The EU thinks that Israel wants "to complete the annexation" of Jerusalem

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3218,36-714203,0.html
(translation: http://nuralcubicle.blogspot.com/)

The EU thinks that Israel wants "to complete the annexation" of Jerusalem
THE WORLD | 25.11.05 | 14H12 Updated the 25.11.05 | 16h50
Stéphanie Le Bars

<snip>
The policy implemented in East Jerusalem by Israel jeopardizes any negotiated settlement for the future status of the city, one of the thorniest issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is the conclusion of an incisive report drafted by European diplomats in Jerusalem and Ramallah and presented to the European ministers of Foreign Affairs. The document has not yet been made public for diplomatic reasons. (After negotiations with Israel, the Europeans have just reached an agreement to grant them a presence at the Rafah crossing between Egypt and Gaza that officially opened on November 25.) The observations and recommendations by the diplomats may be presented within a few weeks.

All the policies implemented by the Israeli authorities in the Arab neighborhoods and suburbs of Jerusalem, annexed after the Israeli conquest in 1967, have been carefully reviewed in the report. The diplomats condemn the continuing colonization as well as the construction of roads meant to connect existing settlements. The strategy, which aims to “complete the annexation of Jerusalem” goes against the obligations of Israel under international law and the Road Map, a peace plan recognized by the international community and by Israel.

According to the diplomats, the policies are reinforced by the construction of the so-called Security Wall, which Israel has been building since 2002 on Palestinian lands. The barrier is not only motivated by security considerations, insist the diplomats, who are skeptical of its temporary character and well aware of the fact that it separates Palestinians from other Palestinians, instead of separating Palestinians from Israelis. Its route cuts off 230,000 Arab residents of East Jerusalem from the West Bank. They underscore that the viability of a Palestinians state depends in a large measure on the preservation of links between East Jerusalem, Ramallah and Bethlehem .

Given Israel’s overall strategy, the future of a two-state solution sharing their capital in Jerusalem is fading from view. The diplomats suggest that European governments clearly reaffirm that the status Jerusalem remains subject to negotiation. They propose the organization of a new round of meetings with Palestinians representatives in East Jerusalem to breathe new life into Palestinian institutions as provided for by the Road Map.
<unsnip>

The article goes on to say that Israel would boycott any European representatives that instituted such sanctions against Israel, according to the Israeli press.

MODS! Please note: this article was published only in French. As most of us can't read French, I have used babelfish (for the title, intro information and last paragraph) and a translation to English from a blog (for the text), posting both a link to the original article and the blog.

OK - this was reported on when it happened - and it is not as spun by the LeMond writer's retelling

so why do we retell the spun version by a single writer in France?

There was always going to be a corridor to the Temple Mount - and indeed that remains. The complaint appears to be how wide that corridor will be - and will the wall have an opening so folks need not stop for Israeli permission in going from the West Bank to the Temple mount.

And the answer is obviously the corridor will be under PA control - ONLY.

Man do folks like to spin!

:-)

The article says the EU report discusses the continued illegal construction of buildings and roads in East Jerusalem, and about the wall in gen'l and how it appears to be constructed more for separating Palestinian communities from other Palestinian communities, than for any separation of Palestinians from Israelis, which has been the justification for it.

The REAL spin appears to be that the extremely destructive effects of continued settlement-building and the wall on Palestinian society, and the Israeli intent to drive the Palestinians from Jerusalem, are not being acknowledged, either by the Israelis or the U.S. (the U.S. has voiced objections to the wall, but they are not tying those objections to any real consequences to Israel for the violation.)

guarantees have been given by US and Israel that the wall path can be changed even after it is built - via pthe eace negotiations.

The Taking of Jerusalem into Israel occurred as a result of the Arabs losing the 67 War - and is not about to change.

The only thing at Issue - if there is to be a peace - is the portion of the old city that will be the corridor to the west bank.

I agree as to hurt the wall does to Palestinian lands and people near the wall - the Israeli Supreme Court just ruled that there must be a redesign so as to "minimize" the harm caused by the wall being put up now,

And of course once there is a trade of security for peace, the exact line of the wall can and will be adjusted (land for peace is dead as a plan amongst all parties - but land will be "traded")

But the effectiveness of the wall in lowering the terrorist killings in Israel is apparent to all - so the wall will stay and be completed - and a French reporter's hand wringing in Le Mond will not change anything anywhere.

perhaps the world should also reconsider the earlier U.N. decision creating the state of Israel.* Why does Israel only follow those U.N. decisions that benefit Israel? And why does Israel believe she can impose a priori decisions on the Pals? ...because might makes right?

*

Indeed "UN" decisions on Israel - such as keeping Israel's version of the Red Cross out of full membership, or various anti-Jewish rules in UN org's - and indeed even Assembly resolutions that dump on Israel - are considered by many if not most as being bought by oil blackmail - and as having no moral basis or rule of law (in contrast to Security Council resolutions that seem to have some rule of law status).

So I guess it is oil might in the UN versus military might on the ground.

I just want to see peace replace the destruction of lives and children's futures that is now in place in the area.

back to 1967 borders: all of these are things that must be done in order to achieve peace. The oil issue, while surely having some relevance, is in many ways a red herring in regard to the I/P conflict.

And what about the Palestinian children's lives? How do Israeli actions contribute to the future of Palestinian children?

