Report: U.S. changes stance on settlement construction

[Gimel]

The New York Times on Saturday quoted American and Israeli officials as saying that the Bush administration has changed its stance on Israeli construction in the West Bank, and now supports building in existing settlements, although not in undeveloped areas.

The paper says that this new U.S. policy, although not publicly declared, was illustrated in the American response Tuesday to the invitation for tenders for the construction of some 1,000 new apartments in West Bank settlements.

A White House spokesman said Tuesday that the tenders were being studied and that it was not possible to determine whether the commitments had been violated.

The American national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, said two days later that the Israeli government had been asked to "let us know what it is that they are doing."

Continued..

[aquart]

1. Bush flip-flopped?

Again?

[Gimel]

2. It's a cave-in

Not a flip-flop as the settlement issue has always been handled with some understanding. The policy statement previously did say that four of the largest settlements near Jerusalem would likely be included in Israel's borders, and that building within those parameters was assumed to be acceptable.

[Classical_Liberal]

3. Bush doesn't have any right to negotiate that land or set Israel's borders

. Israel's right to that land is not recognized by the UN or anyone else. That land was captured like the rest of the West Bank.

[Gimel]

4. And Jordan

...withdrew, and is not interested in maintaining it. Sorry, I don't agree. The land was always part of Israel. Israel does recognize the needs of the Palestinian people.

Bush isn't setting the borders, only his own policy.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

7. What land was always part of Israel?

Neither East Jerusalem nor the West Bank itself have always been part of Israel. Territory invaded by Israel in 1967 is not part of Israel, and if it was considered to be so, then it's impossible to argue that Israel's a democracy...

Violet...

[Gimel]

8. Israel

Clearly you have not accepted international boundaries.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. I've got a damned good idea where Israel is...

And East Jerusalem and the West Bank are not and never have been part of Israel. If yr going to dispute this, feel free to try, and explain how it is that in the West Bank only Jewish settlers have Israeli citizenship if this is supposed to be part of Israel....

Violet...

[Jack Rabbit]

79. For reference

One more time: The West Bank and Gaza are not now, nor have ever been, part of the modern state of Israel.

They are occupied territories and the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to them, whether the Israeli government accepts that fact or not.

As it is, an occupation of land where the occupying power uses the land and its resources for its own benefit rather than those of its residents, to include the |transfer of parts of the population from the occupying power to the occupied land, is a good justification for armed resistance.

If, as someone mistakenly said in post number 4, the land "was always part of Israel" and, based on nationality, 90% of the residents of the West Bank and Gaza are denied equal protection under the law and are routinely removed from their homes in order to make way for housing in which they cannot live or roads on which they cannot travel, then that is a good justification for a separatist movement and armed resistance.

There is clearly a systematic assault by the Israeli government on human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories. To dismiss this by stating "Israel does recognize the needs of the Palestinian people" while at the same time stating the West Bank is part of the state of Israel (again post number 4) is to admit this and to admit that the system of government in the West Bank is not democratic but is an Apartheid-like regime. That doesn't cut it.

Nor does it cut it to raise tu quoque fallacies as is done in posts 41 and 54. The crimes commited by other people in the past do not justify those committed by anyone in the present.

[Gimel]

81. It is false...

Your statement:

routinely removed from their homes in order to make way for housing in which they cannot live

Is totally false. If you have read that anywhere, it was in Palestinian propaganda.

Also, the map states that the West Bank is "Israeli occupied territory, and status to be determined". How much clearer can you get? It is Israeli territory, status to be determined. It is not Israel proper, but it is within the jurisdiction of Israel. It is a Territory. As is Gaza. The 1967 cease fire line is the Jordan river.

[The Magistrate]

82. Occupied Territory, Ma'am

Is by definition not a part of the land of the occupying power. It is under jurisdiction of that power, but there are many legal limitations on the exercise of that jurisdiction, and it is far from a sovereign control, such as a state exercises over terrotory that is within its actual borders.

Nor is there much point to denying that Arab Palestinians have been removed from their homes in order to make way for Israeli Jews. There have been numerous instances in the environs of Jerusalem, to take just one example. Various legal pretexts are used, concerning zoning laws and construction permits, for instance.

[Gimel]

83. Under jurisdiction

It is not the land of Israel proper, that is understood. Yet it is within the jurisdiction of Israel, that is "juris" = to rule.

[The Magistrate]

86. However, Ma'am

It seems on occassion you seek to blur that into a claim that those areas are part of Israel, and it might be wise to cease that, for the concepts are very different.

[Gimel]

87. Oslo Accords

The division of the territories into three areas under Oslo has been partially implemented. That is, there is Palestinian rule. Israel has agreed to work toward the creation of a Palestinian State.

The obligations to provide for the population is also less, seeing that the population is not in Israel.

The Road Map provides in Phase II (which has still not been undertaken):

Progress into Phase II will be based upon the consensus judgment of the Quartet of
whether conditions are appropriate to proceed, taking into account performance of both
parties. Furthering and sustaining efforts to normalize Palestinian lives and build
Palestinian institutions, Phase II starts after Palestinian elections and ends with possible
creation of an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders in 2003. Its primary
goals are continued comprehensive security performance and effective security
cooperation, continued normalization of Palestinian life and institution-building, further
building on and sustaining of the goals outlined in Phase I, ratification of a democratic
Palestinian constitution, formal establishment of office of prime minister, consolidation of
political reform, and the creation of a Palestinian state with provisional borders.


http://www.un.org/News/dh/mideast/roadmap122002.pdf

[Gimel]

108. This is not routine

If you are looking at Jerusalem, you will recall that Jews have bought buildings that formerly belonged to Arabs, and this is against the will of Arab terrorist organizations who proceed to murder the Arabs involved.

There may have been Arab homes removed, but it was done legally. Perhaps the owners now claim they were coerced. But it happened more than 30 years ago, so putting it in present tense and saying it is habitual is totally false.

[Jack Rabbit]

113. 'Legally'

Yes, it's all been don "legally". I refer you to Dr. King's letter from Birmingham jail for what that means. To update his analogy, that which was done to South African Blacks under Apartheid was legal and that which is done to Palestinian Arabs in the occupied territories is legal; that doesn't make it just. It is not. As Emil Zola said, "The law is an ass."

When the law is used to institutionalize injustice, it makes injustice routine. I stand by that characterization. Ms. Crumble has provided a link to Amnesty International`s documentation of these injustices as I have yet again linked to BTselem's page. These routine injustices are well documented.

I have no problem with Israel occupying the Palestinian territories until a viable and credible Palestinian leadership agrees to a non-aggression pact with Israel. I have a problem with any occupying power governing the land it occupies in a manner inconsistent with the Fourth Geneva Convention and imposing laws for the administration of that are more worthy of South African Apartheid than a democratic society. I have a problem with anyone, whether it is Menachem Begin or a poster on discussion board, saying that the West Bank has always been part of Israel and that the rights of over 90% of the people who leave there are of no concern to the Israeli state.

The fact that the Palestinian nation has never been organized into an independent and sovereign state does not mean that there is no Palestinian nation or that individual Palestinians are bereft of basic human rights. There is no Palestinian state because for over two millennia the land on which the Palestinian people live has been occupied by somebody: Romans, Byzantines, other Arabs, Ottoman Turks, British, Jordanians and Egyptians and now Israelis. It does not mean there are no Palestinians or that by virtue of being a Palestinian one does not enjoy a right so basic as to be secure in his home from arbitrary government action, such as having the home demolished in the name of "security." It means that with no state to protect their rights and no legal recourse on which they can rely for justice, they must either rely on the international community to enforce the provisions of the Fourth Genenva Convention or to take matters into their own hands.

In that respect, the international community has doen a right lousy job.

[Violet_Crumble]

109. Evictions and home demolitions in East Jerusalem...

No, there doesn't seem much point at all in denying Palestinians have been removed from their homes. The facts say otherwise. I'm not sure whether Amnesty International would be considered 'Palestinian propaganda' in some circles, but they released a report that confirms what you said in yr post...


Under the rubble: House demolition and destruction of land and property

V. 8. Planning and building restrictions in East Jerusalem

Hundreds of homes have been demolished in East Jerusalem(61) on the ground that they had been constructed without building permits in recent years, and thousands more are at risk of demolition. Many Palestinian residents of Jerusalem find it impossible to obtain permits to build homes on their land because most of the Palestinian land has been classified by the Israeli authorities as green land.

When Israel occupied the West Bank in 1967 it immediately annexed East Jerusalem and the land of 28 surrounding towns and villages,(62) and expropriated more than a third (24.5 km²) of the total land annexed (71 km²). Most of the expropriated land was privately owned by Palestinians. According to the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem:

the end of 2000, on the land expropriated in East Jerusalem, close to 44,000 housing units had been built for Jews, while not even one housing unit was built for Palestinians" …. "82 percent of the housing units built , were for Jews; 18 percent were for Palestinians. The disparity has been greater in recent years: of the units completed between 1990 and the end of 2000, only 11.4 percent were constructed in Palestinian neighborhoods".(63)

Since annexing East Jerusalem Israel has severely limited new construction in the Palestinian neighbourhoods. The expropriation of large areas of land near Palestinian neighbourhoods and villages left most Palestinian neighbourhoods with little or no land on which to build, and where there is land it is not permitted to build on it. Whereas in the rest of the West Bank the Israeli authorities have cited ancient plans which give no opportunity for development, in East Jerusalem they have done the opposite. Shortly after annexation in 1967 the Israeli authorities cancelled the (Jordanian) development plan which had been approved in 1966 and which gave extensive opportunity for development. A planning vacuum was thus created pending the approval of new plans and in the interim period only rare ad hoc building permits were issued to Palestinians and only in extremely restricted areas.

Since the 1980s outline plans have been drawn up for most of the Palestinian neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem. A striking feature of these plans is the extraordinary amount of land, some 40%, zoned as "open landscape" (shetah nof patuah), where any form of development is prohibited. The plans approved by the end of 1999 only allow building on little over 11% of the land in the East Jerusalem area which is privately owned by Palestinians, and this land is mainly within already built-up areas. Separate outline plans are issued for Jewish settlements and for Palestinian neighbourhoods, with manifestly different standards adopted. The plans for Palestinian neighbourhoods are geographically restrictive, have insufficient capacity and do not take into account the needs of the Palestinian population.

