Please explain to me the timing of Israel's tit-for-tat retaliation strikes

MC, here is some info about Jewish-Arab refugees (one of many sources):

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~peters/arabjew.html

Now unless you assume that the Jewish Arabs were somehow much poorer than Palestinian Arabs, then the non-human assets were also likely similar. Such might be true because anti-semitic dhimmi laws often limited the property a Jew could own in many Arab lands, but I think that the burden is on you to prove it so.

And whose responsibility is it that Palestinian Arabs were kept in camps in a West Bank annexed by Jordan? Is Israel responsible that Jordan did not set up an independent Palestine there then? Is she responsible that Arab countries did not absorb them or that they did not agitate to be absorbed? That they were kept destitute and under-educated?

Jon is right, what kind of BS is it that the SA plan meant that some compensation could be arranged but said something different? Arguing for the Right to Return is to argue for the destruction of the Jewish state. Which is what the majority of Palestinians still want, and will until they have leadership strong enough to help them see that their, and their children’s, and their grandchildren’s best interest lies in accepting Israel as a Jewish state and working towards a future state in peaceful coexistance with her.

OTOH, Jon, unlike California or Scotland, Israel did not annex the land. She could have and it might have been legit, but she didn’t. She is thus an occupying power and subject to international standards for such. She is responsible for the well being of the occupied since 1967 and she has done almost as poor of a job as the Arab countries did.

I think refugee status is the factor. When most Jews around the Arab world left for Israel they resettled there. While most Palestinians are still sitting in refugee camps. Those Palestinians that are in refugee camps are UN registered refugees with offical status and due to international law they will be repartated. Those Palestinians that left the camps to be resettled elsewhere will not be repartated back to Israel. That is how things go, for refugees round the world.

Israel may want to keep it self a Jewish state, but as long as those who live in the camps want to go back there is no way of keeping them out, forever. If you try, they will just wait until they can go back. If a Jewish person in the US can claim the “right of return”, I don’t see how a Palestinian refugee can be denied it too.

I’m not sure that some sort of declaration of annexation would have worked. After all, Israel did formally annex (whatever that means) Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Neither is recognized as part of Israel by any country, as far as I know.

It was my understanding that Israel did treat the Palestinians (pre-Intefada I) better than they had been treated by the Egyptians and Jordanians, but I don’t have sources.

However, the simple fact is that Israel is held to a different standard than every other country on the planet. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine why a Jewish State would be treated differently.

Jews in the US claim a right of return to Israel because Israel grants them that right. In fact, the first law passed by the State of Israel was the Right of Return law. You rule somewhere, you make the laws. It’s as simple as that. The Jews who rule Israel say the Palestinians who left can’t return.

You might as well claim that Mexicans whose ancestors were forced out of Texas when Texas gained independence from Mexico have a right of return to Texas, irregardless of American immigration law.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I don’t care what the UN says. The UN is certainly not a valid arbiter of right and wrong. Every other refugee population from the 1940’s has been integrated into a host society. As far as I know, none of the other refugee populations went back to their original countries. Why should the Palestinians?

Thanks, Zenster.

I agree. It is not a viable option and it is a serious problem. A compromise that includes some combination of both symbolic gestures ( i.e. those few old enough to have actually lived on the land and capable of proving it in a reasonable way being allowed to return ) and perhaps some limited economic renumeration for some families as part of a larger aid package ( which would be necessary at some level regardless ) is probably the best answer. Whether Israel morally owes compensation is actually irrelevant - The realities of the situation is going to demand some sort of compromise. Stonewalling by either side will accomplish nothing.

Of course whether even that sort of compromise is an achievable goal ( i.e. acceptable to both sides ) in the current political atmosphere is highly uncertain.

  • Tamerlane

JonBodner

What if the Palestinians allow Jews to live in their state? Do you think that there’s no chance of them offering that, or do you think that if they do, they can’t be trusted to keep that promise?

To play devil’s advocate: the US has paid compensation to Japanese who were sent to internment camps. And as for why the Germans didn’t get compensation, but Palestinians expect to, there’s a rather obvious answer to that. And yes, India and Pakistan didn’t pay each other any compensation. But look how that turned out.