You posted

Here's another link http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x105763>

and I finally read your and I have read the Halper book now. I think you missed some items in the book.

answer.

Giving up the settlements except for Ariel in the north with a corridor, and the "Jersusalem block" also with a corridor,

and acknowledging a Pal presence in Jerusalem,

and keeping the border adjustments to a Taba level - with the Taba idea of land swaps being made real as the parties almost go back to 1967 borders

is indeed the basis for the peace that will come (there must also be money from Israel to the PA to compensate for the loss of the right of return).

May it happen soon.

:toast:

:-)

What is it that gives you this impression?

And here are some interesting comments on the situation by Juan Cole, Professor of History at the University of Michigan:

<snip>
The British report is if anything too conservative in only considering the effect on the Palestinians of their being ethnically cleansed from Jerusalem. When the last Arab is gone and the city is 100 percent Jewish, there is going to be a howl of outrage from the Muslim world that will make September 11 look like a minor incident.

From his website, Informed Comment - Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion
http://www.juancole.com/2005/11/britain-israel-breaking-law-spreading.html

Juan Cole says: "The British report is if anything too conservative in only considering the effect on the Palestinians of their being ethnically cleansed from Jerusalem. When the last Arab is gone and the city is 100 percent Jewish, there is going to be a howl of outrage from the Muslim world that will make September 11 look like a minor incident."

I wonder what his comments, or yours, would be about the "ethnic cleansing" of Jews from Gaza by the Egyptians? Or, what are his comments about the total creation of Judenrein? I am guessing he is all for it since most Arab nations are almost "Jew" free as it is. Don't forget about that Iraqi Constitutional 'thingie' not allowing Jews the "right of return." Did that get passed?

The one thing I can say, is it is good thing that the Jews are only interested in that small strip of land or maybe it would be Jews or Israelis flying planes into buildings to protest the "Arabic" influence over the world. :eyes:

Here's a question for you: why doesn't the Arab population have a "stranglehold" on Congress like the Jews? Maybe it is because no such thing (a Jewish stranglehold) exists or maybe, because 22 Arab and/or Muslim nations exist, but only ONE Jewish one does? (For the learning impaired, this means that Jews are more likely to want to see Israel exist, than Arabs or Muslims want to see one particular country exist.)

Withdraw to the 1967 borders and all will be well in the that part of the world. If you believe that, you are not a fool, but an ignorant ass! Israel is no longer in Lebanon, but is still attacked by Hiz'ballah, with the "blessings" of the Lebanese government. So much for that theory of giving up land as sanctioned by the UN to get peace! But wait...under Arab rule, no Jews were allowed into the "sacred" land...has that been the same under Israeli occupation?

The final thought: as Juan Cole says: "...there is going to be a howl of outrage from the Muslim world that will make September 11 look like a minor incident." Yes! Because they don't get their way, they will be the eternal victims. Funny, sounds like the charges leveled against Jews; yet, no Jews have made "9-11" look like a minor incident.

I lied...seems some vile people like to think that, but, in the number of years that Israel has occupied the "Palestinian" homeland (once occupied by Egypt and Jordan), they have killed less people than the few years the US has been in Iraq. But, of course, that was too at the behest of Israel...and so it never ends...until Israel ends.

The above post made several statements/claims: <snip>
* the "ethnic cleansing" of Jews from Gaza by the Egyptians
* most Arab nations are almost "Jew" free as it is
* Iraqi Constitutional 'thingie' not allowing Jews the "right of return" <unsnip>

Tell me, did these things occur before or after the massive influx of Jewish people into the region, determined to form a separate Jewish state on lands which had been Palestinian for centuries? Why do the talking points never mention this? What people on earth would not object to such a thing?

And in response to your other comments regarding Israel's refusal to withdraw to 1967 borders, per the UN, here's Juan Cole again:
<snip>
Terrorism is also caused when one country militarily occupies another country. That is, it is the military occupation that provides a lot of terrorists with their goal (i.e. to free their country from foreign military occupation). Chicago political scientist Robert Pape has shown that the vast majority of suicide bombings in the past 30 years have come in response to foreign military occupation (or what the terorists perceived as such). Back in the late 50s and early 60s, the Algerians and the French were locked in such a struggle. The French killed nearly a million Algerians (in a population of 11 million), and the Algerians blew up a lot of French. When the French recognized Algeria as an independent country in 1962, the struggle quickly subsided and by 1963 Algeria wasn't even a big subject in French newspapers.

The Israeli military occupation of Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza from 1967 has caused an enormous amount of terrorism in the world. It hasn't been the only such source by any means. The Tamil Tigers, a group based in Sri Lanka (used to be called Ceylon), blew up Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and engaged in many other terrorist operations in Sri Lanka and India. It is a Marxist group and in some ways pioneered the suicide bombing. Because Sri Lanka and its concerns seeem so remote to most Americans, most people here don't even know about the Tamil Tigers. But if the US went in and militarily occupied the Tamil parts of Sri Lanka, all of a sudden we'd be seeing bombs go off against US targets. I guarantee it. That is not to say it would be right. But it is to say that that is how reality works (reality cannot be simply manufactured in the White House, contrary to what Scooter Libby thinks).<snip>

...and I'd just like to remind you that the Israelis themselves have resorted to terrorism, for instance in the war for independence from the British, not to mention in the various uprisings against the Romans, some of which are celebrated in the Bible. It isn't only Jewish people who see the other guy's actions as deplorable while forgetting their own engagement in the very same acts, or finding themselves justified in equally destructive actions as those "others". All cultures tend do this, sadly. It's just that the world has gotten smaller in the last century or so. We must find other ways of solving disputes than raw force, or we are all in jeopardy. That's why we created the UN.