Geographically, the plans establish a ‘blue line’ boundary around most existing developed areas, within which land is zoned to allow ‘infill’ development on empty plots between existing buildings. No significant allocation of new development land has ever been made. The need to confine the boundaries so as not to exceed the ‘quota’ is cited in Israeli records as justification for the tight development boundaries. Land outside the blue line is zoned as "open landscape", on which no development is permitted, which in practice often precludes even agriculture.

The zoning of land as "open landscape" has been frequently used to freeze development of land until later confiscation for Jewish settlements (as at Reches Shu’fat, Beit Safafa and the most recent major settlement at Jabal Abu Ghneim/Har Homa). For example, land at Shu’fat which had been zoned for Palestinian housing in the 1966 Jordanian plan, was later re-zoned by Israel as "open landscape" and planted with cypress trees; in 1994 it was allocated to the Jewish National Fund for Jewish housing which has since been built.

The procedures used are also a source of problems. Even though Palestinians normally only build on land in family ownership, no attempt has been made to take ownership patterns into account in formulating the plans. There has been no attempt to devolve local decision making to the local Palestinian neighbourhoods. Even when outline plans are approved it is often then necessary for a detailed plan to be approved, and larger plots require an approved parcelation plan (the subdivision of land into different ownership plots) – a process which can take years to approve.

Due to these and other factors, thousands of Palestinians and Israeli Arabs have found it impossible to obtain building permits even after lengthy and costly application procedures. Many have turned to the courts, incurring further expenses, but in most cases their appeals have been unsuccessful. Others, knowing that they have no chance of obtaining a building permit, have built their homes without applying for a permit. As a result, thousands of homes have been demolished and thousands more are under the threat of demolition.

Many who built their homes without a permit subsequently received heavy fines, in some cases up to the cost of the houses themselves. They believed payment of the fine would result in the building permit being granted or at least in the threat of demolition being removed or suspended until a hoped-for review of the building permit system. However, after paying part of the fine, in some cases most of the fine, they nevertheless received demolition orders.

[Gimel]

114. Pretexts

I doubt very much that rezoning is allowed, under agreements. The conflicts have been when Jews move into an Arab neighborhood, by purchasing buildings and land, and the Arabs try to forcibly evict them.

Buildings built without permits, and this is often done, by Arab or Jew, are quite routinely demolished.

[Behind the Aegis]

10. not quite

You are correct that East Jerusalem nor the West Bank were original parts of Israel. However, they did NOT invade those territories, they "won" them after 5 Arab nations attacked them during the 6 Day war! Israel repelled the invaders and pushed them further away from the border of Israel!

[Violet_Crumble]

11. Yes, quite...

They no more 'won' that territory than Jordan and Egypt did back in 1948. I'm kind of curious as to what the difference is between 'winning' and 'invading' and what difference it makes to any claims Israel has to that territory...

Uh, sorry but Israel kicked off the 6 day war with an attack on Egyptian airfields. Or doesn't attacking an Arab state count as an attack for some reason?

Violet...

[Gimel]

12. And all are the same?

A preemptive attack on one Arab state is the same as an invasion of ALL Arab states, apparently. Especially if it's by Israel, surrounded by Arab enemies.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Well according to some people all Arabs are the same...

But I don't believe that. Nor do I think there was any NATO-style arrangement in place. I expect the post-preemptive strike on Israel happened for different reasons for different countries...

Violet...

[Gimel]

16. The an attack on Egyptian

military build-up on it's borders, can't be called an attack on Jordan, as yr claim in post #11.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. I didn't claim anything of the sort...

Read my post, Gimel. The only reference I made to Jordan in post#11 was: 'They (Israel) no more 'won' that territory than Jordan and Egypt did back in 1948.'...

Violet...

[Gimel]

20. References to Jordan

I don't think it is relevant if the reference was to Jordan or not. We are discussing the attacks on Israel from the area now known as the West Bank. Correct?

This is what you said: Uh, sorry but Israel kicked off the 6 day war with an attack on Egyptian airfields. Or doesn't attacking an Arab state count as an attack for some reason?

If the 5 other Arab states (including Jordan) attacked Israel immediately, that is initiating attacks from their territory. Israel didn't attack all the states, but all the states responded. That was my point. Israel didn't initiate an attack on Jordan to gain the West Bank territories, which was the subject, and which you were debating. It may not be relevant as far as the Geneva Accords Article 4, but that was the discussion and the point you were contesting.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. I know what I said, and I assume most people can follow what I say...

Incorrect.Another poster and I were having a conversation about who attacked first in the Six Day War. I don't know, and care even less, what point it is you think yr making, as I'm pretty convinced you don't even know what it is I'm debating and what I'm in agreement on. When I post in a thread where there's discussion going on, I do tend to read ALL the posts before I jump in. It's a tactic I advise everyone should use to save themselves the embarressment of finding out they're 'debating' something that's already been discussed, and isn't worth repeating for those who can't be bothered reading it the first time :)

Violet...

[Gimel]

22. I have followed it closely

Yr leaving out half your post to convince me you didn't say anything about Jordan, isn't very helpful either. I see that you have misunderstood my words, and perhaps I have misinterpreted yrs.

None-the-less, I made sure that you agreed that an attack on Egypt was not the same as an attack on the other Arab states. So I guess yr answer was not what I read it to be.

[Djinn]

33. think you can answer VC at all?

"feel free to try, and explain how it is that in the West Bank only Jewish settlers have Israeli citizenship if this is supposed to be part of Israel...."

that's a simple question to answer Gimel, part of Israel or not? if yes why the special rights for jewish settlers???

[Gimel]

35. A territory

doesn't have to be part of the constituency of a country. The Israeli citizens living in that territory are voting because of their citizenship rights. The Palestinians are the residents of that territory and not citizens of Israel.

The British governed Palestine until their mandate "expired" in 1947. Did their rights over the Mandate give all residents voting rights in UK elections? Was it part of the British Empire or not?

[Darranar]

38. It was part...

of the British Empire, but not part of Britain.

Similarly, the West Bank and Gaza and Israeli-occupied, but aren't part of Israel.

[Gimel]

40. So what?

Israel never claimed to have an "Empire" either. I didn't ever say that the territories were annexed, but they are Israeliterritories. They are in a sense a part of Israel.

What country did you think they were a part of?

[Violet_Crumble]

42. They are not a part of Israel in any sense...

No more than East Timor was a part of Indonesia in any sense when Indonesia was occupying that territory, or Palestine, India, Australia, or chunks of Africa were in a sense a part of Britain...

Violet...

[Darranar]

46. In a sense, yes...

but Israel's rights in them are restricted.

[Violet_Crumble]

47. In what sense?

Because Israel is the occupying power? That doesn't make the occupied territory a part of Israel in any sense...

Violet...

[Darranar]

48. Because...

The Israeli government is the authority in the Occupied Territories and it also is in Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. But that doesn't make it part of Israel...

The US govt was the authority in Iraq and it also was in the US. That didn't make Iraq part of the US, even in any sense. Same goes for the Indonesian occupation of East Timor...

Also, the Israeli govt exercises its authority in the Occupied Territories through military rule, whereas in Israel it doesn't...

Violet...

[Djinn]

39. so now you want to take lessons in democracy

from the Brit's during their colonial adventure LOL

[Gimel]

41. Not necessary

The US, Australia, France, Spain, they all had their disenfranchised populations that they hide somewhere in history. Then the "educated" feel free to attack other oppressed peoples at will. Call it "holier than thou" liberalism.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. Our indigenous population is not hidden in history...

If someone were to try claiming that Australia was terra nullis - a vast and unpopulated wasteland just begging to be transformed into a wonderland of technology and European civilisation, we can point them to the High Court's Mabo decision which voided the whole terra nullis thing. No-one but the most racist whackjobs here deny what was done to the indigenous people. While there's a long way to go on the path of reconciliation, Australia is light years ahead of Israel on that front...

Violet...

[IA_Seth]

51. Unbelievable!

The US, Australia, France, Spain, they all had their disenfranchised populations that they hide somewhere in history. Then the "educated" feel free to attack other oppressed peoples at will. Call it "holier than thou" liberalism.

Heaven for bid that anyone LEARN from history. We are living in the present Gimel. If any of these nations HIDE anything from their past, it is because it is an ugly, hideous facet of our past that we realize now was WRONG.

I am of partial Cherokee descent, with my Great Grandmother living on a Reservation. I guess my family is part of the hidden group of "disenfranchised" people. I can tell you right now that the type of things the US did to the Cherokee people were not something that anyone but the most sick %uck would be proud of.

Perhaps instead of "holier than thou" liberalism you could look at it as experience-based wisdom.

To think anyone living in the 21st century would treat people the way that Israel treats the Palestinians boggles my mind.

[Gimel]

54. Boggles the mind

I am not defending mistreatment. I am saying that in the "real world" war has displaced people, disenfranchised populations. Further than than, women were never given the right to vote until the 20th century, and 18 year olds didn't have the right to vote less than 20 years ago.

Racial discrimination exists today in each of your countries.

The discussion is about the participation of the Palestinians in a democratic process, which has in fact been rectified by the creation of a Palestinian Authority, in 1994, that is ten years ago. They elected Arafat as their President. They have a legislature and a Prime Minister as well. Calling Israel undemocratic on the basis of Palestinians not participating in Israeli elections is pathetic, to say the least.

Israel will continue to fight terrorism, no matter what century it takes place in.

[Violet_Crumble]

60. Don't you get it yet?

Other countries have a history of disenfranchising populations. Israel doesn't!!

Other countries oppressed the already existing populations on their colonial adventures. Israel didn't!!

Other countries all have pasts with dark episodes of racism. Israel doesn't!!