MC Master of Ceremonies

I don’t see how it not being Israel’s land leads to the conclusion that they’re being belligerent (except maybe in the diplomatic meaning of being party to a conflict). Do you consider the US to be belligerents in Afghanistan?

DSeid

I have the feeling that from the Palestinian point of view, that is an incredibly weak argument. Are you claiming that the survival of the Jewish state entirely depends on the perpetuation of an injustice? If so, is the survival of Israel really worth more than justice? If not, isn’t it more important to explain why not recognizing the right of return is not an injustice more important than arguing that it is necessary for Israel’s survival? It’s a bit like responding to a charge that you exploit small children to pay for large mansions by explaining how important large mansions are for your happiness rather than explaining how you aren’t really exploiting the children.

I can see both sides of this issue, which is certainly creating some cognitive dissonance. If Israel were to exile their current Arab population and confiscate their property, I think that most would agree that they would have an obligation to let them back in and give them their property back. Is there a statute of limitations?

  1. the migration to Israel was not completely forced and quite a few jews had time to liquidate their assets, the range of assets lost is inbetween from 10 million to 600 million dollars.

  2. It is has been recognized since the 1920’s that land cannot be gained by war, if Israel is claiming the land why does it not offered the people living there citizenship? Western Sahara is viewed internationally as occupied territory. (also on a historical note Scotland wasn’t annexed by force but by the accesion of James the I and VI to the English throne and the act of union about 100 years later).

  3. Ryans the occupation has lasted 35 years in which time Israel has shown no sign of withdrawing.

3) Ryans the occupation has lasted 35 years in which time Israel has shown no sign of withdrawing.
Except from 1994-1996 when Israel turned the territories over to the PA (excpeting settlements where IDF troops were still stationed) to run and the Israeli government even gave weapons and training to the PA police force, except that terrorist attacks continued unabated.

Skip, that is not same as ending the occupation, as for a start 50% of the West Bank still remained under IDF control. Infact during this period the Israeli death toll was substanially less than it is at the moment.

The point is that the occupation is a defensive act, not a belligerent one. If the Palestinians stopped waging war against Israel, Israel wouldn’t have to occupy Palestine.

MC

Your numbers may be right, or not. I’ve never seen a source documenting how much each side took with them or left behind. Just sources that state that both sides were forced to abandon their property. I’d be interested in seeing your sources. So again: cite?

Except for the appeasement offered to Hitler and what the Soviet Union absorbed after WW2 and what the Western powers divied up and … Anyway, Israel didn’t claim the land. That would be annexing it. That would require citizenship. They have occupied it. Such has a different standard to meet, which they have not fully performed to.

The Ryan

Do you really want to go into the debate arguing about whether or not Israel has a right to exist? I can do it. I can get into a long debate that the original partition was not an injustice and that the injustice that has befallen the Palestinians is more the fault of greedy Arab leadership who constantly wanted it all and let hate overrule reason, than it is Israel’s responsibility. But it is moot. We have a reality. Two peoples both currently deserve a chance to live peacefully in this area with self-determination and particular national identities for each. And the so-called Right to Return, especially when brought up by those who discount the injustice done to Arab Jews just because Israel took care of them when presented with the situation rather than let them fester like Arab leadership did, is a deal breaker for any peaceful settlement to achieve that result. Is there a statute of limitations? You want to start to play who was there first? Did Jewish claims exceed the statute despite a continued presence in the land and never ceding the claim? They are silly games to play.

Jews have a legitimite claim to the land. Palestinians do as well. Both deserve a national identity providing they are willing to respect the right of the other to the same and to live in peace .

MC and Arafat insist the settlements must be completely withdrawn before any peace deal can be made. Let’s focus on a simple, yet fundamental, question: are the Palestinians living up to their commitments as laid down in the road map?

On June 4, at the Aqaba summit, Abu Mazen stood before the television cameras and said, “A new opportunity for peace exists, an opportunity based upon President Bush’s vision and the Quartet’s road map, which we have accepted
without any reservations.”

Thus, with Bush, Sharon and King Abdullah of Jordan at his side, the Palestinian leader formally undertook to abide by the road map and its obligations.