You said: <snip> Withdraw to the 1967 borders and all will be well in the that part of the world. If you believe that, you are not a fool, but an ignorant ass! Israel is no longer in Lebanon, but is still attacked by Hiz'ballah, with the "blessings" of the Lebanese government. So much for that theory of giving up land as sanctioned by the UN to get peace!<snip>

But the thing supporters of Israel always seem to forget in making statements such as these, is that Israel has not tried ceasing the building program and relinquishing the settlements. As long as Israel is not willing to make this very basic concession, it's true, there will not be peace. Israel has only herself to blame for that.

And as to that final bit: it is disingenuous to compare the raw numbers of deaths in the I/P struggle. The area of land and the total populations involved are totally different. And I guess you already know that the number of Palestinians killed, both in targeted killings and assassinations, as well as "collateral damage," have been three times that of the Israelis killed by the Palestinians.

(edited to add needed emphasis)

I see. So, the creation of Israel excuses the ethnic cleansing that took place in Gaza by the Egyptians and other Arab/Muslim nations? Fascinating. By that logic, I guess the 'ethnic cleansing' of Palestinians is "excusable' because of their constant terror attacks and wars waged against Israel. :eyes:



Your point makes little sense. I gave a prime example of Israel withdrawing from an Arab country, yet is STILL under attack. So, you honestly think that if Israel pulls back to the '67 borders and removes all settlements, the attacks will cease? Sorry, I have to call "bullshit" on that notion! And, for all the blame that Israel has, so do the Palestinians for not getting a homeland in '48 when they had an opportunity. But, no! They didn't want to share ANY land with Jews. They didn't want a free, Jewish state in their neck of the woods...oddly enough, no one else does either.

I find it just as interesting that all the blame seems to be heaped on Israel and little or no blame is placed on the others involved.

I'll ask again: ...did these things occur before or after the massive influx of Jewish people into the region, determined to form a separate Jewish state on lands which had been Palestinian for centuries? Why do the talking points never mention this? What people on earth would not object to such a thing?

To say that in 1948 the Pals <snip>didn't want to share ANY land with Jews <unsnip> again begs the question. The Israelis, by the very creation of an exclusively Jewish state in the middle of ancient Palestinian lands were the agressors. Few peoples would just roll over and accept such a thing. What I don't understand is why those who are ardent supporters of Israel simply refuse to discuss or acknowledge this point.

And again, for you to use as an example the withdrawal from Lebanon, which occurred while building of settlements was still very much going on in other parts of Israel, isn't a valid argument, imho. It may indeed be that attacks might still occur after a withdrawal to 1967 borders. I do not know for sure; none of us really do. The ill will generated by decades of conflict might now take a very long time to overcome (and the longer it goes on, the longer it will take to subside, imo). But one thing I do know, the attack certainly will continue, if there is NOT a withdrawal to 1967 borders. (I am concerned that Israel is operating under the same "wishing will make it so" sort of ideas as the U.S. did about our invasion of Iraq. If you recall, in regards to the invasion by U.S. troops, Wolfowitz said, "I am reasonably certain that (the Iraqi people) will greet us as liberators..." Israel will not be secure unless she withdraws to 1967 borders, or some mutually agreed upon alternative, including a Palestinian East Jerusalem, imho, and to think otherwise is to engage in wishful thinking. Peace and security will require a settlement of the conflict that is based in justice to both sides, not just that of Israel.)

Your "blaming" response does not address the questions I posed. Please explain to me how simply asking for a recognization that Israel bears at least SOME of the responsibility for the current state of affairs is "blaming" Israel?

lets start off with the fact the life isnt fair..not for individuals and not for societies......and with that as our base, we can then move on to dream of "returning jews to zion...a dream that wasnt doing to well, until WWII. People dont leave their homes so easily.... after WWII, what was left of the jews, well it was pretty obvious that the not only is life not fair it can be pretty horrid as well.

and with that came the massive of broken down concentration camp survivors to israel. Did the palestenains get screwed?...given their choices of either accepting this influx of people or fighting them..they (surrounding arab states as well) chose the latter, which was the poorer choice. Again life sometimes gives us choices that are not ideal, in fact sometimes it a choice between bad and worse....and you wont know until after you have chosen....

that said israel did survive, did creat a modern state, and in 67 expanded....67 is merely armastic lines that MAYBE the palestenains and MAYBE the surrounding arab states have now come to accept, given that their initial plans of wiping out israel didnt go so well.

but who says israel will be "secure" if she withdrawls?...where is that written?..my proposal

lets see how gaza develops. If it does develope into a society of law and order, of econmic growth, of trade with israel and the world....then confidence will grow on the israeli side as well as the palestenains that there is life as neighbors....one step at a time. The palestenians need time to develop a society with working instuitions to develop responsabilities , the israelis need time to understand the new idea of living as real neighbors with the palestenains is possible.

the bottom line is that, there is no "fair solution" just as there is no fair solution to the natives of australia the native indians of N.American, the jews who the romans kicked out, the palestenains who lost their homes in 48..and we could go around the globe finding people/societies that evil was done to them...there is nothing special here....