Other countries have in the past had national mythologies which tend to focus in varying degrees on blotting out the bad bits and turning it all into a thing of greaty nobleness, compassion and wonder centred on the founding of their states. Israel doesn't!! Nation-building mythologies? What the hell are those? Nosirree! You won't find Israel collectively 'forgetting' the events of only a generation before in order to construct a great and noble history of the founding of the state!! ;)



Violet...

[Djinn]

53. So you're using the "other people did it" defence

native americans slaughtered and their land stolen 500 years ago, Australian aboriginals slaughtered and their land stolen 200 years ago - so it's OK when we do it???

Would that mean that should another fascist government start throwing everyone they disliked into concentration camps - it'd be not so bad because it was done before? how about apartheid - it's not like it hasn't been done before :eyes:

[Gimel]

55. False reasoning

The historical times are not as you've posted. True, the first explores "found" the new world 500 years ago, about the same time that Jews from Spain settled in Israel.

However, the US as a democracy is about 225 years old. The wars with the American indigenous peoples proceeded far beyond that. In fact it is only in the past 20-30 years that the Nation of American Natives has been recognized and given rights to live as a group on their own land.

As recent as 130 years ago, the US government was engaged in warfare with the Northern Plains Indians.

Further histories of native struggles brings their removal from land rights into the 20th century:

The treaty the Sauk had signed in 1816 had promised they could remain east of the Mississippi until the Americans needed the land. By 1829 the State of Illinois had decided it was time for the federal government to begin removing the Sauk. For the most part, this was not a problem. The Fox had been living entirely in Iowa for many years, and when the first settlers had started moving in during the 1820s, Keokuk's Sauk had moved west of the Mississippi into Iowa voluntarily. But Blackhawk was an old man by this time and wanted very much to be buried among his ancestors when he died. Despite harassment from government officials and American squatters, he delayed his departure from Saukenuk by contending that his people had never agreed to sell their village. The impasse might well have been resolved peacefully by waiting until Blackhawk died, but in 1831 nine Fox chiefs, enroute to Fort Crawford to meet with the Americans, were killed by a Dakota and Menominee war party. The Fox then killed of 28 Menominee near Prairie du Chien.

<clip>

About 100 Fox remained in Kansas with the Sauk. There was relatively little participation by either tribe in the Civil War. Kansas was admitted as a state in 1861, and by 1863 its legislature was calling for the removal of all Indians. In 1867 the Fox and Sauk in Kansas signed their last treaty with the United States ceding their lands in Kansas in exchange for a 750,000 acre reservation created for them in central Oklahoma from lands the government had taken from the Creek, Cherokee, and Seminole for siding with the Confederacy. The treaty permitted the Sac and Fox of Missouri to join them if they wished. There were only 700 left when they left Kansas in 1869. Twenty years later in 1889, they accepted allotment. The excess lands from their reservation were be sold to the government and opened to settlement in 1891 resulting in a land rush by whites. Corruption and fraud cost them most of the lands they were allowed to keep. All that remains today is 1000 acres of tribal lands near Stroud, Oklahoma. Descendents of the bands of Blackhawk and Keokuk, the 2,200 members of the Sac and Fox Tribe of Indians were reorganized under the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act in 1936.
http://www.tolatsga.org/sf.html





That the current Peace Initiative for Israel and all it's Arab/Muslim neighbors is now in it's second decade is another fact you fail to comprehend.

Australia also has a long way to go in granting rights to the Aboriginal population. We're not talking about 200 years ago, we're talking about today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/997662.stm

During the first half of the 20th century, native welfare boards were established in the various states. These instituted a policy of separating children from their parents based upon racial stereotyping. Pale-skinned children were forcibly removed, and Aboriginal parents often darkened up their children to keep them. This aspect of Aboriginal history is also open to considerable debate. See Stolen Generation.

The Australian Constitution originally did not permit Aborigines to vote. In 1967, a referendum was held to allow Indigenous Australians to vote in elections and to allow the Federal Government to make laws for the benefit of Indigenous Australians. This referendum was successful with a huge majority favouring the constitutional amendments.

Recent history
Many Aborigines now live in towns and cities around Australia, but a substantial number live in settlements (often located on the site of former church missions) in what are often remote areas of rural Australia. The health and economic difficulties facing both groups are substantial (for instance, life expectancy of Aboriginal people is often 20 years shorter than the wider Australian population, and alcoholism is a serious issue) and the root causes and solutions have been, again, contentious political issues.

The Australian government has begun a process it calls "Reconciliation". Some notable former Prime Ministers, such as Bob Hawke and Malcolm Fraser have made many symbolic gestures and speeches in support of respect for Aborigine culture. Many Aborigine leaders such as Isabell Coe reject such moves, demanding actual sovereignty instead.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Australian_Aborigine#The_20th_century
Are you involved in the struggle to give Aboriginal Australians sovereignty over their own land?

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

58. Does anyone else notice something weird here?

Gimel quite correctly points out that British colonisation of Australia resulted in the oppression of the indigenous population, but quite incorrectly places the blame on Djinn. If someone can recognise the oppression of colonisation when it comes to the treatment of indigenous Australians, but totally denies any oppression of the Arab population of Palestine, there's a deep denial going on...

I'm also wondering what's so terrible about Palestinians not wanting Jewish legislatures, Hebrew language schools, or the flag of Israel, and I've obviously been asleep on the job cause I've NEVER seen Djinn say 'Israel should die happily for the Palestinians.' and of course those who make such claims that other people say things are never forthcoming in pointing out where they've said it....

Violet...

[Gimel]

62. You have misinterpreted my statements

I didn't say it's okay to sin because others did it first. You seem to say, that others did it and that's okay because now they know better, but Israelis don't. Israel has to learn from you.

Instead of understanding Israel's situation, you see your own first. It is not the same. Also, no other country is free of human rights abuses. It's not okay for Israel to commit abuses, but those that were committed over 50 years ago seem to be the biggest stickler. And you also say that there can be no justification for things that were done, which were done for security reasons and for the necessity of creating a state.

Some forced removal undoubtedly did take place, but the Palestinian (those now called Palestinians) spread rumors in order to get their people angry enough to fight. Seems that now the rumors have become fact in many people's mind.

What I'm saying is that no nation can guarantee that every individual will behave according to all the laws of the state and nation and international human rights watch.

Remind me, where I said that it's okay because others did it first.

Also, in post #41 I was refering to voting rights. Your have put every kind of abuse know to man and accused me of rationalizing that. That is false.

I have greatly applauded the efforts in the 80's to get the ME peace process under way, because I was concerned about the Palestinians. I want their conditions improved. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts, and giving the PA a democratic government, which allowed the Palestinians to elect their leader, they have chosen to back terror and suicide attacks against Israeli citizens.

As for enfranchisment, they've had it for 10 years.

[Djinn]

66. No - as usual

you're taking the "why is Israel's human rights issues worse than everyone else's, why does everyone pick on Israel"(by "as usual" I'm referring to Israeli "supporters" collectively rather than just Gimel) but if you care to take a look around this forum you'll see most people DO have something to say about those other nations as well, most posters here talk about the problems of the US all the time that doesn't mean they "hate" the US or think it's the "worst" offender, it means it's a discussion forum predominantly about US politics, VC, myself and other antipodeans often post stuff critical of "our" country, because we're surrounded by it not because we're anti-australian - THIS sub dungeon is about Israel/Palestine so unsurprisingly that's what people discuss here.

"What I'm saying is that no nation can guarantee that every individual will behave according to all the laws of the state and nation and international human rights watch."

Of course not but they can make sure that government policy and the actions of the IDF do (again not ALL soldiers but military actions) and that doesn't happen in Israel.

Basically though there is always going to be a sticking point here in that you believe the settlements are fine, and that the Israeli people who live within the OT are still entitled to Israeli votes, protection and support when they don't live in Israel - in that case so should the Palestinians living there.

Australia has MANY problems, not just with aboriginal relations either - but so far we haven’t designated a piece of land on which NON aboriginal Australians get services and the vote while aboriginals living next door don't.

Also who is asking Israel to self destruct??? personally I don't see a non contiguous Palestinian state helping the situation much - more problems created than solved - and if I could wave a magic wand, my preference would be one state solution BUT I as I am not an Israeli or Palestinian it wouldn't really be my place to impose - if most Israeli's and Palestinians want two separate nations then that's what should be worked towards - claiming that Israel has made "generous" advances towards this end is completely disingenuous

[Gimel]

68. Charges unfounded

My statement: Call it "holier than thou" liberalism. Is not the same as what you claim: why is everyone picking on Israel or others did it first.

'what I am saying is that your attacks on Israel policy are misplaced, and often based on propaganda. You can't see the issues in true perspective.

Your post #53 responds to my post #41. What I say is that your counties' history of abuses does not give you a "now we're okay" certificate. If you have specific issues you want to raise, within the context of a discussion on the news articles, that's one thing, but an attitude that you are superior in your judgments is quite another.

The US stance on settlement construction. You said that I think the settlements are just fine. Where did I say that? I have never said that.

I am not lecturing you on OZ, whatever that is, but I know that the situation in Australia is not that of harmony with the native people. Your response belies your theory of open investigation. It is part of the international community to understand, is it not? You could direct me to a site or a project that you know about. It is not closed to the outside. It is an international issue as well.

If you think the color of my neck is appropriate to comment on, I have the right to investigate yours.

[Djinn]

71. Just for a change

you're all over the bloody place here Gimel - I NEVER called you a redneck I stated that even our worst rednecks don't use the line that because other nations have problems we can't be (or shouldn't be) criticised.

I'm all for international attention on Australia's problems hence why I've posted on this board about the treatment of Koori's, our blatant bigotry against arabs and muslims (and how this has evolved from a hatred of Italians and Greeks in the 50's & 60's, to hatred of Asians in the 70's and 80's and will no doubt next move on to hatred of the Sudanese and Somali born residents in time) our annoyingly short attention span when talking about any other than sport etc etc any time you want to come out of the I/P you can see these posts by myself and other Australians here. Like I said strangely enough in the I/P we don't talk much about Australia or Botswana or Saudi etc.

