ILZ,
you (and Rd'I for that matter) would let hatred steer the course in I/P. The hateful fanatics are a minority, but you base your opinions on their caustic emotions, rather than the more moderate sensibilities of the majority. Laws could be put into effect to guarantee the rights of the minorities in that hypothetical state much like the laws wanting presently in Israel that would abolish the mandate of the maintenance of an ethnic/religious "character" there that is detrimental and discriminatory against its minorities that aren't of that ethnicity/religion. These guarantees would be enacted in this hypothetical federation, and if necessary an outside governing body (e.g. a union of democratic countries) should force their hands.
Jews want to be able to live anywhere they want in the "Promised Land," and Palestinians argue for the Right of Return. Well, I say let them. Just don't let either side infringe on the common rights of the other. There is an
NPR interview today with Rashid Kalidi in which he talks about the alternative to the two state solution.
Rd'I, what's the value in preserving an ethnically/religiously bigoted state anywhere in the world?
America has used its veto power to block a resolution condemning Isreals assassination of Shiekh Yassin.
Again, we refuse to put our votes where our mouth is.
Our objection hinges on the fact that the resolution doesn't condemn Hamas, and several other Palestinian terrorist organizations, by name.
Quote: [size=25] America Blocks Resolution[/size]
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The United States vetoed a resolution condemning Israel's killing of Palestinian militant leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin at an unusually bitter meeting of the UN Security Council.
Israel traded angry barbs with the Palestinians and with council member Spain, bringing up this month's terror bombings on Madrid trains to denounce Spain's support of the resolution.
Three days of intense negotiations failed to win the support of the United States, which spiked the resolution because it made no mention of Yassin's Hamas militant group, responsible for scores of deadly attacks on Israel.
The vote was 11 in favour and the United States against. Three nations -- Britain, Germany and Romania -- abstained.
The measure was sponsored by lone Arab member Algeria, which said the council was sending the "wrong message" to the world.
"As if doomed to fail whenever it has to deal with the intractable situation of the Middle East, the Security Council has come to the conclusion once and for all that it has no say in the terrible tragedy that is unfolding," Algerian ambassador Abdallah Baali said.
Palestinian representative Nasser al-Kidwa said the international community, which has almost universally condemned the Israeli helicopter strike on Monday that killed Yassin outside a Gaza City mosque, would be shocked.
"There is no doubt that millions will be unable to understand what happened today," he said during an ill-tempered exchange after the vote.
Israeli ambassador Dan Gillerman took aim at his counterpart Inocencio Arias of Spain, staring him down and asking whether the Spanish government would have tried to kill the attackers who left 200 dead in March 11 bomb attacks in Madrid.
"If you knew before the bloody massacre of your citizens took place who was going to carry that horrendous act out, would you have sat still and let it happen?" Gillerman said.
Referring to the use of Palestinian children as suicide attackers, Gillerman said there could be no peace in the Middle East "until the Palestinians learn to love their children more than they hate us."
Kidwa retorted that Gillerman's comments were "full of racism" and added: "Israel is a terror group."
Gillerman replied that until Palestinians left behind the "wrong side" of the fight against terrorism, "They will sadly probably not be a member of the United Nations (news - web sites) for a long time to come."
The US veto comes with Muslim rage at high pitch over the killing and could further complicate US plans in Iraq (news - web sites).
But ambassador John Negroponte of the United States, which has regularly vetoed UN measures criticising Israel that fail to name Palestinian groups, said the "one-sided, unbalanced" resolution would not contribute to peace.
"The United States is deeply troubled by the killing of Sheikh Yassin. Israel's action has escalated tensions in Gaza and the region, and could set back our efforts to resume progress toward peace," he said.
"But events must be considered in their context."
I strongly oppose Israel's action but I support this particular veto.
I'm glad we came down against the assasination. But for the life of me I do not understand why nations do not submit resolutions against Israeli acts with the inclusion of condemnation of the Palestinian terrorists.
Honestly, the world should simply start putting resolutions that condemn both parts of the idiocy, and they'll be pleasantly surprised to find the US abstaining and failing to veto.
Craven de Kere wrote:I strongly oppose Israel's action but I support this particular veto.
I'm glad we came down against the assasination. But for the life of me I do not understand why nations do not submit resolutions against Israeli acts with the inclusion of condemnation of the Palestinian terrorists.
