Arafat does indeed support terrorism to this day. There’s incontrovertable evidence of this.
cite?
So it was just to snub Israel, and damn the consequences of supporting a terrorist. That’s the way to build a road to peace.
When did the Irish adopt the “cut off your nose to spite your face” philosophy in their foreign policy?
I have no dog in this fight, but this statement:
Is wrong.
Survival is certainly a legitimate right. But people have a legitimate right to be pissed off when other people insure their safety by taking over their land.
Of course, plenty of ethnic group don’t have a homeland. You just have to look a round, and you’l find hundreds of example. What you should say is that all other ethnic goups have a claim on a homeland, which isn’t necessarily recognized by the country where this homeland is situated. All except one, that you seem to have forgotten : the gypsies.
And wanting a homeland and deciding that this place should be your homeland still doesn’t give you the right to take it away from the people living there and who, for some mysterious reason, think it’s their homeland.
Of course. How could there be any other reason than antisemitism for stating that a mass immigration to a place ruled by a colonial power with the backing of said colonial power and against the will of the people living there isn’t legitimate?
Let’s go on arguing. You know I’m an antisemitic scumbag who hate Jews since I think they had no legitimate right to create Israel, I know you’re a racist scumbag who hates arabs since you think arabs could be legitimely displaced to make room for the Jews. Things are much clearer this way.
You’re making me smile. I considered using this argument to argue against your position that the Jews had a legitimate claim on this land because it was their “ancestral land” 2000 years ago.
Once again, you seem to forgot that you were the one who stated that having a 2000 years old claim made sense. You’re giving arguments against your own position.
I stated that refering to what happened 2000 years ago when deciding whether someone has a legitimate claim or not is ludicrous. Refering to the copts has the sole legitimate “owners” of Egyptia because they were invaded 1300 years ago is equally ludicrous. That’s perfectly consistent with my position.
maybe we should left this one for another debate. I’ve an issue with religious discrimination, and more generally an issue with religion in general.
No need to skip this one, since I actually already answered it. If you actually read my first post in this thread, you’ll notice that i stated that Israelis have now a valid claim on israel territory since most of them were born and had lived all their life there.
So, when you don’t give ammunitions against your own arguments (the “Us should be given back to the amerindians and Egyptia to the copts”), you’re trying to convince me that my statements are correct.
Instead of assuming various thoughts I might hold in your opinion, perhaps you should read my posts (and apparently also your own) before responding.
Irrelevant, once again. Tiny population or not, it was the local population. The population density of the US is very low by european standarts. Can the dutch (the Netherlands is the european country with the highest population density) or people from Singapour settle there and create their own independant country somewhere in the US? If I think your house is too large considering the size of your family, can I take part of it?
That might be possible. Did I say that Jewish people who were living in Jerusalem didn’t have a legitimate right to stay?
It’s exactly what happened. There was only a tiny number of Jews living there. A massive number of other people came in from other (western, colonialist) countries settle down there and these newcomers eventually got an independant state against the will of the previously existing population.
And europeans didn’t have such a right. That is called colonialism. And that’s exactly why I say that Jewish immigration in what is now Israel was colonialism.
Illegitimate now? No, I don’t. In the same way I don’t consider Israel as illegitimate now, as I stated in my very first post. But european people originally settling in the New World and Australia at the expense of the local people was definitely illegitimate, in the same way that Jews settling in Israel at the expense of the local people was illegitimate.
Religious motivations and justifications just don’t fly with me. “God gave me that” is the last argument i would acccept. Essentially any other justification i would find more acceptable, or at least would make more sense in my book.
I couldn’t say whether I’ve a problem or not, because I’m not familiar of the details of the struggle between Mohammed and the Jewish tribe he was opposed to, and anyway, as far as I know, the only things we know about this came through the filter of the muslim religious tradition. So, there’s no way for me to tell who was right or wrong in this instance.