Also when did I say "now we're OK" in the context of race relations?? I don't remember that I DO however remember you stating that the settlers have as much right to the west bank as do the Palestinians, do you really need me to link to that thread? You've also stated that the west bank is a "territory" of Israel, so I'm happy to retract my claim that you think the settlements are acceptable if you could clarify for me if you actully think they are or not because I'm quite confused as to your opinions on them, they seem to change.

[Gimel]

76. Quite the opposite

as you see, you said that even your worse rednecks don't use the argument that I use (or that you claim I use). I certainly didn't say that you were above criticism, or that Israel is above criticism. If I thought that I certainly wouldn't come here to get all the criticism. Where did I say that Israel is above criticism because others have committed human rights abuses?

I was trying to get an agreed definition of "territory" by looking at other countries who have from time to time been the power over other lands, and called them territories. Were those nations still democracies in your opinion? Is the US not a democratic government because it possesses places like Guam, where US citizens live and vote in US elections, but native people cannot? That was my reason for bringing up the issue of territories.

So no one is perfect and Israel shouldn't take "lessons" or I shouldn't perhaps, as you've said, from imperfect examples, and therefore your more perfect knowledge can tell me where we've gone wrong, is what I am to understand from your comments.

[Gimel]

67. Where did I say that?

You have still not answered my question. I cannot defend myself from your "red-neck" charges if I don't even see anything that could even be interpreted the way you do.

[Djinn]

72. what redneck charges Gimel???

btw while I'm at it:

"If you have specific issues you want to raise, within the context of a discussion on the news articles, that's one thing, but an attitude that you are superior in your judgments is quite another. "

MY superior judgements???? would that be like when I told you that you base your arguments on propaganda...on no hang on that was what you told ME, you also stated my opinions were misplaced and that I can't "see the issues in true perspective."

now who's being "superior"?

[Gimel]

74. Clarification

Response to Djinn

August 24, 2004

You said in your post #56 that I am worse than a redneck. Sorry to have misquoted you. Here is your exact statement:

"and you don't even here our worst rednecks suggesting - the argument YOU use which is other people did it first."


Your post #33 demands an answer to the question:
" part of Israel or not? if yes why the special rights for Jewish settlers???"

I have, on other threads, gone into this very issue. Apparently it has come up again.
(Post #9 and #14, etc on this
[br />thread].)

In my post #35 I answered: The Israeli citizens living in that territory are voting because of their citizenship rights. The Palestinians are the residents of that territory and not citizens of Israel.
The British governed Palestine until their mandate "expired" in 1947. Did their rights over the Mandate give all residents voting rights in UK elections? Was it part of the British Empire or not?



Your response:

39. so now you want to take lessons in democracy
from the Brit's during their colonial adventure LOL

Israel has a right to take presidents from the colonial power. The British fought against the Arab population in Palestine, there was no Palestinian government set up and no democracy was instituted. The Jews in the British Mandate set up their own democratic process. I think the British could learn from Israel about democracy.




In post #53 you say I am using 'the "other people did it" defense'

In both cases you are straying far from my point.

While Israel is in a process (for more than 10 years now) of granting the Palestinians the right to a democratic government, and helping them create that, (as difficult as it is with terrorism and attacks on Israelis).

In my post #55 I said :

"That the current Peace Initiative for Israel and all it's Arab/Muslim neighbors is now in it's second decade is another fact you fail to comprehend. "

And:

"Australia also has a long way to go in granting rights to the Aboriginal population. We're not talking about 200 years ago, we're talking about today."

Where did I say that Israel has a right to slaughter Palestinians?


The UN vote for partition in Nov 1947 did grant the Jews in Palestine the right to a state. I never claimed as you say I did that "they did it in America and Australia so we can kill and slaughter to make our state". If you can point it out to me where I said that I will cut my own throat. Then you can claim that I have a red neck. You are putting words into my mouth and misinterpreting everything I say.

Your post #56 certainly takes a "holier than thou" attitude.

"please don't lecture me about land rights in OZ"

Is it only land rights in the OZ ? Do the native Australians have equal rights for education and housing and employment that the Europeans in Australia do?

It is also a situation of human rights. Everyone has a right to comment on it. Your response to my question is rather snappish and shows that it is something you'd rather not discuss. Do you think that you really are above reproach?

I have been told before many times that I am following Israeli propaganda. But to accuse me of approving of the slaughter of millions is something I cannot abide by.

[Djinn]

105. so if you're not using that defence

why do you keep bringing up the human rights abuses/problems in other nations - if you're not excusing Israeli actions based on those other nations then there is NO reason to bring it up.

I did not call you a redneck I did not say you were worse than one, try comprehending what was said.

Any reason you posted this nonsense:

"Is it only land rights in the OZ ? Do the native Australians have equal rights for education and housing and employment that the Europeans in Australia do? "

No it's not only land rights but YES absolutely they have the same "rights" to education housing and employment. In reality they don't have equal access as many Kooris live in really remote areas and many are disproportionatly poor but there are NO laws saying where they can't live (unlike Israel) and there are laws to stop discrimination in employment housing and other areas (unlike Israel) we also don't jail people without ever letting them vote (unlike Israel)

But whatever the situation here unless you are using the "they did it first" defence there is NO REASON TO BRING IT UP AT ALL

Getting back to the issue of your post do YOU agree with the building of housing on occupied land? I find it strange that you seem to follow the UN when constantly talking about what was granted to Israel and seem to beleive it was all OK coz the UN said so yet when the UN says stop building in the OT you fall back into the "UN hates Israel" theory?

Should Israel STOP extending Israeli housing into the OT or not?

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

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

[Gimel]

120. Administrative detention

Thy are charged with violent activity and belonging to a terrorist organization. Of course they don't vote in Israeli elections. Do you think the inmates at Gitmo have the right to vote in US elections?

PS: Beginning with your post #33 you led the excursion.

[Gimel]

121. If you want to stick to one issue

then do.

You jump from voting eligibility, which for Israel is 100% of citizens over the age of 18, and then claim Palestinians, after having gone through repeated insistence that they are not in Israel's territory, should have the right to vote, or at least express outrage that they don't.

I've given you my personal view of the situation. You don't have to accept it. But you are twisting your own stated position when you claim Palestinians from the WB should be able to vote in Israeli elections.

ANd by the way the 1500 Palestinians currently in Israeli prisons without ever having been convicted of a crime DO NOT VOTE

BTW, I never said or implied that they did vote.

[Darranar]

61. And so one atrocity justifies another?

The US, and its colonial precedent, massacred and oppressed Native Americans for years, in some cases going well into the twentieth century. The level of slaughter and genocide probably exceeded the destruction Israel has wrought on the Palestinians. That was wrong, and so is Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. "They do it too" is no excuse.

[Gimel]

63. I'm not say that one justifies another

What I've pointed out is that Israel is not alone in human rights abuses when it comes to war and self-defense.

I never even implied that it was a "they do it too" argument. I'm saying who are you to demand that Israel self-destruct, and that is unfair. You have your strong nations built on injustices. Then you turn around and demand that Israel be the first to dissolve itself because others were there already, etc, etc.

I'm saying it was not so long ago, and human rights abuses are taking place today against minorities everywhere. It is not "500 or 200 years ago and now we are we are better than re-neck Iseraelis."

[Darranar]

64. Okay, let me make my view on this clear...

the atrocities of Israel are in no way, shape, or size at all equivalent to the atrocities of the United States, in genocide against the Native Americans, oppression of labor and minorities, and murderous imperial interventions in Mexico, the Phillipines, Nicaragua, Haiti, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, and elsewhere.

After four years of the intifadah and Israeli responses, the number of Palestinians killed, civilians and militants, is around 2.7 thousand. By contrast, the number of Iraqis civilians killed from the US intervention in Iraq, in just a year and a half, is likely over ten thousand, by some of the more conservative estimates.

I have never claimed that Israel self-destruct because it has committed human rights abuses, or even for any other reason. If I had, perhaps your argument would be justified.

[Gimel]

69. Comparatively

I would like to see also a comparison of the number of suicide attacks carried out against Americans in Iraq and the number carried out against Israelis, civilian and military. That would bring the two conflicts into a better comparative light. The US went after Saddam and his immediate circle of power. Israel is fighting terrorist organizations that attack civilians.

By not going after these terrorist organizations, Israel would be writing its own death certificate. That is what I meant by self-destruct. Civilian deaths that occur within the context of the battle are, regrettable, predicable and unavoidable. To continually denounce all IDF servicemen and women because they are protecting their country, and putting their lives in danger to do it, is equivalent to saying that Israel has no right to protect it's citizens and to retaliate.

The building in the existing settlements, those considered suburbs of Jerusalem which house several thousand Israeli families, and the protection of those communities by electronic fences, even if they exceed the green line demarcation, although not expanding them, seems likely to continue. It is impossible to stifle natural growth of this sort without violating human rights as well. It is likewise a viscous sentiment that they should be exposed to terrorism.

[Djinn]

73. How about this comparison

"I would like to see also a comparison of the number of suicide attacks carried out against Americans in Iraq and the number carried out against Israelis, civilian and military. That would bring the two conflicts into a better comparative light"

The weapons available to both sides in this conflict

The budgets available to both sides in this conflict

The number of civilians injured or killed when Israel lobs missiles into refugee camps compared with Israeli civilian deaths in suicide bombings

The military options available to the IDF compared with the options of Palestinians

[Gimel]

75. Are you trying to

justify Palestinian terrorist suicide attacks? You are again going far afield, as the comparison raised was that of deaths caused by the IDF and deaths caused by the US in Iraq.

If I were to give responses, three of the statements are almost equivalent in content, and the fourth is that usually there are no deaths caused by Israeli missiles lobbed into camps, or very few, whereas the deaths by suicide bombings has exceeded 30 for one attack.

Where is your information to the contrary?

[Djinn]

106. this has now gone beyond fantasy

you're claiming that the Palestinians and Israelis are working from a point of military and financial equality and that no innocent Palestinians are killed by missiles????????????????????? :wow:

[Darranar]

78. Israel's survival is not at stake in this conflict...

The number of suicide bombings is far too low and their scale far too small for that to be true.

Border security would of course be of essence in any reasonable plan for Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories; it isn't like many people are advising that Israel just let any suicide bomber who wants to blow themselves up and kill innocents.