Honestly, the world should simply start putting resolutions that condemn both parts of the idiocy, and they'll be pleasantly surprised to find the US abstaining and failing to veto.
In this particular case, I can understand where the States is coming from.
The resolution should have simply condemned "palestinian terrorism." Algeria, the resolutions sponser, refused to make this concession, and it seems to me they must have
known that America would veto it. More than a little politics in that move, me thinks.
I'd like to see the proposed resolution itself, though. Can't find it on the UN website.
I respectfully disagree.
First the moral argument.
The US should condemn asks of violence that are against international law and escalate the conflect in the strongest possible terms. This includes supporting UN resolutions.
Wrong is wrong, there should be no linkage. We should strongly condemn each illegal act of violence on its own no matter which side commits it.
And the pratical argument.
The US has a huge credibility problem. Everyone acknowledges that to reach peace, the US must be involved as an "impartial broker".
The US should continue to protect Israel's right to exist.
The US should stop protecting Israel's ability to use brutal tactics including assassinations that are clearly against international law.
This is just another case where the US has shielded Israel from the just international censure it deserves.
InfraBlue, I think you misunderstood me. You think I support a two-state solution. Well actually I think that that wouldn't be the perfect solution. My posts were meant to say that AT THIS MOMENT, the Israelis and Palestinians are not ready to live in one state. I do not say they are NEVER able to live side by side. But at this moment, the feelings I told about (concerning, for example, the strong idea of one Jewish state, still fed by worldwide anti-Semitism, or the strong ideas of extremist Palestinian groups which rather want Jews to leave), enforced by the Second Intifada, are still shared by a not so small part of the population. You can say: just put them together and we'll just see, but in my eyes that is not the solution for this ongoing conflict.
Also, a small part of the population really have the extreme ideas, yes. But I'm afraid of the feelings of the majority if really the two "states" are put together. Feelings can change, its a good ground for extreme nationalistic and ethnic feelings. Just imagine: you live in one state, you know from the "other side" that they - according to the media or common ideas - are not so "keen" on you, and suddenly people suggest that you should live side by side with them. What is your feeling then? The best way is to look it with a positive way of thinking, because most things you have heard about the "other side" in the media you know they are probably over-exaggerated. But in these situations, only one big incident has to happen and negative feelings start to take over.
Forcing a solution does not mean it will immediately bring a good solution.
IronLionZion wrote:
In this particular case, I can understand where the States is coming from.
That's the basis of nearly every single of our vetoes of resolutions against Israel.
Quote:The resolution should have simply condemned "palestinian terrorism." Algeria, the resolutions sponser, refused to make this concession, and it seems to me they must have known that America would veto it.
They should, as we veto each and every condemnation of Israel that neglects to "Remember" the context of the Israeli response.
So all they really have to do is say:
"Remembering that Palestinian terror must cease, Isreal's act is condemned by the community."
I see your point about perhaps a gradual attainment of one state in Palestine, to blunt the shock, so to speak, but even that--a two state solution--would be a forced solution right now, any kind of solution right now would be forced, Rick.
The way the Zionists founded Israel was pretty hateful in itself and this has served, ironically, to perpetuate "anti-Semitism" in the world. The creation of a Judaically exclusivist state by European emigrants in a land in the Middle East pre-populated by goyim ("a land without a people, for a people without a land" propaganda nothwithstanding.) wasn't very progressive, let alone prudent.
Update on the peace process:
Remember the news that Sharon had decided to remove almost all the Israeli settlements in Gaza? Anybody now what the hell happened to that?
It will be interesting to see how the Arab Summit meeting plays out next Monday. It looks like sanctions against Israel are on the table.
Quote:[size=25]Syria Calls for Tough Stance Vs. Israel [/size]
Fri Mar 26, 1:50 PM ET
By SALAH NASRAWI, Associated Press Writer
TUNIS, Tunisia - Despite the threat of U.S. sanctions, hard-line Syria led calls Friday for next week's annual Arab summit to take a tough stand against Israel in the wake of the killing of Hamas leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin.
Damascus' insistence that Israel be punished for assassinating the Palestinian leader in a rocket attack March 22 in Gaza could become the focus of the two-day summit that starts here Monday, instead of an American-backed blueprint for Middle East political reform and attempts to revive a stalled Arab peace plan.
