Chumpsky, I’ll second IzzyR, your “logic” is quite bizzare and you most certainly should retract and apologize. First off no one said what you attribute to them. Secondly, such a statement, if made, is not at all racist, even if it is untrue. How is the belief that another group is prejudiced against you on the basis of your religion and desires your destruction a racist belief? I think that we Jews have some basis for our belief that some people hate us and would like see us destroyed. As far as Arab anti-semitism in specific, well, imans calling for deaths to Jews everywhere, and attacks aiming at schoolkids and temples, probably fans the suspicions … but no, I would not claim that Palestinians are only attacking Israelis because they hate Jews, even if it is a reason for some of them. Well maybe many.
Your comments about the acceptance of negative Arab stereotypes and their portrayal in American mass media may have some validity … they are just not applicable to what has been said here.
Been there done that in these debates. Just aint true. “Cite please.” (Warning- better minds than yours have conceded that such cites don’t exist.) Long standing tradition has it that it is perfectly acceptable to annex territory won in a defensive war. If we accepted your claim then Israel should return to its postage stamp sized area of the original partition before they were attacked in its War of Independence. Israel would have been entirely within the tradition of international law if she had annexed the West Bank. Of course she’d also be dealing with being a democracy with an Arab plurality, but that is a whole 'nother issue. The fact is that she did not. She occupied it. And here is where the Geneva convention applies.
curwin, who had the deed to your property before you? And how did they come by it? Was this public land appropriated by Israel in some way, or was this land bought from Arab deed holders? Did you buy it from someone who had a right to sell it? Does your desire (or even “right” if you want) to live there justify the putting of IDF troops in harms way protecting you, and the complications to any hope for a long-term negotiated settlement that it engenders? Once the “Big Fence” is complete and the IDF pulls back and you are told to come on this side of the fence or you are on your own, what will you do? Yeah, sure it would be nice if the PA provided for your safety but be real.
This is the second time you have written “jews” with a lower-case J. Is this a typo? I have not seen you make this same error regarding Palestinians and Arabs. Please explain yourself. Thank you.
It’s not. I didn’t say it was. What I did say was that the assertion that Palestinians are driven only by a desire to kill Jews is racist, for the reasons I pointed out.
Kindly leave the straw men at home.
Of course, it is very applicable. Anti-Arab racism is absolutely essential to the maintanence of the permanent war in Palestine.
If that were true, then this board would consist of people who are utterly ignorant of history, and who are unable to do a simple internet search. However, I don’t believe your claims, as I have found that there are very many intelligent posters on this board.
A simple search on Google, for example, brings up the full text of the Fourth Geneva Convention, here. Article 49 states, in part,
It is difficult to imagine a situation that more perfectly fits this prohibition than the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The convention also applies to a vast range of activities Israel has carried out, such as not allowing the return of the dispossessed in war to their homes, the treatment of persons under an occupying power, etc.
In addition to the Geneva Convention, Israel has violated numerous articles of the United Nations charter. For example, Chapter 7 deals with armed aggression and threats to the peace. In essence, no state is allowed to launch a war of aggression without security council authorization, unless under direct armed attack. Thus, the 1967 war violates Article 39 of the U.N. charter. Furthermore, even if recourse to Article 51 is made, authorizing defence to armed attack, states are required to immediately report to the Security Council. Needless to say, Israel did not do this, and, indeed, UNSC 242 ordered Israel to withdraw from the territory it conquered in this war.
When one speaks of Israel and international law, it is often easier to try to find which international laws Israel is not violating. This makes a very small list. Going on to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Israel is violating almost every single article, notably the prohibition against torture and arbitrary detainment (Articles 5 and 9). Furthemore, Israel does not allow Palestinians rights guaranteed in the Universal Declaration, such as the right to move freely and to return to their own country (Article 13), the right to a nationality (Article 15), the right to not be arbitrarily deprived of property (Article 17), the right to freedom of assembly and association (Article 20), and on and on down the list, including “all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” (Article 2)
First of all, you contradict yourself by saying that Israel has a right to annex land because it was too small, and that the land it annexed was annexed in a defensive war.
At any rate, you are wrong on both counts. No state has the right to annex territory simply because it is too small. Furthermore, Israel has never been attacked since 1948 (and even that is murky). The major land-grab in 1967 was pure aggression. The only pretext that is offered, at least by those who don’t just flat-out lie about what happened, is that Egypt and Syria called Israel bad names, and Egypt closed the Gulf of Aqaba. These are flimsy pretexts indeed. If they were legitimate, Israel was compelled, under international law, to take its grievances to the security council. It is quite clear, from Zionist history and tradition, that extremist Zionists had always wanted to take over the West Bank and Gaza Strip. They had the opportunity in 1967 and they took it. To pretend this was a defensive war is laughable.