[Gimel]

80. With the measures taken

I will agree. But with 3-4 attacks a day, which were being carried out in April 2002, there was a serious threat to everyone. Also, in view of the fact that tourism is close to the top major industry in Israel, and following the attacks, tourism plummeted to zero, I think that without the offensive in the territories , in Jenin and the fence to prevent illegal entry, you would see Israel not surviving as a state.

If you allowed terrorism to enter the airports in the US, would you be happy? Would you like to give them a free pass to board any plane?

[The Magistrate]

84. Israeli Military Actions In The Spring Of That Year, Ma'am

Were certainly justified, and that even though it does not seem to a dispassionate observer that the life of the state itself was threatened: that seems to me rather far beyond the power of the various Arab Palestinian irregular bodies. However, any state is justified in employing military force to protect its citizenry from attack. Nor is there any question that the military action undertaken was effective; the number of attacks against Israel has greatly diminished in its wake. Nor can it be reasonably claimed the military action was atrocious; it was, and has been, conducted with a commendable restraint by historical standards in such conflicts.

[Gimel]

85. Thank you for your observation

The power of the dedicated bombers, and the given number of them was about three times those who succeeded, the life as we know it in Israel would have certainly been threatened. The US would not have increased aid 10 fold, that is clear.

However, the actions taken during the assault to prevent attacks, and the counter-initiative were within the powers of the state. Given the military might, Israel was not in danger. Without that might, it could have been severely diminished, and sunken in gloom and misery.

Even today, the financial situation in Isreal is grave.

[IA_Seth]

65. You are impossible!

I fully understand the struggles MY people have gone through (both my Cherokee ancestors as well as my "American" counterparts)!

This doesn't excuse, forgive, make better, or make reasonable ANY action that Israel has taken against the Palestinians.

Does anyone in this country blame the Native Americans that raided the colonial villages and raided the settlers as they moved west? Hardly so! Most reasonable people can see that this is a deeply disturbing action of our past, not something to be used as a justification for further abuses!

Just as the Palestinians do now, the Native American people were fighting against a militarily superior, technologically advanced army of expansionists. So, instead of learning from America's multitude of failures in dealing with our Native people, Israel will continue down it's road in isolating and destroying the Palestinian way of life...just as we did with the Native Americans.

History does not HAVE to repeat itself, and usually only tends to for those who do not LEARN from the past. It IS possible for a 2 state solution, and it IS possible to have those 2 states be equal in viability.

If Israel continues to deal with the Palestinians the way the Americans dealt with the Native American people, it will be a sad reflection of the fact that our world learns nothing!

[Gimel]

70. Your response

This time I will excuse your personal attack in the subject line. You are new to the forum, but I think a warning would be appropriate.

This doesn't excuse, forgive, make better, or make reasonable ANY action that Israel has taken against the Palestinians.

I see no relation between the two situations, actually. What action that Israel takes or should take would seem reasonable to you?

Is it Israel that is not giving the 2 state solution a chance, in your view? How is this similar to treatment of the native American?

If Israel continues to deal with the Palestinians the way the Americans dealt with the Native American people, it will be a sad reflection of the fact that our world learns nothing!

How is it similar or the same? Don't you see the peace process as working toward solutions? Isn't the Disengagement Plan a positive step in this light? It hardly matters if there is a Green Line as this has little to do with the preservation of human rights. Insisting on it harms the rights of both Palestinians and Israelis. The establishment of a democratic Palestinian state is far more important.

[IA_Seth]

77. Oh my....

I give up trying to understand your reality Gimel.

YOU are the one who brought up America's "disenfranchised" people (see below), and now you question why I would discuss them and you see no relation?

"The US, Australia, France, Spain, they all had their disenfranchised populations that they hide somewhere in history. Then the "educated" feel free to attack other oppressed peoples at will. Call it "holier than thou" liberalism."

"However, the US as a democracy is about 225 years old. The wars with the American indigenous peoples proceeded far beyond that. In fact it is only in the past 20-30 years that the Nation of American Natives has been recognized and given rights to live as a group on their own land.

As recent as 130 years ago, the US government was engaged in warfare with the Northern Plains Indians."


Well of course YOU see no relation, because it was a Red Herring used to deflect the true nature of the thread in the first place, something all too commonly used around here - hence we rehash the SAME debates over and over and over again.

And yet there are some similarities. The IDF is a militarily superior and technologically more advanced group who, in the name of security, will raze villages, destroy homes and imprison family members of suspected criminals. They will shoot back against people armed with rocks. These injustices aren't new to this world - just something some of us would rather not see continue.

And of course I see the Disengagement Plan as a positive step, with the expectation that this Plan will be implemented, and the disengagement will not be limited to this plan. Promoting further growth in some settlements while SAYING you will disengage from others is fruitless and will lead to nothing but further frustration and violence.

[The Magistrate]

88. One Small Point, Sir

If Native American groups were continuing attacks against villages and farmsteads these would surely be met by military force. The conflict between the United States and the tribes is, for better or worse, long over, and decided in favor of the colonizer. That is far from the situation between the peoples of Israel and Arab Palestine. It is not past actions being used for justification of Israeli actions, but incidents current in an on-going conflict.

[IA_Seth]

92. Point?

I didn't begin the Native American-Palestinian comparison, and I never said they are a perfect reflection of one another.

There ARE similarities.

[The Magistrate]

95. No One Said You Did, Sir

By now, it would be well nigh impossible to identify who did, since it has for years been a staple of debate down here, with one side comparing Israel's actions to it, because it is pretty generally acknowkledged to have been a bad thing, and one side pointing out that it lies at the bottom of the U.S., and similar things at the bottom of other nations, and so it is not any exceptional thing.

You did, however, say that of long past incidents were brought up to justify a current mis-treatment of Native Americans, that would be wong, and so seemed to suggest that is what is occuring in the matter of Israeli military action against the various Arab Palestinian irregular bodies. That seemed worth engaging mildly....

[IA_Seth]

97. Very Well

I agree they do not make an equal comparison.

I, however, firmly stand by the fact that our past treatment of Native Americans, and Israel's current treatment of Palestinians do have some similarities. None that are clear enough to use as a basis for debate, which is why I have never brought them up in the past. When they are brought to the table by another, I feel the comparisons are useful enough to point out.

Perhaps I am not following your post above:

You did, however, say that of long past incidents were brought up to justify a current mis-treatment of Native Americans, that would be wong, and so seemed to suggest that is what is occuring in the matter of Israeli military action against the various Arab Palestinian irregular bodies.

If I understand that, you are saying I said something regarding current mistreatment of Native Americans? I never discussed the current status of Native Americans...The only reference I made to them were to point out the similarities (see above) once the situtation was brought to the table. My only comment on the current status of Native Americans would be to say that I hope a sovereign Palestinian state is more of a state than our current Native American "Nations".

[The Magistrate]

98. From Your No. 65 Above, Sir

The last sentence of the third paragraph: "Most reasonable people can see that this is a deeply disturbing action of our past, not something to be used as a justification for further abuses!" Perhaps the sense of it that occured to me on reading it was not quite what you intended. There is a typo in my own message you have quoted; the "of" was intended as "if", and may have rendered my own meaning opaque.

Certainly a sovereign state of Arab Palestine will have to have a good deal more of the sovereign article than has been allowed the defeated tribes in the U.S.

[IA_Seth]

99. Understood

Ok, now I am following you, thanks for the clarification.

It seems my meaning wasn't communicated entirely well either.

My use of "Most reasonable people can see that this is a deeply disturbing action of our past, not something to be used as a justification for further abuses!" was in response to my understanding of Gimel's post that to me said - we (US, Australia, etc) all have skeletons in the closet so shouldn't try to bring our "holier than thou" liberalism to bear on Israel.

I was simply trying to convey that YES we do have some shameful memories in our not-so-distant history, but that it shouldn't be used as a defense against current abuses.

That being said, it seems Gimel's meaning wasn't quite the way I interpreted it, as she said that she doesn't understand why I am talking about it. Why it was brought up then is not understood.

[The Magistrate]

101. Only She Can Speak To It With Any Authority, Sir

My own view on the intent of raising that is this: on occassion, persons opposing Israel describe its actions in hyperbolic terms that seem to suggest its actions are an evil unparelleled in time and space, and persons supporting Israel at times respond by citing the parade of horribles that actually constitutes human history.

[IA_Seth]

102. Respectfully Disagree

It is definitely NOT only she that can speak to the situation with any authority, what gives you that idea?

There is no one that can weigh in on a subject near and dear to their country without some sort of bias coming through - and if that is not something you can see than I will have to agree to disagree.

As to your view on hyperbole vs. fact in terms of those that oppose Israel's practices (and NOT Israel itself- there is a distinction) - Please reference any exaggerations I make with facts to dispute them, as I certainly try to use only that which has been reported by reputed sources.

And as for persons supporting Israel, I am afraid hyperbole runs just as rampant on their side of the "fence".

No one, is saying that human history is a bowl of cherries and Israel is the only one to oppress people under their "watch" so to speak. I am saying that yes I KNOW that there have been a "parade of horribles" but that we should learn from this parade, and not just let it continue to go marching by.

Israel is not the worst of the world's oppressors, but they are our strongest ally that oppresses. THAT is my sticking point.

[The Magistrate]

103. On What She Meant By Mentioning That, Sir

She must be considered authoritative....

My own comments were general, based on some years of participating in this dispute, and no reflection on you in any particular, Sir. You may be sure that if it is ever my intention to criticize you for hyperbolic statement, my intent will be abundantly clear and unmistakeable.

It is certainly true both sides engage in hyperbole. It is, in my view, a very over-rated rhetorical device, best used as a spice, and in some degree in humorous wise, but utterly unsound as a foundation, or a load bearing element, in the structure of an argument. But some people seem to enjoy the heat of it.