The Bush administration hopes the reform initiative and the establishment of a new Iraqi government will serve as models for Arab states to follow in changing their own political systems, which tend to be controlled by royal families or hard-line regimes that provide limited scope for free speech and political pluralism.
The Tunis talks had expected to breathe life into the Saudi plan for regional peace that was unveiled at the 2002 Arab summit in Lebanon. But Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, the oil-rich state's de facto ruler, has said he will not attend the summit, a move that has effectively removed the Saudi plan from the agenda.
"He will feel deeply embarrassed if he comes to defend (his) peace plan while Israeli Prime Minister (Ariel Sharon (news - web sites)) continues to play havoc with his (Abdullah's) brain child," one diplomat said of the Saudi peace initiative.
Under the plan, Arabs collectively offered Israel full peace and normal relations in return for total Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories, a Palestinian state and a solution for the refugees.
Saudi Arabia will instead be represented by Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal.
Israel's fierce foe, Syria, which has been threatened with sanctions by the Bush administration, wants the summit to condemn Israel, particularly over its killing of Yassin, and focus on the Jewish state's worsening conflict with the Palestinians.
"This is the main issue, it is only natural that it takes priority," Yousef al-Ahmed, Syria's envoy to the Arab League, told The Associated Press on the sidelines of the Tunis meeting.
But Arab diplomats said key countries, including U.S. allies Egypt and Jordan, oppose Syria's plans.
Arab foreign ministers met Friday to hammer out the shape of the agenda for the summit, which is also being overshadowed by a lower representation of some key leaders and rumors circulating of a postponement.
Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika told Al-Arabiya TV in an interview aired Friday that four Arab states, which he did not name, want the summit postponed.
On Thursday, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak (news - web sites) said Arab League reform and considering a U.S.-backed plan for greater freedom in Middle Eastern states would top the summit's agenda, but added that "we should also deal with other issues," an apparent reference to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa accused Sharon's government of torpedoing Mideast peace initiatives by killing Yassin.
"What we need is a partner (for peace) and what is sure is that this Israeli government is not a partner," Moussa told reporters. "Its behavior does not serve the cause of peace."
But he said the summit would still discuss regional and Arab League reform and modernization.
"The Arab world and the Arab people have long being waiting for this process (of modernization) to begin," he said.
The United States has been pushing a "Greater Middle East Initiative," a reform plan that many Arab countries have said amounts to interference in their domestic affairs.
The plan, which has not yet been officially released, calls on Arab states to institute various reforms, including promoting democracy, human rights and the status of women, upgrading educational systems and encouraging open market investment.
In an opening speech to the conference delivered earlier, Moussa reproached America for vetoing a United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council resolution to condemn Israel for Yassin's assassination and said Arabs are facing "a fierce attack which puts them in a defensive position."
In vetoing the resolution, the United States called the measure "one-sided" and said it ignored Hamas' bloody record of terrorism.
The chairman of the Arab summit, Tunisian Foreign Minister Habib bin Yahia, said Israel's recent actions, including the construction of a barrier around the West Bank, "abort every possibility to establish peace in the region."
Bin Yahia added that Arab leaders, however, must still try to find a way to reactivate the Arab peace initiative.
It is always informative to get the Arab perspective. This one from Al-Jazeera:
Note: I noticed all of the Western articles focused on Hamas' threats of upping its terror campaign. The al-jazeera article was the only one I came accross focused on Isreals actions since the assassination instead. I suspect this is the case throughout the Arab world. A perfect example of bias on both sides of the fence.
Quote:[size=25]Israel goes on West Bank rampage[/size]
By Khalid Amayreh in the West Bank
Saturday 27 March 2004, 21:07 Makka Time, 18:07 GMT
Israel has been destroying roads and vandalising vital infrastructure across the occupied West Bank in an apparent attempt to weaken the Palestinians further before a possible withdrawal.
Residents in several Palestinian towns in the northern, central and southern parts of the West Bank said on Saturday that Israeli occupation army bulldozers were sealing off Palestinian towns and villages with huge walls of rock and dirt.
The locals also reported deep moats being dug across main streets and thoroughfares, causing heavy damage to the water, electricity and telephone services.
The Hebron region has been hard hit by the latest Israeli army rampage. As many as a half million Palestinians live in the region: nearly one fourth of the total population of the West Bank.