And, from the outset, the intention was to create a Jewish nation in Palestine. True, immigration increased steeply as a result of WWII. I still maintain that whatever we in the West feel about what was owed to the Jews for WWII - and believe me, I completely agree that much was owed them - we had no right to give the Jews someone else's land. Which is what we essentially did, as those wars the Jews won could not have been won without American financial and military support.

The Palestinians are therefore already being asked to sacrifice a great deal even if the eventual resolution involves only the 1967 borders.

And, it may indeed be that in some ways Israel will never be completely secure, just as no nation is ever completely secure. If Israel really believes that the Pal should have to put their plans on hold until she achieves a complete security, well, that is going to be perceived on the Palestinian side as just more foot-dragging, while in the meantime more and more settlements are being built. If Israel were to stop the settlements while waiting to determine if Pal society can work, the expectation for the Pals might be more reasonable. Is Israel planning to do this? Otherwise it appears to be just a stalling tactic to allow Israel more time to try to make the elimination of Pals from Jerusalem and other choice bits of Palestinian real estate a done deal.

And as for your comments and examples about there being no "fair solutions," I will again point out that you cited 19th century and earlier examples. We have come far in our understanding about human rights and justice since then. Ironically, part of this understanding came about as a result of the world's recognition of the absolute evil of the Nazis and what they did to the Jews. As a result, institutions were developed to assure that, even if not completely "fair," the nations of the world would at minimum expect justice from one another, as opposed to the "might makes right" approach of the 19th century and earlier, which had led to the horrors of WWII. One of the institutions was the UN, to which Israel in many ways owes her existance. Now, it is time for Israel to honor the requirements of the UN regarding her own behavior and return to 1967 borders, at the very minimum.

And surely, you can find examples of where the UN has failed, in recent times, even. Let's not go through that; I'll acknowledge they exist. But that the world and the UN has had a less than stellar record in protecting human rights and providing justice certainly is not an excuse for Israel to deny these things to the Pals.

I just don't think the "life's not fair" argument has any validity. If you carry that argument to it's logical conclusion, why have any laws at all? What if everyone used that "life's not fair" meme to justify taking what they wanted from others? Aren't laws essentially to ensure a modicum of "fairness" in society, without which society simply descends into chaos and lawlessness? Haven't we learned over the millenia that "might makes right" is not the way to resolve our differences? I find the argument especially objectionable as it seems to implicitly encourage bad behavior.

we had no right to give the Jews someone else's land.

and the land wasnt just 'given" it was taken back from the british colonizers and perhaps to a certain degree it can be argued from the palestenain invaders....

so when does it begin?...if the jews have a history, a cultural connection to israel going back 2,000 years....from when they were kicked out, when did the statue of limitations run out?

if there is a "time date" perhaps the palestenains can be kicked out for that same period and they will then "lose their rights to the land?...which "arbitrary time will you be using?

so we've come far from the 19th century?....yes and no, it depends upon where your looking: (dafur?, taliban? iran?)...so a double standard does exist...as far as the "life isnt fair" argument..thats the very first thing we teach our kids...and its the first lesson one learns in society. Its all around us, everyday every hour-it exists within our families and it exists within nations and societies...its a simple fact of our existance and its applied everywhere everyday..and the israeli/palestenian conflict is no exception. There will be no "fair solution"...there will be a solution that is acceptable but no more than that-at best.

your 67 arugment lacks one historical fact: israel was there remember?....and when the arabs planned their "throw the jews in the sea" war, the UN left....israel was left alone (again) against armies of greater numbers, with everybody just watching.

and it happend again in 73.....

if israel goes back to those borders...why wouldnt the arab states attack again at a later date?...what would stop them?....

btw the wars of 48 and 67 were won essentially without americas financial support

it may indeed be that in some ways Israel will never be completely secure, just as no nation is ever completely secure...but do be honest here: which other country on the face of the earth, has faced such a constant onslaught from its neighbors be it cultural or physical?...i could make a huge never ending list of how israels arent accepted in arab universities, professional institutions, how israeli/jews are demonized throughout the arab world....and the concentration is most of all pointed at israel...and it began before 67..and its way out of porportion to israels size and "doings". so if your going to compare to the "other nations and their security"...what other nation is being threatened with out and out overt annihilation from its neighbor?, what other nation has had to fight back 3 attempts at that very same annihilation in the last 50+ years?

the security issue is unlike that of which 'other nations " are facing.

and yes the palestenains are being force to make major sacrifices for the wrong decisions of their leaders and the arab countries surrounding them. As the years have gone by they get less and less land for themselves....they chose the wrong tactic....

That statement can't be serious. In order to make it, you have to ignore almost 2 millenia of a dominant Palestinian presence in the area in favor of Israeli religious claims. There was no major Jewish presence from A.D. 135, when the failure of the Bar Kohba revolt against Rome resulted in the Roman expulsion of the Jews from Palestine, to sometime in the 20th century. And I'm sorry, but the argument that the Jews have a theological claim to the land just isn't valid in the modern world, imho.

And as far as timing is concerned? It is ironic you should ask that; it's a question I myself keep raising.