Over millenia there has been some small improvement in human governance, and degree of exploitation and oppression, but the truth is that the basic material is not very promising stuff for improvement. This particular Levatine matter is a mere rounding error in the toll of human suffering and injustice comprising the past century or so. The U.S. government has been allied with governments that do far worse, and will be again should it suit the apparent interest of the nation. So long as the situation remains one of warfare as a practical fact, and a war in which one side is clearly losing, and foolish in the extreme to prolong the conflict any further, it will continue to present an unpleasant spectacle, that cannot be measured by the standards of a settled peace and civil order.

[IA_Seth]

104. Agreed on the Final Two Counts

Anyway.

Hyperbole is better suited to comedy and poetry than any rational discussion, as its very nature only inflames one side while making the user's side appear weak once it is pointed out as such.

On your final point, that human governance is not, overall, a very promising endeavor, I tend to agree.

However, to yearn for a more civil society, where our government (and all others) would ally with those that were truly supportive of a world peace and rights for ALL humans is not beyond me.

To hope that this era's nations can see the past as a tool from which to learn, to use the world's experience to better understand the outcome of our current struggles, is something I hope to truly see before I die.

To look reality in the face and say it can be better is something I think all people can and should do.

For reference, I in no way support any official alliance with the Palestinians at this time. To side with one side over the other isn't sound policy, again in my opinion. A NEUTRAL involvement in this conflict would be embraced by rational beings on both sides, and may actually act as a compass that is desperately needed before any "road map" can be read!

And thank you for your posts.

[Violet_Crumble]

110. So can you show me the post in this thread...

Where someone opposing Israel describes its actions in hyperbolic terms that seem to suggest its actions are an evil unparalleled in time and space, hence bringing on the ever-so-justified response of the person supporting Israel? What makes me think yr view is just a tad slanted is that I don't oppose Israel (unless opposing the occupation now makes someone a person who opposes Israel) and I've been on the receiving end of exactly the same thing as I've seen happen to Djinn in this thread. Here's my view on the intent of raising this: on occassion, persons who are of the belief that the state of Israel will vanish in a puff of fairy-dust if they ever dare utter a word of criticism towards the Israeli govt will tend to try to deflect attention away from Israel's treatment of the Arab population by using a technique where they seem to suggest that no-one has the right to criticise Israel if they live in a country that has a sordid past concerning their indigenous populations, and that the person criticising Israel appears to have the blame placed on them for what their country did in the past. That's how it worked when that approach to debate was tried on me. What doesn't make sense is that more often than not the person doing the deflecting has spent a lot of energy on justifying and agreeing with the treatment Israel has dished out to the Arab population of Palestine, yet then seems to be arguing that similar treatments of populations in other countries in the past was wrong and that the poster criticising Israel is a hypocrite for criticising Israel but not criticising their own countries track record. It's not a response that makes a whole lot of sense, as the poster they're talking to may have indigenous ancestry themselves, or be involved in indigenous rights, and could even be very aware from their own countries past what steps need to be taken for reconciliation to happen...

on edit: sorry for the long sentences tonight. I fixed the worst one but I'm too lazy to do the rest :)

Violet...

[IA_Seth]

100. Dupe Bug - n/t

[Gimel]

89. Not to deflect

I was trying to place it in perspective. The status of the territories and that which exists for others.

So the consensus here is that the West Bank has never been a part of Israel, so why, might I ask, all the accusations that Israel is not a democracy? Why should the Palestinians have the right to vote in a country which they are not a part of? The settlers would obviously be outside of Israel, but still have voting rights, as they are citizens, similar to US citizens who live abroad.

I was asked by posters here what my position on the legality of the West Bank is, and that is why I even began with the "red herring". Djinn demanded that I answer questions that the poster Violet_Crumble asked. You can check back on this thread to verify that.

Your list of IDF offenses is not accurate, and I do wish people would not just claim things that they have the impression of, but can't prove.

[The Magistrate]

90. Indeed, Ma'am

Those who complain that Arab Palestinians cannot vote in Israeli elections are, usually without quite realizing, in fact arguing for Israeli annexation amd absorption of the territories over-run in '67. There are difficulties with employing charges simply for the sound of them....

[IA_Seth]

91. Not Quite

Its one or the other...annexation and full rights granted, or treat the territories as occupied territories under the Geneva Conventions (ie. no permanent settlements).

I guess I don't understand the confusion.

[Gimel]

93. The world is not so simple

Law tries to organize things into right and wrong, but there are always conditions that arise that don't fit easily into either category.

[IA_Seth]

94. And so...

What are we to do then?

How doesn't this clearly fit into the rules set forth in Geneva? You can't be kind-of occupying a place, and kind-of not. It is a pretty clear cut yes or no situation.

I am not saying that all cases of Intl Law are black and white, clearly the world works in shades of gray the majority of the time, but whether or not you are occupying a territory should be (and is) pretty clear.

The benefit of the ambiguity used in Israel's policies are something that I have never been able to grasp. Why not say, YES we have nuclear weapons and allow for inspections. Why not say YES we are occupying these territories due to security of Israel and follow ALL Geneva Conventions.

Being forthright and open would foster a greater trust I would think. Perhaps all of the animosity would be lessened if Israel's policies were more transparent?

[The Magistrate]

96. It Would Seem, Sir, We Have Some Overlaps Of Agreement

The settlements policy is a violation of the Geneva accords. That would seem to approaching a state of settled law now, though it could in the past, even the not too distant past, have been claimed legitimately to be a debateable point.

Annexation would seem, however, to be right out, and to have always been right out, as that would be in fact the acquisition of territory by force: conquest is an ancient right in such matters, but has recently gone quite out of fashion....

[Violet_Crumble]

112. Let's ride that red-herring into the ground, pardner!

Seeing I was referred to in the post you were replying to, let me clear something up. Yes, I did mention democracy, and it was in this context: 'Neither East Jerusalem nor the West Bank itself have always been part of Israel. Territory invaded by Israel in 1967 is not part of Israel, and if it was considered to be so, then it's impossible to argue that Israel's a democracy...' I don't know how saying something along those lines gets morphed into complaining that Arab Palestinians can't vote in Israeli elections...

Violet...

[Djinn]

107. Thats NOT why people say it's not a democracy

they don't need to give Palestinians in the west bank the vote - but it SHOULDNT be given to Israeli's living on the same space.

The reasons people dispute Israel's democratic credentials are to do with the LEGAL INSTITUTIONALISED discrimination against Arab ISRAELIS

* Israel has no constitution
* Israel bars any candidate from holding office who thinks the country should be a secular, democratic state with equal rights for all.
* Israel has been under "emergency" rule for 56 years
* The government can and does shut down newspapers to stiffle dissent
* Unequal resource allocation eg Arab pupils comprise a third of the total school population but their schools receive just seven per cent of the education ministry’s budget
* Many citizen benefits are tied to military service - most of the Palestinian population being excluded from this
* Israel is defined as the state of the Jewish people, providing special rights and privileges to anyone in the world who is Jewish and seeks to live there, over and above longtime Arab residents.
* Israel allows long term detention without charge
* Laws in place stop family reunion citizenship in one case only: marriages between Israelis and Palestinians. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch condemned the law as blatantly racist.
* non-Jews are restricted in terms of how much land they can own, and in which places they can own land at all, thanks to laws granting preferential treatment to Jewish residents.
* Ethnic cleansing is seriously discussed as an option by MK's
* Israeli Supreme Court has acknowledged the use of torture against suspected “terrorists” and other “enemies” of the Jewish state.

I could go on but there's very little point

[Violet_Crumble]

111. Why Israel doesn't have a written constitution...

Britain doesn't have a written constitution either, so I don't think the lack of a formal constitution is any gauge of whether a country's democratic or not. Here's the reason why I think Israel isn't what I'd describe as a stable democracy, and most of the points you made are due to this one reason. Israel was founded as a Jewish state where the Jewish nature of the state is a democracy because a large majority of the population are Jewish. But if it were to come to the crunch and a time comes when retaining the Jewish nature of the state (that is, a Jewish majority) is incompatable with democracy, I have no doubts that democracy would be the loser in the struggle....

I remember reading only a few days ago about the reason why Israel doesn't have a formal constitution, and I think it had something to do with the 1949 armistace lines. I'm not sure, so I should see if I can track down where I read about it...

Violet...

[Gimel]

116. I'm sure it's for other reasons

The main reason people will say that is because they are anti-Israel.

· Israel has no constitution

Israel has Basic Law which is in effect a constitution.

* On the issue of a constitution, which was discussed in the first Knesset and called the Harari Proposal:
At the end of the debate, on June 13, 1950, the Knesset decided to adopt a resolution known as "the Harari proposal", named after MK Yizhar Harari of the Progressive Party, who proposed it. According to this proposal "the First Knesset assigns to the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee the preparation of a proposed constitution for the state. The constitution will be made up of chapters, each of which will constitute a separate basic law. The chapters will be brought to the Knesset, as the Committee completes its work, and all the chapters together will constitute the constitution of the state." Following the passing of this resolution, the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee set up a sub-committee on the Constitution.
http://www.us-israel.org

Although a formal Constitution is in the works, the Basic Laws, revised and updated in 1980 and 1992, guarantees equal protection under the law.


Although Israel does not have a single complete constitutional document, in its forty-five years of statehood the Jewish state has developed an operative constitution of its own, embodied in a set of written texts that reflect the political system on which the state is based, its social content, and an expanding constitutional tradition. Those texts were properly promulgated by the representatives of the people and recognized as constitutional by Israel's Supreme Court. The texts are collected and presented here for what they are -- Israel's operative constitution that determines the basic operations of the Israeli polity, the basic rules of governance enforced by those empowered to execute and enforce the law and, as such, interpreted by the courts as a constitution.
http://www.corkpsc.org/db.php?aid=1636

So whether or not there is a formal "Constitution", there is a democratic law and basis to the law.

* Israel bars any candidate from holding office who thinks the country should be a secular, democratic state with equal rights for all.



· A false accusation. Shinui, the 3rd largest political party promotes secular, democratic government. Yossi Sarid of Meretz, a member of Knesset since 1973 in the Labor Party, is just such a person. He promotes the secular state and open to all. There are a wide range of political parties, many which are by definition secular.