Dura mayor, Muhammad Abu Atwan, described the Israeli vandalism as "evil behaviour characteristic of the Zionist occupation".
"What they're doing is quite normal. There is no such thing as a benign occupation. The occupation has to be malignant
a good occupation is a contradiction in terms," he said.
'Concentration camps'
When asked why the Israeli army was destroying the vital infrastructure in his town, Abu Atwan said: "They did it for the same reasons that the Gestapo and the Nazis did what they did 60 years ago."
Abu Atwan said that Israel was effectively converting Palestinian towns and villages into "concentration camps".
Arab townspeople have been cut
off by fresh Israeli roadblocks
"They are not content with building the huge sinister wall around the West Bank; they want to build a wall around every Palestinian town, village and hamlet. They are learning from the Nazis and the Russians."
The Israeli army gave no explanation for the widespread destruction, which recalls its onslaught against Palestinian population centres in the spring of 2002.
Then, Israeli forces wreaked havoc on Palestinian civilian infrastructure, destroying many homes, roads, businesses and stealing millions of dollars-worth of merchandise during the protracted curfews.
Anti-Palestinian momentum
Some Israeli officials have suggested the army wants to "break the back of the Palestinians" before carrying out a purported disengagement plan.
Palestinians mourn Shaikh Yasin,
killed in Gaza City on 23 March
On Friday, Sharon's military advisor Amos Gilaad spoke of "keeping the momentum against the Palestinians following the assassination of (Hamas founder and spiritual leader Shaikh Ahmad) Yasin."
Earlier, Gilaad was quoted as saying that "soon will come the turn of (Palestinian Authority Leader Yasir) Arafat and (Hizb Allah leader Shaikh Hasan) Nasr Allah."
However, an Israeli cabinet minister, Tzahi Hanegbi, was quoted on Thursday as saying that Arafat was not a target.
Nevertheless, some Palestinian commentators see the killing of Yasin as deeply ominous.
Fears for Arafat
"It is only a rehearsal for the murder of President Arafat," wrote columnist Hani al-Masri in the Ramallah-based pro-PLO daily newspaper, al-Ayyam.
"They (Israel) want to figure out what reactions the assassination of Arafat would generate before carrying out the actual assassination."
Some Israeli peace activists told Aljazeera.net they agreed.
"The army is apparently planning to gang up on the Palestinians while (Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon is planning an evacuation from Gaza and parts of the West Bank. I personally wouldn't rule out anything," said an Israeli activist from the Gush Shalom group.
"The sad thing is that the Americans believe him and the Europeans are giving him the benefit of the doubt."
I agree with you that a two state solution wouldn't solve all problems in the Middle East and therefore is not a perfect solution, but in my eyes a two state solution is the best of two bad solutions. The problem in the Middle East is that the conflict has become too complicated: there are so many different voices who want to do it their way, from ultraorthodox Israeli's who want to drive the Palestinians even further away so they can also conquer "Samaria", to Palestinian groups who want to drive the Israeli's into the sea.
My point was just that a two state solution in my eyes is not realistic. I do not oppose the idea itself, but I do not think that it would work out.
I agree with you how violently Israel was actually created. 700,000 Palestinians had to leave their homes for a Jewish Israel. That nobody "noticed" was the time: the years before 1948 we saw what the Holocaust (Shoah) had done to the Jewish Europeans. Europe felt guilty (although a lot of them did not say that out loud). Now speaking the way Israel was created was against many thoughts we had about human rights. But did a Jewish survivor of Auschwitz think about that? He only thought about how his family was dead now, murdered, and he realized the Europeans did not want him, did not saw him as an European.
And what would a Palestinian have thought? Suddenly - it was 1948 - he had to leave his home, only because he wasn't Jewish. Suddenly he heard that he had no right to claim the land where he and his family had lived for hundreds of years. And this was a claim of people from Europe, from far away, from Poland and Russia, Germany and France. How could they come up with the conclusion Palestine was not his home?
I'm confused!
If the Ashkenazim were wronged by Europe, why did they make the Arabs of Palestine their whipping boys? Justice would have been served if a Jewish state were cut out of Germany, Poland and some of the other Eastern and Central European countries. Yes, some doors were closed to the displaced Ashkenazim in many countries, but the Zionists actively opposed lobbying efforts to open those doors in those countries in order to herd these peoples into Palestine illegally.