And yes, that’s definitely history too ancient to be relevant in the current context. Have you any problem with the Hebrew, according to the Jewish religious traditions, expulsing and massacring the local population when they invaded the “god-given” land? Do you think it’s recent enough history to count?
I’m living in France. I can trace back my family here up to around 1570. And it’s still irrelevant. It wouldn’t make any difference if my parents had immigrated here 30 years ago (especially if they had immigrated with the agreement of the local population). And remember for the umpteenth time that you were the one stating that the fact your ancestor lived in a piece of land 2000 years ago could be relevant in the current context. Not me.
That’s an interesting question, for once, and something I often wondered about. I even considered opening a thread on this very subject. For how long could one’s or one’s parents or ancestors victimization should be taken into account or should be goung for a redress of grievances? Not specifically in the context of Israel, but there are many other related issues. One of them, if i’m not mistaken was strongly argued about recently in the US. Should black people be compensated for the fact that their ancestors were enslaved?
I don’t have an answer to this question. I would say that at least when there are still people around who lived through the events, their claims are definitely valid. Beyond that, it becomes blurry. In the case of Israel, a Palestinian who personnaly lived in israel proper has certainly a most valid claim. What about his children? Do they have a moral right to be allowed to live in Israel? Do they have only the right to be indemnized for, say a property their father owned and which was seized? What about his grand-children? His descendants 100 years down from now if they find in the drawer a 150 year-old property title?
No way. There has been (and there currently are) endless threads on this very board about the topic of what is or is not a right, i’m not going to begin to argue about this issue in this thread.
I already answered. just look above :
-Israel as a right to exist now, given the current context (which doesn’t mean that the Palestinian don’t have a right to live in some other place than a refugee camp), and the US and Canada have such a right to.
-People who created israel had no right to do so, and the people who pushed away the local population to settle in the New World had no right to do so, either.
The fact that the West Bank and Gaza were Jordanian and Egyptian is irrelevant to the issue of the legitimacy of Israel. I couldn’t tell when exactly the continued existence of israel became legitimate. All i know is that this existence is now a fact, and that the original masive jewish settlement in what is now Israel during the first half of the XXth century wasn’t legitimate.
And how would you know that? What countries “in similar situations” are you refering to, for a start?
I feel that : “I’ve a big issue and I want a piece of land somewhere…this one seems fine to me. Let’s go there, and push away the people who are already living there. Beside, we’ve the agreement of this powerful country which decided it had the right to rule the place and there’s nothing the locals can do, anyway” is grossly unjust. Why is that so difficult to understand for you?
What part of your house can I take over and consider mine forever if I run into troubles someday?
What??? 
Where did you read that???
A poster wrote that the europeans didn’t have any right to be given any justification for Israel’s policies. So, I replied that then, nobody had any right to be given any justifications for anything, that we don’t need to be given any justifications for the palestinians planting bombs in Israel, either, and that everybody should never bother, ask any questions, or discuss any issue about anything not happening in his hometown.
How did you understand that as implying that the Israelis deserve to be bombed??? Where did you even find the word “deserve” that you’re bolding???
JonBodner, so in your book
not letting yourself be bullied or manipulated = a snub?
Ireland did not make demands, Israel did.
Not meeting those demands was perfectly within Irish rights, and was not meant to be a snub.
If Mr Cowen had met with Mr Sharon over mr Arafat, then the Arab nations’ leaders, whom he was there to meet in the first place, would’ve felt snubbed.
it’s a no-win situation, really.
As twisty has stated:
the solution is sitting both parties down, and start talks.
Israel is shooting itself in the foot, if it keeps on sabotaging and blatantly acting against the Roadmap’s regulations.
http://www.jordantimes.com/Thu/news/news3.htm
Besides, the Roadmap is full of concessions to Israel, and yet, Israle did not even want to accept it.
Palestinians did, and they’re far worst off if everything in the Roadmap comes about.
And before you refute:
Phase Two (of the Roadmap), described as a transition to run from June to December 2003, is to be focused on the “option of creating an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders and attributes of sovereignty” – none are specified–culminating in an international conference to approve and then “create” a Palestinian state, once again with "provisional borders."