Among other things, the road map requires the Palestinian Authority to halt terrorism and violence against the Jewish state. It explicitly requires that, “the Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence.”

A look at the record, however, reveals that since Aqaba, rather than putting a halt to terror, the Palestinians have in fact accelerated it.

According to statistics compiled by the IDF, there were a total of 142 Palestinian terror attacks in the ten days prior to the Aqaba summit. But in the ten days immediately following it, there were 154 such attacks, signifying an increase in anti-Israel terrorism of almost 10 percent.

These included shootings, stabbings, bombings, rocket attacks against Jewish communities and the detonation of explosive devices against civilian vehicles.

Moreover, in the ten-day period before Aqaba, no Israelis were killed by Palestinian terror, whereas in the corresponding period after Aqaba, 28 Israelis lost their lives.

Hence, both in terms of the quantity of terror as well as its lethality, the Palestinians have clearly failed to live up to their road map obligation to bring about an end to the violence.

The second key Palestinian commitment under the road map involves putting a stop to anti-Israel incitement. The document requires that “all official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel in the Palestinian media.”

Accordingly, Abu Mazen offered the following pledge at Aqaba: “We will also act vigorously against incitement and violence and hatred, whatever their form or forum may be. We will take measures to ensure that there is no incitement from
Palestinian institutions.”

Those were pretty strong words. For the first time in recent memory, a Palestinian leader was speaking out unequivocally against incitement to violence against the Jewish state. But the pertinent question is: have those words been backed up by action?

Two days after the summit, on June 6, the official Palestinian Authority radio station under Abu Mazen’s control broadcast its regular series of weekly Friday prayer sermons. In the first homily, the preacher chose to heap praise on the Palestinian “resistance”, which is better known to the rest of the world as the terrorist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, saying, “We salute our political parties and resistance factions, who call for unity.”

The second preacher decided to denounce the establishment of the State of Israel, calling it a “disaster” and a “catastrophe”.

A week later, on June 13, the rhetoric grew even harsher, when Abu Mazen’s official TV and radio broadcast a sermon from the Sheikh Ijlin mosque in Gaza in which the preacher said, “O Allah, punish our enemies. O Allah, destroy the Jews and their supporters. O Allah, destroy the United States and its allies.”

Hence, it is clear that the Palestinians are not living up to the
anti-incitement requirements of the road map. Not only has Abu Mazen failed to stop such incitement, but the media organs under his direct control have continued to engage in it.

Finally, the road map also requires the Palestinians to take a serious of tough steps against terrorist groups. These include a requirement to “commence confiscation of illegal weapons”, dismantle “terrorist capabilities and infrastructure”, and undertake “visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt
and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere.”

Nevertheless, no such steps have yet been taken by the Palestinian Authority. Instead, Abu Mazen has been negotiating with the terrorist groups, and has publicly vowed that he would not use force against them.

In the two weeks since Aqaba, the Palestinians have not arrested any terrorist leaders, nor have they confiscated any illegal weapons. The terrorist groups’ infrastructure remains intact, and they now know that they have no reason to
fear a crackdown.

Thus, on all three counts - ending anti-Israel violence, stopping incitement, and clamping down on terror groups - the Palestinians have failed to deliver the goods. Abu Mazen is batting a solid zero in terms of performance, striking out on all counts.

Yet Israel is taken to task for making only a “token” gesture on a matter important to its very existence.

And the Israeli death toal was even lower before Oslo. What’s your point?

I’m sorry, but until you provide a source, I can’t consider this a valid argument. Do you have a source?

So what you are telling me is that it if someone starts a war and loses, they get their land back? I don’t know your source for this belief.

Israel offered to return the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan, and the Sinai in 1967, in exchange for peace. The response were the famous “three nos” from the Khartoum Summit of August 1967: no peace, no recognition, no negotiation.

For peace with Egypt, Israel gave back the Sinai (and Sharon was the one who was sent to uproot the settlements). Giving back the Sinai also meant that Israel gave up its only domestic source of oil, which is a pretty hefty price to pay. I think that Israel has demonstrated that it will give up land, at great cost, when there is genuine peace.