To answer it, its useful to consider the following example. Let's look at the Cajuns, of Louisiana, formerly of Canada, and earlier than that, France.
<snip>
In 1713 the French government sold out the Acadians to the British by giving Nova Scotia (Acadia) back to Great Britain. The British took the Acadian's lands by force, harassing and persecuting the Acadians in many ways. They tried to force them to bear arms against France and renounce their Catholic faith. The Acadians refused to do so, and many left and journeyed to the Louisiana Territory.<unsnip>
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/2073/cajun.htm

The Cajuns (Acadians) created a vibrant culture in New Orleans, which now has suffered a great destruction as a result of Hurricane Katrina. BUT, do you think because of that destruction that it would be reasonable or just for the Cajuns who have lost their homes in New Orleans to attempt a return to Canada to re-take the land that they lost there?

Of course not! I don't think there would be many who would think it reasonable for the Cajuns to make a claim to uproot people who had lived in the former Acadia for three centuries, on the basis of their historic claim, even though their expulsion from their homeland by the British was indeed completely unjust.

So, similarly, such an ancient Israeli claim to the land, based on a "nation" which was more accurately a theological entity (there was no differentiation, back then, between the religion and the state), should not be considered reasonable. In no other situation in the world has such an ancient historical claim to the land been considered valid, nor a religious one, nor one based on feelings of the people making the claim, however one might empathize with those feelings. (NOTE! This does not mean I'm questioning the right of Israel to exist; I'm just saying that some of the claims don't hold water.) (...and we could of course, also discuss whether the Native Americans might hold a claim to lands in China, based on their earlier life there, before the migration across the Bering land bridge...how far should we go back, indeed.) Also note that this does not invalidate Palestinian claims to the land, which are current, within our lifetimes, and must be honored in light of a variety of UN decisions. It's really very simple to decide what time framework to use.

And then you wrote this:
<snip>
...as far as the "life isnt fair" argument..thats the very first thing we teach our kids...and its the first lesson one learns in society.<unsnip>

Come on, do you really think that the "life isn't fair" thing is the first thing taught to kids. Nah, we teach them about sharing, about obedience (to parents, in this case), and even, if the parents are good ones, compassion, before the "fairness" lesson kicks in. (It is a peculiar fact of human existance that for most lessons we learn there is also an alternate and diametrically opposed lesson which is equally true - "a stitch in time saves nine" vs. "haste makes waste" - but that is more reason to reject an argument based on saying "the world's not fair," because it only represents a half-truth.) The choice to focus on the "life's not fair" argument appears to be made so frequently because it appears to justify Israeli agression; it is a tactic employed to delegitimize the Pal's valid claims, and to justify ignoring them, imho. But, I am pointing out that by continuing to focus on the "life's not fair" argument you are avoiding dealing with the issue of human rights and justice. It is easy to say "the world's not fair," much harder to acknowledge that one is saying that one does not believe in or support human rights and justice, when to do so would involve the relinquishing of a dearly desired and cherished prize. But that is essentially the case of Israel's stance vis a vis the Palestinians today.

I wish just once in this sort of discussion I could somehow get through and the person on the other side would see what an oppressive and aggressive thing the creation of the exclusively Jewish state of Israel, on Palestinian ancestral lands, was from the Palestinian/arab perspective. This is the basis of the fight against Israel, yet most people on the Israeli side appear to be blissfully oblivious to it. If the Israeli security issue is different from other nations, it is because the creation of the state of Israel was also different than that of other nations.

so as i understand you have decided to "disqualify" the jewish connection to israel from the past..for various arguments.

n the area in favor of Israeli religious claims. There was no major Jewish presence from A.D. 135, when the failure of the Bar Kohba revolt against Rome resulted in the Roman expulsion of the Jews from Palestine, to sometime in the 20th century. And I'm sorry, but the argument that the Jews have a theological claim to the land just isn't valid in the modern world, imho.

its not for you to decided what the jewish culture is and whats its made up of....its part and parcel of the jewish identity and culture....(the time spent away is irrelevant-ask the palestenains)

you complain about the "oppressive and agressive nature of the "exclusive jewish state" or lack of understanding of the palestenian/arab perspective...yet you show absolutly no understanding of the israeli/jewish perspective.

But we do understand the palestenain position, what we havent figure out is how to live with them in peace, and their arab neighbors while they constantly keep up with the antisemetic education and attacks....since even before 48 (i suspect you dont understand from the israeli perspective how those aspects are viewed)


Your non acceptance/comprehension of the basis of israeli culture shows your 100% lack of understanding of what the conflict is all about. But if you are serious about understanding what it is from the jewish israeli point of view.....i will explain.


as far as the "life isnt fair" argument: you will note i wrote its the first lesson our kids learn in society. i.e when they go to kindergarten and come back crying because....the arguement is used generally to explain the problem of allocating limited resources. A problem generally ignored in this conflict...since absolutes are used: life isnt fair nor will the ultimate agreement in the end be fair..might as well get that aspect out of the discussion.

BUT that does not mean that those cultural feelings ought to justify taking land from another people. Those cultural feelings ought not to have made it ok to create an exclusively Jewish state, over 1,800 years later, with little consideration for the lives of the people who had lived there in the interim.

The assumption cannot be made that those who criticize Israeli policies and actions are "disqualifying" Jewish culture. That is offensive. I do understand the Jewish tie to Israel; its just that I understand the Palestinian tie to ancestral lands as well, and I don't think that Jewish claims automatically trump Palestinian ones.