Israel’s role in all this (Roadmap implementation) is to cooperate; the real onus is placed on the Palestinians, who must keep coming up with the goods in rapid succession, while the military occupation remains more or less in place, though eased in the main areas invaded during the spring of 2002. No monitoring element is envisioned, and the misleading symmetry of the plan’s structure leaves Israel very much in charge of what–if anything–will happen next. As for Palestinian human rights, at present not so much ignored as suppressed, no specific rectification is written into the plan: apparently it is up to Israel whether to continue as before or not.
bolding mine
http://www.counterpunch.org/said06142003.html
from this site.
no, it wasn’t, I never said it was, so stop trying to twist my words to suit you. Israel ruled themselves out of meeting with the Irish delegation because of their petty vendetta against Arafat, and Cowen was completely right to meet with him. regardless of what you may think of him, he sitll has alot of influence with the Palestinian people, and his recent calls for a cessation of violence have certainly helped Hamas and other groups to call the ceasefire.
You’re demonising again, and sooner or later you’ll wake up to the fact that it just won’t work.
Okay, so what if Ireland decided that they would refuse to meet with Sharon if was also meeting with a representative from Northern Ireland?
Or back in the day, Great Britain?
I didn’t write that. I would like you stopping miscronstructing and misrtepresenting my posts, and instead actually read what I write and respond to what I write, rather than adressing a strawman.
However, yes, I do think that the western world hold a western democracy populated mostly by western white people under higher standart and scrutinity, and feel much more concerned with what happens in this country, than with poor stupid third-worlders with a rather brownish skin.
And can you point me to something i wrote which shows I share these beliefs? Or to some bigotted statement I made? Or is just your imagination, the strawmen you’re busy building, and your own assumptions about what must actually think, someone who say that the creation of the jewish state wasn’t legitimate? (In particular you constantly implying that I must be antisemitic…)
Can you point me to something I wrote which meant I think so little of Arabs?
People - not anyone in particular - often imply that the Palestinians have a right to fight for the return of their land because the Jews stole it. Bombings are the method of choice in this fight. If he’s wrong, then I must be too…you’re saying that Israelis don’t deserve to be blown up?
TwistofFate - There’s no cease-fire. Suspending suicide bombings for three months - the exact time period helpfully supplied - is not a goddamned cease-fire.
Why do you think Israel’s “vendetta” against Arafat is “petty?” Do you think that America’s “vendetta” against bin Laden is “petty?” You are trivializing the murder of hundreds of people.
It’s not like Sharon won’t meet with Arafat because his breath is bad. It’s because Arafat sponsors and supports terrorism. This isn’t what I “think” of him; it’s fact. The Irish chose to talk with an unrepentant terrorist rather than the sitting prime minister of a sovereign state. They could have spoken only to Abu Mazen, but chose to include Arafat. The question you keep on refusing to answer is: how is this helpful to the peace process?
I’m not demonizing at all, and it doesn’t matter how many times you repeat that word, it won’t make it true.
If Sharon was going to Ireland to promote peace, and the Irish PM said, “we want peace, but we will not deal with X or with people who deal with X because he is a terrorist. We prefer if you talk with Y instead, as we belive that Y honestly wants peace, and we would like to have international support for Y in order to increase his standing with his people.”, and Sharon went ahead and talked with X anyway, then yeah, I’d think the Irish PM would be well within his rights to tell Sharon to sod off.
If you are on a mission for peace, outright ignoring the well-justified feelings of one side does not make you a fair arbiter.
the same could be said for Sharon and the Israeli administration’s wilful neglect for human life by using rocket attacks in crowded civillian areas against Hamas leaders. regardless of their motives, it is certain to involve the loss of innocent lives.
