israels to the evils of the occupation. If you recall its violence was limited to rocks, some molotov cocktails, tires lit (lots of black smoke), an occasional washing machine/concrete block thrown down from a building but no weapons.

we on the other and, kept our weapons without bullets in the chambers and had endless discussions of when rocks thrown are life threatening.....and learned to shoot teargas etc. We were there "preserving the occupation" if you will, not defending israel proper. It was that feeling that made oslo acceptable.

It was the israeli govt reacting to its citizens that brought in fatah and in and there was a real chance at something.....and then it turned real violent (intifada II).....and that was the end.....whatever the reasons/excuses the palestinians chose, the use of automatic weapons and suicide bombers quickly turned the israelis against them and the process. It suddenly became not about the occupation but about israel itself.....and that was the end of that period.

(a significant measuring device is the soldiers who report for reserve duty: it was down during intifada I and over 100% during intifada II)

smarter tactics got the palestinians oslo, got them the beginning of a self govt....dumber tactics got them roadblocks, the wall and a far more miserable life.

you should look at the differences, between why oslo happened and what turned it around....the difference was the tactics the palestinians used...and the israeli reaction.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

85. You're right about Intifadah I.

Do you remember one of teh first to be deported was Palestinian w/ American wife Mubarak Awad? He advocated MLK-style non=violent resistance, which has still yet to be employed on a grand scale.

I thougth that the unified leadership back then (Ashrawi, etal) did a good job articulating the demands as well. Moreover, they began to develop the beginnings of real democratic institutions. It was an exciting time!

I think Israel began secret negotiations with the PLO to undercut this popular movement.

Really, I curse Arafat.

We moved back in 1995 with great hopes for real peace. But I can tell you from first hand experience, that Arafat and his cronies were far more interested in lining their pockets than in creating civil society and democratic institutions. It was infuriating then, and beyond tragic now.

I remember crying when Rabin was assassinated, and being furious when first Bus #18 was blown up.

But sometimes I wonder, was Hamas correct in its refusal to go along with Fatah back then? Could there possibiliy be any sort of peace agreement without an end in sight? Sure seems like the PLO gave all the concessions at the beginning. Israel never did deliver (other than pulling soldiers out of area A's.

Arafat & his cronies were beyond corrupt. What really infuriates me to this day, is the US insisting on former Araft henchmen like Mohammad Dahlan taking positions as "head of security." This is simply disastrous. None of this makes the US news, of course.

You might disagree with Hamas tactics. I do. I wish more than anything they would employ Gandhi style nonviolent resistance. But I do not think they are thieves.

And at the end of the day, I continue to think that the evil and violence of the Israeli occupation far outweighs anything the resistors could ever inflict on the occupier.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

86. Pelsar, do you honestly believe your gov't would ever

really do what it takes to make peace? Give back WB, split Jerusalem and deal with refugees? Do you honestly believe that?

Seems to me that there is always some new hurdle to be cleared.

[pelsar]

89. the israeli govt...

is actually responsive to its electorate (which explains oslo and gaza and lebanon and the sinai)......and there is little question that the westbank will one day go the palestinians...the only israeli who dont believe that are many of the religous ones, who are in the minority....and gaza showed that they dont have the power when "push comes to shove.

(one reason is that the kids of the politicians are in combat units....and moms and dads actually listen to their kids)

however, the continued kassams, the suicide bombers, the katushas from the north.....those very same israelis who in principle have no problem with giving up the occupation are in no mood to test a theory that has little chance of succeeding and has no "undo"

we all know that a weak PA govt that cant control the jihadnikim simply means missiles on israeli cities..not to mention internal chaos as in gaza....and that is an even worse situation than we have now...at least as far as were concerned.

jerusalem will be divided as well and the refugees have also been solved in taba, compensation and a symbolic return....its just a matter of getting there. (how much blood is spilt..._

let me ask you something, which in fact is related in a theoretical sort of way

for iran: which is better, the secular shah with his secret police etc, or kohmeni, with his moral squads?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

97. I think for Iranians what is best is this:

Leave them alone. They are a nation of young people. Let them get sick of the mullahs and throw them out. I think if we leave alone this will eventually happen.

If we saber rattle and interfere, it only strengthens the mullahs.

We both know which the US and Iraeli governments prefer, though, don't week?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

98. Supposedly, so is the US governement,

but I think these past 6 years have shown it's extremely easy to manipulate the population to bring about their desired ends.

Do you see the Israeli government as working behind the scenes to orchestrate the outcome they desire?

[cali]

31. Imagine someone saying

that the road to that freedom lies through killing civilians.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. But of course no-one's said that n/t