How do you think that Israel "bars" a candidate from office? Candidates are members of a political party which is able to get enough votes in the general elections.

* Israel has been under "emergency" rule for 56 years


· Israel has been under attack for 56 years.


This is primarily because Israel is surrounded by non-democratic theocracies, which opposed Israel's creation and existence.


. The Cabinet decided to recommend that the Knesset declare a State of Emergency, in accordance with Basic Law: Government, until 28.7.2000. On 1.2.99, the Knesset declared a State of Emergency for a period of one year, ending on 26.1.2000. In accordance with a previous Cabinet decision on this matter, work has begun on examining the legal arrangements affected by the existence of a State of Emergency and a number of laws of this type have already been abrogated. The procedures to prepare for the termination of the State of Emergency have been accelerated in recent months, with the objective of soon being able to avoid the necessity of having to request an additional extension of the State of Emergency.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/1999/Cabinet+Communique+-+21-Nov-99.htm


State of emergency:

In October 1999, the Supreme Court issued an order nisi (order to show cause) requesting the state to provide reasons why the state of emergency declaration should not be cancelled. During the Supreme Court hearings, the state declared that measures were being taken to limit the government’s reliance on emergency legislation. Based on this announcement, the Court asked the state to provide information as to the specific legislative steps being taken in this regard. At hearings in June 2001, the Supreme Court urged the Justice Ministry to prepare legislation that would abolish the state of emergency, or at least some of the laws that derive force from this state.
From October 1999 to March 2003, the state failed to respond to the Court’s request. However, during the most recent Supreme Court hearing in March 2003, the state announced that in light of the current security situation in Israel, it was necessary to uphold the declaration of the state of emergency. The Supreme Court agreed with the state that there had been a significant change in the security situation since the petition was filed, and suggested that ACRI amend the petition to take this into account.6 As of this writing, ACRI has not filed an amended petition.

http://www.adalah.org/eng/intladvocacy/unhrc_03_emergency.pdf

* The government can and does shut down newspapers to stiffle dissent
Freedom of Press

You will have to give data on a newspapers being "shut down". All freedoms have their limitations. There is freedom of press in Israel, but that does not include incitement to violence.


For Example:

Israeli democracy faced the latest in a series of stern tests Wednesday, with Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein weathering unprecedented criticism for the interrogation of the reporter who broke news of an affair that could threaten Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?sw=Freedom+of+press&itemNo=255018


· Unequal resource allocation eg Arab pupils comprise a third of the total school population but their schools receive just seven per cent of the education ministry's budget


I don’t know where you've gotten your information. The arab sector is a little over 20% of the population, so an estimate of 30% of the total school population is way off. The percentage of the ministry's budget is quite inaccurate also.

Here are some statistics about the educational system in Israel:

The number of pupils and students enrolled in the education system, from
pre-primary through higher education, is almost 1,900,000 in the 2000/01
school year. This is an increase of more than 200,000 pupils and students
since 1994/95. The greatest rise was in higher education (universities,
colleges or other post-secondary educational frameworks), with an increase
of 80,000 students (53%) for this period. In 1948/49, at the time of the
establishment of the state, there were about 140,000 pupils in the education
system, and by 2000/01, the number had increased thirteen times.


Approximately 78% of the total pupil population in 2000/01 is enrolled in
Hebrew education, and 22% in Arab education.
Since 1989/90, Hebrew education has increased by 17% and Arab
education by 53%. Some of this increase in Arab education can be attributed
to changes in the method used for gathering data on kindergartens.

http://cms.education.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/0D4A1917-8256-42D4-A55A-AFAD4D2A3A3B/7005/FACTS7.pdf


Between 1990 and 2001, the budget of the Ministry of Education increased
from NIS 3.9 billion to NIS 22.3 billion. At fixed prices (1990 prices) there
was an 80% increase.

Classification of the budget by subject shows that 95.7% is intended for
formal education, 1.0% for informal education, and 3.3% for administration
and the headquarters' units.

The Ministry of Education also contributes towards the budgets of other
bodies: 27.5% of the Ministry's total budget is allocated for contributions
to local authority budgets - primarily in the fields of formal education.
http://cms.education.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/241CD4E1-C258-4D44-87A2-F5F5A00A62AB/7003/CHAP_3A.pdf

with only 27% of the education budget going to local authorities, and the Arab sector is 22% of that, that would mean 5.9% would be allocated to the Arab sector. Your figure says 7% which would be higher than an equal distribution on the 2001 budget.

2,000 new classrooms have been allocated for 2001, of which 585 classrooms
are intended for the Arab, Bedouin and Druze sectors. The extent of
construction in these sectors is intended to narrow the gap between them and
the Hebrew education sector. In Hebrew education, 1,079 new classrooms are
intended for State education (State education, State-religious education -
including rural education, and orthodox-religious education). A total of 250
new classrooms are planned for kindergartens, including for 3-4 year-olds.



I see no discrimination at all. More recent figures are not available on the ministry's web site.

· Many citizen benefits are tied to military service - most of the Palestinian population being excluded from this

While many benefits are available to the Arabs, such as child allowances which are equal for every Israeli, benefits given to those who do military service are deserving to them.

Israeli men devote 3 years to military service. The military pay is less than subsistence. That means their families have to support the men during that time. Arab young men can start out in a career or continue their education. I think the Israeli soldiers deserve their benefits.

Israeli women do 1 or 2 years of military or national service.

One proposal is to have the Arabs also give an equal amount of time in national service of a non-military nature. Then they would qualify for all the benefits.

· Israel is defined as the state of the Jewish people, providing special rights and privileges to anyone in the world who is Jewish and seeks to live there, over and above longtime Arab residents.

The benefits of the new resident are paid for by the Jewish Agency, which is largely an independent agency, funded by international Jewry.

Arabs have 20 Arab states where they get special benefits, but in many cases, Jews were expelled from them.


· Israel allows long term detention without charge
* Laws in place stop family reunion citizenship in one case only: marriages between Israelis and Palestinians. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch condemned the law as blatantly racist.

Every democratic country uses state of emergency in war time, unlimited detention and torture is practiced world wide. You can’t single out Israel hand hold it to a higher standard than any other state in the world.



It is little wonder that these accusations are being circulated during a time of violent attacks against Israel's existence. It is a planned attack using the media and promoting propaganda to smear the state of Israel.

The laws are limited, and exceptions to the marriage and family reunion restrictions can be made through an appeal.


· non-Jews are restricted in terms of how much land they can own, and in which places they can own land at all, thanks to laws granting preferential treatment to Jewish residents.

No restrictions are placed on Arab land ownership.

· Ethnic cleansing is seriously discussed as an option by MK's

These suggestions were voted down. I see even if the right thing is done, Israel will be made to look at fault.

· Israeli Supreme Court has acknowledged the use of torture against suspected "terrorists" and other "enemies" of the Jewish state.

Same as above:

Every democratic country uses state of emergency in war time, unlimited detention and torture is practiced world wide. You can't single out Israel hand hold it to a higher standard than any other state in the world.

There is absolutely no justification for flooding Israel with complaints while under attack by Palestinian terrorists. It is clear that the Palestinian interests are for undermining the State of Israel in any way possible.

[Djinn]

117. Really?

"The main reason people will say that is because they are anti-Israel."

There is absolutely NO rpoint in contradicting all the untruths in your post Gimel because you start with a basic fallacy - the main reason people say that has nothing to do with them being anti-Israel and you damn well know it.

No-one here would ever try and tell you that the reson you aern't a fan of Arafat is because you are simply anti-Palestinian and frankly I'm tired of all your slurs.

No doubt there'll be a alert sent immediately to the mods over this but if this post is removed I'd like Gimels trash about those disputing Israel's democratic credentials being anti-Israel wiped too - thx

[Gimel]

119. You are free to express your opinion

I have the right to express mine, also.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. n/t

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Thanks for that!

It saves me having to do it. I like it when things turn out to everyone's satisfaction :)


A Happy Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

13. nothing more than a chess game

That is why "won" was in quotes. Israel occupied the West Bank, which had been occupied by Jordan, when Jordan surrendered after two days. Then, Israel occupied the Gaza strip and the Sinai, halting the advancing Egyptian army. Egypt had originally forced out the UN emergency forces, then moved troops into the Sinai. Then, they closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. Soon, the Egyptian government called upon the nations of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia to advance forces to the borders of Israel. Israel called upon the international community to halt the Egyptian blockade, when this failed and troops continued to amass at all the borders of Israel, she launched a strike against those preparing to march into the land. The humiliation the Arab nations felt was so great, they continued to campaign against Israel, until some realized it was fruitless and declared peace accords with the nation.

And if Israel attacked Egypt, why did the other Arab nations strike? Five nations rose against one nation with the clear intention of annihilating the one nation. One nation prevailed, Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. I guess it could be described as that...

I only count four states other than Israel involved - Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan. I may have missed one, but I don't think so. I also don't think the lead-up to the war was as simple as you just said. There was a lot of escalating scuffling with the Syrians over the demilitarised zones, amongst other things. You also have the reasons for the war completely wrong. The annihilation of any state was not part of it at all. In fact, it's pretty bizarre to be claiming that Jordan wanted to annihilate Israel at all. Have you read The Iron Wall by Avi Shlaim? I agree with what he said that it was a war that none of the parties wanted and it was something where the leadup to it built and built because it was out of the control of any of them to stop. The Syrians were convinced that Israel wanted to overthrow the Syrian govt, Nasser was grandstanding when he closed the Straits of Tiran, and it wasn't supposed to lead to an all-out war. Syria and Egypt also had some sort of mutual defence treaty in place. Jordan also had a mutual defence pact with Egypt, as I assume Iraq did as well. To Israel's credit, they didn't react straight away to the Jordanian shelling of the Israeli side of Jerusalem, which on the scale of utterly moronic actions (the Jordanian shelling) gets an 11 out of 10 and was something Israel would have had every right to respond to immediately....