“whole 'nother issue” indeed. LOL. Israel does not annex outright the West Bank simply because it will not grant Palestinians human rights as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The idea that Israel would be “within the tradition of international law” (whatever that means) by annexing the West Bank is so ludicrous as to not deserve comment.
Comments on what an occuppying power should or should not do are not pertinent to the issue of annexation after a defensive war.
I’ve already lost count of how many times you have stated that posters have said things that they did not state. No, I did not say that Israel had a right to annex territory after its War for Independence because they were small. I merely provided one of many historical precedents were international law and tradition had no problem with annexation of territory after a defensive war.
Yeah, Izzy, I think we’ve seen and any further comments on this … whatever it is … I’d have to save for a Pit thread.
What would you consider an objective source? There have been thousands of articles and editorials about this - I assumed it was widely known. Even Clinton has said the same thing. Give me your criteria for an objective source, and I’ll find you one.
curwin, I’d like to thank you for participating in a thread that was bound to become a little insulting. It’s useful to remember that, despite the macropolitical issues involved, situations like this always come down to individuals, and usually decent ones at that.
I have some questions for you, if you have time to answer them:
When you say “there’s room for both of us”, do you see the status quo as viable? If not, what solution do you see to the current halfway-house situation? Would you favour an official Israeli annexion of the West Bank et al?
In the event of the creation of a Palestinian state, are you expecting that state to encompass the settlements, including yours, or just to be in the areas that are currently under control of the PA?
What would your attitude be towards Palestinian Arabs settling unoccupied hilltops in Israel by the same right of residency that you use for your residency?
How do you define family? My ancestors certainly lived here before the Romans drove them out. Further generations would have been happy to return, but were prevented by Christian and Moslem leaders in both their countries of exile and here as well. But since involved in genealogy, I can tell you that none the ancestors that I can name (going back to the end of the 1700s) lived in the West Bank. They lived in Lithuania and then later America. I’m proud to be in the generation that can fulfill their dreams.
I certainly am not thrilled with the fact that the massacres occured. I think the most important lessons of 1929 was that there were Jews living in the West Bank then, but this was before the 1967 war, even before the 1948 war, and yet the local Arab population still had reason to kill them.
I rent my apartment.
Without the Israeli army and God’s help, my life would certainly be more at risk. But that applies everywhere here - in Efrat, in Jerusalem and in Tel Aviv. That didn’t apply in our countries of exile, which is why we were subject to pogroms, inquisitions, concentration camps, etc.
For Oslo to have been truly succesful, it would have required a perception change by the Palestinains - one that would have rejected violence as a means of achieving political goals, one without incitement and hate. Depsite the situation today, I think that it is certainly possible that it will occur someday. It might take democratization of the Arab culture and some sort of Mecca II (on the lines of Vatican II). A parallel example would be Germany - despite the vicious hate 60 years ago, I don’t think most Germans today want to burn me in a furnace.
If that change occured, and the political establishment decided on turning over the West Bank to the PA, and I decided to stay, I assume I would be safe. It’s not the case now.
I don’t think that’s entirely a possible question to answer. As Sharon often says “You see things different from up here”. A combination of diplomatic activity, military strength and faith in God is essential.
If the PA ejected me (I assume by force), then I would either fight back (if I was capable of doing so, and in the framework of the Israeli Army), or evacuate if there was no military chance of suceeding. There’s precedent for that from the previous inhabitants of this area in 1947.
If Israel decided to evacuate me, I would need to determine what I could do to oppose it, but I support strongly the democratic will of the State of Israel (I’m patriotic that way), and might very well end up leaving Efrat and moving to another area of Israel.
The purpose of an army is to protect the lives of its citizens. If I lived on a kibbutz in the North, the IDF would need to protect me from the Hizbullah.
I hope that any arrangement does not call for the West Bank to become Judenrein (like Jordan, Saudia Arabia, etc)
I can’t really say what I’d do. It depends on the political climate, how many other Jews stay, what the future looks like, what arrangments are made, etc. I’d probably move, but can’t say for sure.
Thanks. I’ve been on this board for too long to let a decent discussion turn into a Pit thread, so I’m not going to respond to the name-calling. That’s what moderators are for.
I think the situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. The Palestinians have a bad habit of “grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory”. Had they taken Barak’s offer at Camp David, they would have almost all the West Bank, parts of Jerusalem, removed settlements, refugees in pre-67 Israel. Now what do they have? In 1947 and in 1967 they thought they could defeat us, and in the end lost much more. I think that’s likely here as well. If one of their “mega-attacks” - lets say 100 or more victims, God forbid - succeeds (and they’re trying every day), the Israeli reaction is likely to be much stronger. If they get an even bigger attack - 1000 victims or more, they’re probably likely to flee on their own from fear of retaliation - like they did in 47 and 67. So the final arrangement is a bit to early to predict.