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

let me try again....

so the jews do have a tie to isael....is it "less valid" than the palestenains just because its older? or because the previous society was not a state? (nor was the arab palestine")

it appears to be a time thing with you: if the jews returned 10years after the roman kicked them out, that would probably have been ok with you...50 years?..how about 100?.....at 2,000 you say the connection is now secondary to those who moved in after...so wheres your break, which year?....of course once you mention a "year' we can then reverse it and do the same to the palestenains....consistent standard.

which comes down to "not being fair"....only i dont know who its not being fair to?: the jews who once kicked out, were subsequently kicked out of or subject to antisemtic laws or blood libels in every country they visited....thats not very fair now is it?

the holcaust simply being the "ice breaker" where the jews, what was left of them, decided it was time to go "home" and defend themselves...also a reasonable decision given their history....of would have it been "more fair" to tell them "they cant" they no longer have home because they were kicked out of it.and didnt return in time?...and they have to continue being subjected to antisemtic laws, be at the mercy of their host country.....

so whats fair?

That's one part of the argument that makes no sense. Yes, there was unfairness to the Jews for years. But, and I am saying this again, that unfairness never should have been used to justify another unfairness to the Palestinians. The Palestinians were not responsible for the bad treatment of the Jews (mostly by the West) and should not have had to suffer for that bad treatment. You mention how the Jews were kicked out of Palestine in the second century, as a reason they should posess it now, but the Jews were not kicked out by the Palestinians.

This is much like the GWB way of reasoning that said, ObL attacked us, let's go invade Iraq. The two were not related. When ObL attacked, we should have gone after ObL, not Iraq. Similarly, as the Palestinians were not responsible for the suffering of the Jews, they should not have been the ones to have to suffer as a way of making up for the suffering of the Jews, at the hands of totally different people.

And yes, although I do understand the feeling about Israel, which have kept Jewish culture alive through the centuries, I also understand the long ties that the Palestinians have had with the land that their ancestors have occupied since at least the middle of the second century A.D. They did not, btw, have anything to do with expelling the Jews from the area at the time, nor did they invade the area; it was the Romans who kicked them out). There may very well have been Palestinian ancestors well before that as well, the Bible refers to other cultural groups in the area, which could easily have been the ancestors of the Pals. I have not looked into that; I am only speculating about that.

So, consequently, yes, the time issue is one that I consider valid, and that I think lends more credence to the Pal's claims than those of the Israelis. Saying all that, I must also add that I don't think this means that Israel should not exist...not at ALL! It's just that I believe that people need to understand the initial injustice to the Palestinians of the creation of an exclusively Jewish state on their land, in order to understand the Palestinians actions from then until now. We both know that it truly isn't a black and white story, but I think it frequently appears to be, because people rarely get an opportunity to hear the Palestinian side of it. So, I try to tell the story from the Palestinian side, to the best of my ability.

it simply not...for the most part they had nothing to do with the jews being kicked out by the romans.....still you have two people with claims to the same limited resource. Your claiming that one claim "is more credible" doesnt hold water....simply because one claim is older than the other. In fact it could be aruged that its the older claim that takes precedent.

but no you really cant use the "time line"....the obvious conclusion of that is that all the israelis have to do is keep the palestenian out for 1,000 years and then they lose their "rights"..they wouldnt accept that, just as the jews havent accepted their ouster.

dealing with reality means making compromises...thats how life is.

if you really want to discuss the problem, you will find a vast amount of knowledge amongst the israelis here about the palestenains, the israeli arabs as well as the jewish israelis....and our knowledge of them is rather extensive. We know their story, its taught to us, we read about them, the palestenains are interviewed on our TV, participate in our political programs (and are very polite....far more than the israelis) and work with us even today.

but to do that you have to stay away from the "black and white declarations

if you want to have an "honest discussion" you have to keep it within the confines of reality...that means comparing to other countries...what have they done in similar or dissimaler situations...this conflict is not within a vacuum nor does it exist beyond the limitations of human nature and human reactions.

it also means accepting, even if its ugly some simple facts: for instance, argue against the wall as much as you like...at the sametime acknowledge that it does work.

in a different thread you argue because busses dont run on the sabbath (they do in hafia), that makes israel a non secular state...again be honest and compare to other democratic nations....do they have "spasms" of religion within their 'secular societies"...if so, either they too are non secular or israel despite some religious influence can also be declared secular.

most of us know the palestenain story very well...and we know the surrounding arab states and their influence as well....if you want to tell their story, do it...but either keep to what you know, ask what you arent sure about and you'll find that we'll be glad to fill you in with what you dont know.

and what you probably dont know, is that far more than you, we want a democratic palestenain state....what we dont want is an unstable palestenain dictatorship or theorcratic regime as our neighbor for what should be obvious reasons.

In what way did you "give" someone else's land? The land slated for a Jewish state under the partition resolution was either Jewish-owned or state-owned, and it was hardly exclusively Jewish.



Uh..the US placed Israel under an arms embargo in 1948 (the entire region, actually, but the Arabs weren't trying to get arms from the US in the first place)



Fair's fair; you cited Roman times as an example above.