Do you believe that Israel has any right to annexe any of the territory it gained during the war?

btw, thanks for the focus and niceness of yr posts. Even though I don't agree with some of what you say, it's a pleasure to discuss the issue with you :)

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

17. checkmate! just kidding! :)

Actually, we were both wrong! It was six nations! I listed 5 and you listed 4 and between the two of us, we got them all. You left out Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, and I omitted Iraq. I may have oversimplified the "cause" but it was easier than dumping out everything that led to the conflict. I fell that most would say that the naval blockade was, more or less, the "straw that broke the camel's back." I have not read The Iron Wall, but I will look for a copy at the library. To be honest, I think, with a few exceptions, all wars are nothing than "saber-rattling" that gets out of control. I guess I am a little "pollyannish" in that I feel most people really do not want to hurt someone else.

As for Israel's right to annexing territory gained in the conflict, I have mixed feelings. At that time, I would say yes because the security concern was too high not to keep the land. Now, well, I feel there are so many things happening that is all very confusing. It is not as simple as handing the land over.

I admit that some of your posts get me riled, but it does make me back up what I believe and say. As for being polite, well, I try to be. You and I cannot even come to an agreement, can you imagine what it is at the top levels?! I see no reason to be ugly with you. You have not attacked me personally, so I see no need to attack you. If anything is ever going to change, people, from both sides, have to be able to listen! I do not like to see people spew hate toward Jews, but I also do not like to see it spewed at Arabs! It serves no purpose but to inflame an already horrific situation! So, in short (I am long-winded, so this short for me), I am glad we can discuss this as well!

Brightest Blessings!

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Another number...

I was wondering what the popular consensus on who the warring parties were, and found the entry in Wikipedia claiming there were three Arab countries involved - Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

Not that I place that much weight in the credibility of Wikipedia, mind you...

I also took a look at my copy of 'The Twentieth Century World - an international history' by William R. Keylor and he only mentions Egypt and Syria, so I'm guessing that those two were the major players in the Six Day War. It'd be interesting to know for a fact how many Arab States were at war with Israel, but I'm suspecting Avi Shlaim's the closest to getting it right. One interesting thing I just spotted in 20th century world was that the Six Day War was the first time the hotline between the Kremlin and the Whitehouse was used...

I agree with you that for a while after the war, Israel was entitled to occupy the territory it gained until its security concerns were addressed. There's no security reasons to hold on to the West Bank and Gaza Strip now, other than concerns expressed by those who believe that the creation of a Palestinian state would be a threat to Israel's security. The settlement activity now has nothing to do with security, and actually places Israeli citizens in danger by encouraging them to move there. And I agree that ending the occupation isn't simply a matter of Israel withdrawing troops and settlers over a very short period and washing it's hands of the whole thing. Sharon's disengagement plan stinks because the Gaza Strip is going to descend even further into chaos than it is now, and Israel is still going to control airspace, the sea, and claims a right to attack at any time. I think a real withdrawal and the creation of a Palestinian state must involve Israeli cooperation, as well as that of the international community. While not many folk apart from right-wing extremists want to see the Israeli occupation continue, there's not many folk that want to see a Palestinian state finally emerge, only to see that it's a state being run by the likes of Hamas. The Palestinian people deserve better than that, as do Israelis, as I couldn't think of much worse than living under or next door to a Hamas regime. A first step towards a peaceful and fair resolution has to involve two leaders who want peace and who have the best interests of their own people at heart, as well as respecting the right of the other 'side' to live in peace and security. Neither Sharon or Arafat are those leaders, and while those two are around, things aren't going to get better...

Hey, I apologise in advance if any of my posts rile you up, cause that's not my intention. Listening is a skill people find easy to lose debating this issue, and I really appreciate those like you who don't lose it, and who, like me, detest the outbursts of hatred towards both groups that sometimes raises its ugly head...

Cheers...

Violet...

[Darranar]

24. Egypt, Syria, Israel and Jordan were the only major players...

I'm not sure how many Arab nations made aggressive but mostly meaningless gestures, however....

[Lithos]

28. Iraq sent several divisions as I recall

So their effort wasn't meaningless. However your point is still intact.

L-

[Behind the Aegis]

29. players

Egypt, Syria, and Jordan were the only Arab nations to lose land. Several others, as Lithos points out, were also involved militarily, including Iraq and Lebanon (who was involved with troops amassed in the north). The ones who did not send troops, but rather sent Intel and ops were aggressive and I don't feel that is a "meaningless gesture." If a group of neighbors are throwing rocks at your house, they will be who you respond to directly. However, I feel you would also address those neighbors who supplied the rocks and told the rock-throwers which windows to strike! It wouldn't matter that they weren't "directly" involved.

[Lithos]

27. Those countries involved militarily in 1967 were as I recall

Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia. Most of the non-bordering states with the exception of Iraq sent platoon/company/battalion sized contingents. I can't remember if Algeria sent troops or not, I don't think so. I also think there was active financial and logistical support given by the Kuwaiti's, UAE, and Yemen. The US and the Soviet Union (I count the Eastern Bloc support as part of the Soviet Union's efforts) also provided logistical and financial support.

I do not believe Lebanon was involved at this time, nor again in 1973.

Back to the bigger issue. It is a red-herring to discuss who attacked who first in 1967 as this answer does not figure into resolving legal control over conquered territories. Again, military conquest is considered illegal by International Law. However, while under military occupation, the occupying power is responsible for the well being of the civilian population.

L-

[Violet_Crumble]

44. Why did they all get involved?

I know that Egypt had mutual defence agreements in place with Jordan and Iraq, and I'm not sure about Syria, but did the rest all have the same agreements with Egypt, or were they washed along on a tide of Nasserism?

Violet...

[Darranar]

23. Israel attacked, not the Arab states...

as negotiations were being held, with a good chance of success.

They certainly invaded those territories. How else did they attain them? Peaceful negotiation?

[Lithos]

26. They attacked for two reasons

1) Israel had called up the reservists which effectively shut down the Israeli economy. To continue the defensive posture for any length of time would have resulted in the economic destruction of Israel. One tactic which Israel feared most was a long, phony war.

2) While there was a good chance for success, it was by no means certain. You have to remember there was a lot of misinformation going on at the time, particularly from the Soviet Union and Egypt. Much of what was going on for war rhetoric from the Arabs was based on false intelligence given to and being given by the Arab powers.

Israel did what any power would do under the circumstances and initiated the battle under their own timetable while there was an element of surprise to help them achieve an easier victory. I do not blame Israel for attacking at this time. I do blame them for their post-war policies concerning the territories.

L-

[Lithos]

25. That is a misconception

International law does not allow for the conquest of territories by military means. It doesn't matter if they were the original aggressors or not.

The land is not part of Israel.

L-

[Behind the Aegis]

30. how about this

If the land is not Israel's, shouldn't the countries who held the land before occupation be involved? The Palestinians were not a recognized nation. The lands occupied by Israel in the 1967 war were the West Bank, including Jerusalem (originally a part of Jordan), the Gaza Strip (originally occupied by Egypt, and the Golan Height's (originally part of Syria). Whereas the land of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip may not belong to Israel, wouldn't it make more sense to turn the land back over to the original "owners?" That is to say, the West Bank would return to Jordan, and the Gaza Strip to Egypt. During the 19 years that those territories were held by the Arab nations, no Palestinian homeland was ever created; therefore, Palestinians have no "rightful" claim to the land unless the Egyptians and Jordanians give the land over to them (the Palestinians).

As for the Golan Height's, that land was annexed in 1981 by Israel. Even if the annexation is disputed, the land is no longer considered "occupied" under international law. However, the UN Security Council wrongly states that the Golan Height's are an "occupied" territory. Israel has even offered to return all of the annexed territory to Syria on condition that a DMZ is created. But, to date, the Syrians have refused this. Israel doesn't want to return this land without that condition because it would leave them very vulnerable to another attack.

Therefore, would there be a difference if Israel turned the land over to Jordan and Egypt (two nations that Israel has peace accords with), as opposed to turning the land over to the Palestinians?

[Lithos]

31. I disagree...

First, there would be a difference is Israel handed the OT over to Egypt or Jordan. The lands do not belong to any of the three countries. Following the 1947/48 war the lands which were not part of recognized Israel were part of Mandate lands designated for a Palestinian state. Gaza and the West Bank were occupied militarily by Egypt and Jordan through 1967 and equivalently illegally to how Israel occupies them today.

And again to emphasize, International law prohibits the unilateral annexation of land by conquest which is exactly what the circumstances the Golan Heights were acquired. The same goes with the unilateral annexation of Eastern Jerusalem. As such they still legally remain as militarily occupied lands.

The issue of whether or not of the failure of a Palestinian homeland to be established is mostly due to outside influences including the continual presence of occupying powers (Egypt, Jordan, Israel). It also is legally not up to Israel to arbitrarily decide the final status of these lands. Any such unilateral declaraton would lack legality.

I am not saying that at some point a legal treaty may adjust the 1967 boundary, but that such a treaty has NOT happened and until such time as it does, the lands remain militarily occupied and the well being and legal protection of the civilian population, their lands and their assets remain under the full responsibility of the occupying power.

L-

[number6]

32. is that like Russia won east Germany and East Berlin

after Hitler attacked Russia, guess the Russians should ask
for their property back eh?

[Gimel]

59. Didn't they?

after Hitler attacked Russia, guess the Russians should ask
for their property back eh?

East Germany was under Soviet control until the collapse of the USSR in 1990.

[Zhade]

5. Gee, b*sh supports land theft. What a surprise.

He also supports that butcher Sharon. Well, birds of a feather, and all that...

[geek tragedy]

34. It should go without saying, but this is

incredibly fucking unhelpful.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. At least the US administration is consistent...

Everything that comes out of that administration is incredibly fucking unhelpful. There's a complete lack of interest in understanding what it takes to even start going along the path of peace, and though I know Warren Austin was many decades before Bushco, a comment of his where he said that Jews and Arabs should solve their differences in a Christian manner sums up the complete lack of understanding and dumbness that is the Bush Administration...

Violet...

[LeftistGorilla]

52. America....

continues to be Israel's bitch.....

[Lithos]

122. Locking

Per I/P guidelines. The postings were starting to become personal. Time to remember to comment about the topic not the person.

Lithos
FA/NS Moderator
Democratic Underground