In the meantime, until the Palestinian leadership matures, the status quo could continue. It’s not great for either side, but it could beat a full-fledge confrontation.
Annexation has its advantages - it would end the unusual legal situation of occupation. But it does carry demographic risks.
As I’ve mentioned earlier, it really depends on the agreement and the Palestinian leadership and atmosphere. The precedents aren’t great- when Joseph’s tomb (a Jewish holy place) was captured by the Palestinians it was defaced and turned into a mosque.
A likely scenario would be evacuation of some Jewish settlements, annexations of others, and perhaps turning over the areas populated by Israeli Arabs in pre 67 Israel to the PA. That would help prevent demographic conflict for future generations. But I don’t see it happening now.
Uh, they actually do that quite often now. The rate of Palestinian growth I think is higher than Jewish growth in the territories. Anyone driving around here can see it.
The settlements are used as political tools. Israel sees them as “illegal” but dosent do anything about them, until such tims as they have to proclaim them legal (after a period of time).
My big problem with the Settlements is that they exclude any local palestinians from using their facilities and roads.
Its my opinion that the Israeli government like them being there so that in the event of a palestinian homeland being granted, Israel have more land to claim as their own, due to their citizens living there.
Sorry, I should clarify - possibly facetiously, I meant Arab settlers within Israeli borders, or do you feel that the partial annexation of the OTs mean you feel this isn’t a comparable situation?
Before the intifada, Palestinians used the roads as much as we did. Then they started shooting people from passing cars. My 19 year old neighbor across the hall was killed this way. My friends sister was on a bus, on her way to tutor handicapped children and was killed this way. So some (not all) of the roads were closed to Palestinian traffic.
Similiarly, in Efrat many Palestinians worked up until and even during the intifada. Many became friendly with the residents. They were invited to our Bar-Mitzvas and us to their weddings. But again, then they blowing themselves up in the supermarket and by the emergency medical center. So even the people who had friendly relations with them realized that it wasn’t safe to let them in any more.
(As a side note, even the suicide bomber was treated in the same emergency medical center after the attack.)
I would like to have an answer to the main question: How is it possible to seize land You do not own?
Is there some place on this earth, where I can go and say: “This is mine!”?
If I would do so, I would not be astonished if someone would call me a thief! Indeed, I would reckon myself as a thief.
As far as I know, the slogan in Nazi Germany was: “Germany for the Germans!” and then they confiscated property leagally belonging to the German Jews. (And I hope Germany now has given all the property back, that is their duty).
You know, I could probably refute almost everything you said about “Israeli aggression” in your most recent message, but I don’t really have the time for such a sweeping debate right now. I would like, however, to question your statement:
What about the Yom Kippur War in 1973? Even if the other wars can be considered murky (an argument I’m not willing at the moment to take up), do you dispute the fact that on that occassion, Israel was on the receiving end of a completely unprovoked attack?
I think this is a quite truthful description of what is happenning in the occupied territoties:
The army and the Settlesrs does as they please and the Palestinians shoots whith whatever they have.
Are the Palestinians that shoots, terrorists? Or do they live under terror? On the other side, You can also interprent the text thus, that the tanks a firing, not the Palestinians.
(I have a permission to publish this, and everyone has if the source is mentioned.). Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP): Israeli Bulldozers Demolish Homes and Vast Areas of Agricultural Land, Rafah
Source: Hear Palestine News Service Oct 28, 2002
A second reading, gave me the impression that the Palestinians did not shoot.
If I would have been in this situation, I would have shooten.
Would You?
Anyhow, I do not think it would be nice to demolish any farmers crops.
Let us think that nothing of this is true.
Why then have Palestinians asked people, through Internet, to be their guests, in order to bring some peace (by the presence of foreigners) under harversting time?
I think this is a quite truthful description of what is happenning in the occupied territoties:
The army and the Settlesrs does as they please and the Palestinians shoots whith whatever they have.
Are the Palestinians that shoots, terrorists? Or do they live under terror? On the other side, You can also interprent the text thus, that the tanks are firing, not the Palestinians.
(I have a permission to publish this, and everyone has if the source is mentioned.). Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP): Israeli Bulldozers Demolish Homes and Vast Areas of Agricultural Land, Rafah
Source: Hear Palestine News Service Oct 28, 2002
A second reading, gave me the impression that the Palestinians did not shoot.
If I would have been in this situation, I would have shooten.
Would You?
Anyhow, I do not think it would be nice to demolish any farmers crops.
Let us think that nothing of this is true.
Why then have Palestinians asked people, through Internet, to be their guests, in order to bring some peace (by the presence of foreigners) under harversting time?