It did not consider the rights of the Palestinians to their own land and self-determination, and that the Jewish presence was rather small until around the time the agreement was made. State owned by who, btw? Because if you are referring to the British, who also were occupiers, what right did they have to give the land to somebody else?

You said: <snip>
The land slated for a Jewish state under the partition resolution was either Jewish-owned or state-owned, and it was hardly exclusively Jewish.<unsnip> I do agree that the land was hardly exclusively Jewish, but I do wonder about what point you are making with that statement.

I did say American aid, but didn't mean exclusively in the Arab-Israeli War (there were others), nor did I mean exclusively governmental aid.

And while I referenced Biblical times, I didn't do so as a justification for the removal of another people from lands they had inhabited for centuries, based on a supposed Biblical right to the land. And, if you had quoted all of what I had written, it gives a very different impression than what you selectively quoted. I was responding to a different poster in the thread. My point being that we, in the 21st century, have a different set of values than people had at the time of the incidents most often used to confuse the innocent in these discussions. The incidents, such as the US treatment of the Native Americans, are used to seemingly justify the Israeli land grab, but they do not justify it.

Why the Israeli-supporters would so often use such a shameful period in US history to justify their actions is something I've never understood anyway, but we have come a long way since the period when these shameful incidents occurred (19th century and earlier) and today a blatant exercise of brute power in order to achieve territorial goals is no longer considered acceptible. Today we would not have another Crusades, or Spanish Inquisition, or Holocaust. Nobody wiould say, if some country tried to institute a new Crusades, or Spanish Inquisition, or Holocaust, that the offender should not be stopped, because after all, "life's not fair." Yet, an argument using that identical logic is frequently made by the supporters of Israel, and nobody questions it.

Today we would not have another Crusades, or Spanish Inquisition, or Holocaust. Nobody wiould say, if some country tried to institute a new Crusades, or Spanish Inquisition, or Holocaust, that the offender should not be stopped, because after all, "life's not fair."

well that certainly clears that up:..your simply claiming that what israels relationship to the palestenains is similar to the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust.



If there is no excuse for inequality i would guess that you have a lot to complain about for every single country, society in the world.....and within your own family as well.

reverse it: what would your "totally fair" solution have been?.... since you dont accept the limitations of resources and its allocation as a fact of life (either you've never had econ 101 or you somehow believe that the israeli/palestenian conflict is not part of the this world)

what would have been your "fair solution".....since you dont accept a "non fair one".......(i shall give you fair warning...it will be only too easy to show how unfair it is....)

...your new 21 first century values are not all inclusive: they are limited to western countries alone and are not applied to dictatorships, theocractic regimes etc...you should qualify such statements (examples for iran, zimbabwa, saudi arabia palestine...)

Your mileage may differ. Of course we will never achieve a perfect equality, but that does not mean we should accept inequality, or should finance it. The dollars of the US taxpayer are financing an injustice and should not be.

Furthermore, I deliberately used fairly extreme examples for the purposes of illustration, although there are parallels in the I/P conflict to all those earlier conflicts that I mentioned. Can't you see the parallels in the construction of the Israeli wall to the one the Nazis built around the Warsaw ghetto? Perhaps you find that reminder shocking, but I think those who support Israel must think about these things. I did not say the examples I used were completely analogous. Please don't put words in my mouth (fingers?).

Yet my question was still not answered. Are you saying that it is reasonable, in the case of the I/P conflict, to throw international law, moral justice and human rights out the window, because they are all examples of that silly and anachronistic concept of "fairness"?

And I certainly agree that we fall far short of achieving the values we profess, but that isn't any reason to throw them away, either. I surely did not ever say I expected "perfect fairness."

And to bring up all those other regimes that fall short of the goal also begs the question; we are talking about Israel and the removal of Palestinians from Jerusalem in this thread.

i am not saying that we throw out intl law, moral justice and human rights...i am also very aware of the complexities of the situation....its hardly a black and white situation, quite the contrary its full of contradictions and injusticies...one after the other..and they keep on coming......but yes other regimes are relevant since the real solution lies in human nature...what can and cant be done given the conflicting claims....and within other countries lies various examples both good and bad of can and cant be...so they are very relevant. They also serve to keep things in context: if israel is committing genocide (as is frequencly claimed) then how is dafur to be described?.

the wall?..of course it reminds us of the ghetto, its also a "land grab" in many places, and it destroys palestenain livelihoods etc, makes mini prisons etc.....is forcing a border...its also horribly ugly as well, ecologically destructive, i could go on and on about how i dispise it.

yet, my kids can ride a bus to school or go to the mall now without me being worried about them coming back in pieces.

if you knew or follow the time chronolgy, you would discover that the wall was built as the other various defensive measures didnt succeed enough, not the checkposts, not the assinations, not the raids....whereas they all played a part, they simply didnt offer enough defense against the suicide bomber or their infrastructure.....now there are very few of them that actually get through. (though they are still trying)

is it fair?.....tough decision, my 14yr olds life vs the livlyhood of a palestenain farmer who has been farming his land for generations.

the wall, like the settlements in gaza can be torn down, and i assume it will one day, but in the meantime, until the PA gets their own society in order (were watching gaza) our first preference is for our children and not theirs.

no its not fair, its not fair that my kids grew up watching busses, resturants and malls getting blown up....and that their dad still has to go to the army every year...its simply not fair....and the PA and its intl supporters should be held responsable for its society that breaks intl law, moral justice and human rights violations.

and more to do with Israel's desires for a completely Jewish capitol city, imho, and in the opinion of the article I quoted in the OP. For some reason Israel appears to be blind to the fact that the brutal or encroaching measures that Israel says are being taken for security reasons, are the very things that continue and/or escalate the problems. All the things that you mention didn't work are things that are highly destructive and objectionable: raids, checkpoints, assassinations. So of course they didn't work. Not to mention the settlements.