I certainly do not condone terror attacks against civilians, and the Irish policy is involving ALL opinions in a dispute. If we were to follow Israeli’s current policy there would be no peace in my country. All sides must be involved in negotiations, and it was Israel’s loss not to speak with the Irish delegation as we have a hell of a lot of experience in these matters.
and insisting that other people don’t meet with your rivals is no way to deal with foreign delegations with alot of experience that you can justifiably learn from.
“poor stupid third-worlders with a rather brownish skin?”
As I mentioned earlier, the majority of the Israeli Jewish population is not from Western countries; they are from Arab countries. And that 20% of the population that’s Arab didn’t come from Europe, either. So calling them “white” is not exactly true.
Well, you did just call people “stupid third-worlders” and I didn’t detect a hint of sarcasm or irony. In a previous post, you also referred to some hypothetical third-world country with strife as “shitty.” Where I come from, those words are biased.
And you are, by your own admission, holding Israel to a different standard than other countries. Are you insisting that you hold Israel to this standard because you respect Israel so much? Or are you doing so because you are looking for a reason to demonize it? If you respect Israel so much, where are your words of praise for it?
Well, there are all those cracks about people with brown skin.
The truth is: people will always fight for their land. If they can avoid then they don’t use violence but other means (then, “fight” being a non literal term). If they need to rely on violence and they can avoid it, then they don’t use suicide bombings; If they do not have any other option left, people will eventually do suicide bombings.
That is not a justification, but an explanation, and it should tell us in what condition the palestineans are living in.
If the Israelis didn’t care about civilian lives, they wouldn’t use a helocopter firing a rocket; they’d drop a very large bomb, just as the Americans did when trying to get Saddam. Repeatedly, the target of the attack has had a chance to duck out of the way of the missile. If Israel used larger ordinance, this wouldn’t be a problem. Yet they don’t. (Unlike the US attempt to get Saddam at a Baghdad restaurant, Israel has been pretty spot-on in being sure that the target is actually in the vicinity when the attack occurs)
Really? Do the Irish meet with unrepentant Ulster terrorists?
Going out of your way to spite one side in a disagreement is a snub, yes.
Of course Ireland has the right to talk to Arafat. But they should be under no illusion that this will help with peace. If anything, it will show that you blow up enough people, and you’ll get attention from world leaders. This is not a good example to set.
No, there was a win-win situation (or win-win-win, really). The Irish FM could have met with Abu Mazen alone. Then he could have met with Sharon, met with the leader of the Palestinians, and gave a boost to Abu Mazen’s standing with his own people. Abu Mazen will not get any respect until people start meeting with him independantly of Arafat. I thought the idea was to encourage the moderates.
That’s all well and good. But you skipped phase one of the road map. Supposedly, by the end of May 2003, there was supposed to be:
Palestinians declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere.
Rebuilt and refocused Palestinian Authority security apparatus begins sustained, targeted, and effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. This includes commencing confiscation of illegal weapons and consolidation of security authority, free of association with terror and corruption.
*
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/20062.htm
The poor Bulgarian murdered this morning would probably disagree that there’s a cease-fire going on. And no one is taking away the guns and bombs from the terror groups. In any event, the “cease fire” statement from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah says that they will only cease fire if Israel releases every Palestinian prisoner and withdraws its military to the September 28, 2000 positions.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/06/29/international1542EDT0510.DTL
This is NOT what the road map calls for.
Now, I will grant you that Israel has not fufilled every step in Phase I, either. But let’s not pretend the Palestinians are following the road map to the letter while the Israelis aren’t.
Ref. the discussion whether the LGF website which december linked to is a hate site or not, or for that matter what constitutes a hate-site, I’ve open this thread about it in the Pit.
Not only I didn’t say that Israelis deserve to be bombed, but I didn’t even adress the issue. I just made a sarcastic comment in response to an “europeans don’t deserve to be given any justification for anything” or somesuch. So not only I don’t know why you’re even asking this question, but I resent this question as implying that I have to justify myself. I’m more and more irritated by the apparent assumptions being made in this thread about the unexpressed thoughts I might have.