Actually, the aim of establishing an exclusivist Jewish state in Palestine was pursued by the Zionists long before the Holocaust, almost a half century before, and the problems with the Arabs there began with their incursion before the twentieth century.
Why did the Zionists strive for an exclusivist state?
Face it: without the Holocaust, I wonder whether there would be a Jewish state called Israel today. The fact that Zionists wanted an exclusive Jewish state, was because they did not trust the countries where they (Jews) were a minority. This could be a discussionpoint, because European nations can say: well Jews are welcome here, they should not fear us. The Holocaust nevertheless was for the Zionists the ultimate proof that Gentiles could not be trusted, because even a "civilized" state like Germany seemed to be against the Jews - in their eyes.
You should remember that the first modern Zionists were Jews from Eastern Europe, where Jews were isolated from the rest of the population and anti-Semitism was common. You can imagine that most Jews did not trust the non-Jews, looking at how many times Jews were victim of pogroms for example. That also explains why in Western-European countries the support for the Zionists was less, because they were not confronted with the rate of anti-Semitism like their Eastern-European "brothers". That for the question why Zionists wanted an exclusive state.
Why the European Jews use the Palestinians as their wipping boys is a good question. I think this is a case of extreme nationalism: the Zionists knew that creating a Jewish state on Arab territory would be difficult, and they maybe thought that violence could be the only way. But that is something you should ask a Zionist :wink: .
Ok, I'm about to come full circle with what I have posted previously here, so I'll just say this:
The creation of a Jewish state in Palestine was started in earnest decades before the Holocaust beginning with Britain's Balfour Declaration to Lord Rothschild and the Zionist Federation in 1917, and the League of Nations' British Mandate of Palestine in 1920.
Durning the Russian pogroms more Ashkenazim emigrated to the US and other countries than they ever did to Palestine. By 1900 almost one million Russian Jews had immigrated to the US alone. Most of these emigrants were reluctant to emigrate to such a foreign land as Palestine. It was only through the efforts of the Zionists that more and more emigrants were funnelled, many of them unwillingly, to Palestine.
Rick, you say, "the Holocaust nevertheless was for the Zionists the ultimate proof that Gentiles could not be trusted, because even a "civilized" state like Germany seemed to be against the Jews - in their eyes."
The Zionists are lumping all Gentiles along with the Nazis, and that is bigoted, that is an insult, and that is absolutely wrong. I am not a Nazi. In the US, where there are more Jews than in Israel itself, the Jews have never suffered a holocaust, and the US is absolutely not an exclusivist Jewish state. The Zionists should have learned from their benefactor and best friend in the whole wide world.
The Holocaust wasn't only about the Ashkenazim. It was about the groups deemed undesirable by the Nazis. The Nazis wanted an exclusivist state and the Ashkenazim, who were perhaps their main targets, were but one group of "undesirables" which included Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals, liberals, the crippled, and the mentally disordered. About an equal amount of goyim were also victims of the Holocaust.
It's ironic, to say the very least, that the Zionists use the efforts of the Nazis to establish an exclusivist state as a justification for the establishment of an exclusivist state of their own.
I think us Brits have a lot to explain for the current situation in Palestine.
We should never have made pie in the sky promises to the Zionists.
We should have blocked illegal Jewish immigration during the mandate.
We should have eradicated Zionist terrorism, not caved into it.
To be completely fair in this "war against terror" the Coalition of Willing Nations should be hunting down the surviving members of the Irgun Zvai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael, and the U.S. of A. should stop welfare payments and support to Israel, which is after all a nation founded on terrorism.
Thats right infrablue.
But if you mention the Stern and Irgun these days one is accused of anti semitism. However I dont care any more. The Jewish extreme right did a deal with the Nazis. The Nazis wanted the Jews out of Europe. The Zionists wanted a piece of real estate in the middle east. Although many Jews fought with Britain against Germany, the Zionists always thought it more important to fight against Britain. So developed the strange alliance of Nazis and Zionists, which fought until they blew up the King David hotel, killing Jews Arabs and Brits indescriminately.
If we had caught Begin, Shamir or Ben Gurion they would have been strung up along side Avraham Stern. Israel is a terrorist state, founded on terrorism, terrorising its subjected Arab citizens, and even now employing state terrorism to murder its enemies. The exclusive Jewish Israeli state has been a disaster for mankind.
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