If you say you look at other countries for this supposedly hard-nosed and realistic view of the world, then surely you must realize that a brutal occupation is going to inevitably result in a push-back, in this case "terror."

Got it in the wrong place somehow. Apologies.

most of the successful suicide bombers and killings of israeli took place before the checkposts, assinations and wall....its that simple.

i can recall waking up every morning turning on the TV wondering what bus blew up last night...no longer.

it may be the palestenains are more and more pissed at the restrictions etc...but the mere facts speak loud and clear...they are far less successful....you may not like the wall, the checkpoints etc...but dont kid yourself-they work.

of course the occupation results in "push back"...i wouldnt expect anything else....the problem and solution is far more complex.

the problem is not the occupation, most israelis are against it, and the gaza pullout showed that the govt does control the settlers...the problem is the day after.....what will that bring?...will it bring kassams, mortors on jersualsem?....

(and just to reply to the original post of the pressure on the arabs to leave jerusalem or the various other "tricks" the israeli govt does to move them out....well to say i dont agree with the govt is putting it mildly.)

lots of disagreement about "life not being fair"...you dont accept that arguement with the palesteanians...yet with the kurds:

if the Kurds made their move now. It would only further damage our reputation and standing in the world,

your pretty clear about the kurds.....they dont get justice because of some country half way around the world....i would describe this as being "unfair" or perhaps "power politics"...or whatever

i just want to hear how you can justify your attitude towards the kurds given your responses to my attitude toward the palestenians......

The land slated for a Jweish state was not exclusively Jewish, and had the war not broken out (at Arab instigation, mind you) there would have been a much larger Arab populaion in Israel than there was, in the event.

As for who owned the rest of the land - it was controlled by the Turks, and then by the Biritish; or, more accurately to say, the LoN and later the UN through the British.

Eastern bloc support funneled through Czechoslovakia - and some French support.

Remember, Labor and Ben Gurion (and Golda Meir) were "Lefties" and the USSR was trying to win Israel as a Communist beach head in the ME

Here's something about the discussions on right of return that happened at Taba:

A negative balance of return

The document provides evidence of an effort to solve the refugee problem "from the bottom up" and disarm the landmine of the right of return by means of a variety of practical proposals for the refugees.

The parties tried to solve the principle of the right of return by drafting a mutually acceptable joint narrative that would indicate the factors responsible for the creation of the problem - of which Israel would presumably be one. The number of refugees mentioned in the context of a return to Israel (25,000 to 40,000) is several times smaller than the number of residents of East Jerusalem who would go from being Israeli residents to being Palestinian citizens (some 200,000).

Progress has also been made on the issue of the refugees and the right of return in the discussions the parties have been holding via informal channels. Inter alia, there has been progress on a clear recognition of Israel's natural right to veto requests for entry by individual Palestinian refugees, as well as on how to calculate the compensation to be paid the refugees.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=130206&contrassID=2&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Both parties at the time understood the importance of the right of return to a peaceful settlement of the conflict. It's a good starting point for any future negotiations...

Violet...

other country that has lost a war has gotten.

It is the PA's choice.

For Israel To allow a right of return is to agree that Israel as a Jewish state will end.

At Taba it was made clear that this was the only way - and all parties understood.

It is fun for Fatah to say never - but if they want to govern and lead to a better life for the PA, they will need to agree.

The only alternative is war, terror, forever.

i dont trust the PA to actually give the money to the people who may have lost homes after 1947 in israel proper.

also israel should be compensated for the loss of homes in arab lands that jewish people were thrown out of.

perhaps the world should also reconsider the earlier U.N. decision creating the state of Israel

given the fact that the conflict with israel has caused far far less human suffering than other conflicts, be they in africa, other parts of the middle east, asia etc...its quite telling that the sole country that gets mentioned about being dismembered is israel....

the sole country that since its birth has had to fight several anihilation wars where if it failed the result was clear to all israelis...

and of course we have iran with its "wipe israel off the map"....

and then comes the "lets get rid of israel politically if we cant do it militarily".....somehow it reminds me of earlier times...where they tried to get rid of the jews via other methods....its just doesnt seem to quit....they just keep on trying......

That was why I took pains to make it very clear that the statement was rhetorical and I was not advocating that. Why is it so hard for some to see the selectivity of Israel regarding U.N. decisions.

I'm not going to respond to those issues which were not relevant or responsive to my OP.

sometimes i miss the "rhetorial" aspect here on the DU...sorry

I had added a footnote to the above statement at the asterisk, but somehow I must have goofed it up, because it isn't there anymore. My apologies. Here's what the post should have said:

* I want to make it clear that I am not in any way advocating this (the refusal to accept the acknowledgement of the state of Israel), but mention it only for illustrative purposes. It seems to me that to rely on only those UN decisions that are in Israel's favor is...well, not evidence of a state seeking a just solution, imho.