Tyranny of the Minorities

I can honestly see both sides.

The vast majority of the Palestinians are not that much different from 'us'. They want to get up in the morning, have breakfast, get their kids to school, get to work, and not have to be worried about being shot or having their house bulldozed.
And I am not so heartless to see the injustice being done to them.

The vast majority of the Israelis are not that much different from 'us'. They want to get up in the morning, have breakfast, get their kids to school, get to work, and not have to be worried about somebody throwing a bomb on the bus or blowing themselves up in the middle of a crowd.

The Israelis should not have to see their kids murdered or have to dig several dozen corpses out of a firebombed shopping mall, and it is a bit much to expect they will accept that without retaliation. I don't know of any Israeli terrorists who are strapping explosives on kids and sending them to die along with as many of the enemy as they can take out. After it is done to them enough times, I can see where they would be prompted to take extreme measures to stop it.

The Palestinians do that. Only a tiny percentage of them do that but they hide themselves within the homes and mosques of the Palestinians who don't. The 'good' Palestinians do not seem to have the will to oppose them.

That is where your tyranny of the minority comes in.

Conversely the Jewish settlements in the occupied lands are inflammatory and cancel out the original intent of maintaining these areas as buffers against further aggression. The Israeli leadership does not seem to have the will to reverse the settlement policy and again, that's where the tyranny of the minority comes in.

I still maintain that Sharon had the right idea to pull out of parts of the occupied lands as a compromise and think it is unfortunate that he was overruled. It was a start. Now we are back to square one.

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't know of any Israeli terrorists who are strapping explosives on kids and sending them to die along with as many of the enemy as they can take out.

No, they just have useless missiles and armed tanks and bulldozzers. Maybe they would want to trade with the Palestinians home-made bombs and rocks.

Quote:

The Palestinians do that. Only a tiny percentage of them do that but they hide themselves within the homes and mosques of the Palestinians who don't. The 'good' Palestinians do not seem to have the will to oppose them.

What good Palestinians don't want to fight the Irsaeli's? Have you heard that somewhere? Or is that thrown in for effect to show that there are only a few malcontents causing trouble against the will of the true Palestinian people? Kind of like those in Iraq that want us Americans there and who are leading these happy successful lives, I guess. Our eyes and ears do decieve us ignorant folks, it is a good thing we have more insightful folks around to straighten us out.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Why?

Foxfyre, "spoils of war" is a dead concept. Within modern civilization having vanquished a foe does not give one the right to their property.

Now I don't really want to get into the 'why' as this is something that rests on what I consider obvious moral precepts.

Quote:

If the enemy was launching artillery, etc. from the occupied territories, which was definitely the case especially from the Golan Heights, is it imperative on Israel to return that land to the original countries so they can regain that strategic advantage?

You need to be more precise with your tenses.

If the conflict is not resolved then resolution is not resolved. This is one reason Israel frequently acts in a manner to delay resolution of teh conflict. This is one reason certain political parties in Israel reject ALL settlements and ALL peace.

Beacuse as long as the conflict is open-ended they can "create facts on the ground" and have a pretext for keeping the land.

Note that when they settled their differences (under great American pressure) with Egypt they had to return the land they had taken.

When they get around to finally settling their differences with other nations they will have a legal obligation to return those territories as well. Which is why they have beeen reluctant to enter such negotiations even with nations from whom there has not been any significant threat for years.

Now as to the "why" of "spoils of war" being a relic of primitive times... well just think about it.

Quote:

Or am I missing something? Israel is settling on land that was not acquired as a result of the six-day war?

Israel does not "aquire" land legally except through bi-lateral negotiation with the owners of said land. Comparatively my invasion of my neighbour's (who had threatened me) home was seen in American courts as insufficient claim to ownership of his land and his wife and children. "He started it, requireing me to pre-empt it" was deemed an argument with no bearing on the legality of property ownership.

I was disappointed, I liked his wife and his children were very good lamp holders. It is a pity that modern society does not recognize transfer of ownership through virtue of force anymore. I'd intended to "aquire" more spoils. <end satire>

0 Replies

Revel there are many Palestinian families in Israel and in the occupied lands who are friends with their Jewish neighbors and who deplore the violence done to them. And all Jews do not approve of the violence done to the Palestinians in retaliation.

Craven, the difference between the mess in Israel and the tongue-in-cheek example you provided is that Israel has no legal recourse to fall back on when the Palestinians blow up Israeli property and citizens and apparently no legal recourse if their other neighbors do or threaten violence. I don't believe the U.N. has ever issued the mildest rebuke when violence has been done to Israel.
It seems reasonable for Israel to assume they can expect no help from the U.N. if they should relinguish the strategic advantage the occupied lands provide.

If you and your neighbor threaten each other or destroy or encroach on one another's property, you can expect immediate protection of law and rectification in the courts. I think maybe, just maybe, if the U.N. gave Israel assurances their interests would be protected, Sharon would have a better chance in giving back part or all of the occupied lands.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Craven, the difference between the mess in Israel and the tongue-in-cheek example you provided is that Israel has no legal recourse to fall back on when the Palestinians blow up Israeli property and citizens and apparently no legal recourse if their other neighbors do or threaten violence.

That is an untrue statement. Would you mind indicating for me what type of law you are referencing? It's not an existing legal code so I am confused.

Quote:

I don't believe the U.N. has ever issued the mildest rebuke when violence has been done to Israel.

In that case, you believe in error. The UN resolutions against the Palestinians are just as 'mild' as the ones against Israel.

Quote:

It seems reasonable for Israel to assume they can expect no help from the U.N. if they should relinguish the strategic advantage the occupied lands provide.

So? Calling someone else's land "strategic advantage" is no justification for illegal seizure of it.

Israel's existence is hardly threatened at all and neighboring countries pose no significant military threat.

The talk of "strategic advantage" is duplicitous. All land seizures can be called "strategic", it's about time Israel stops using any conflict as a pretext to secure more of other people's land for "strategic" reasons.

Quote:

If you and your neighbor threaten each other or destroy or encroach on one another's property, you can expect immediate protection of law and rectification in the courts. I think maybe, just maybe, if the U.N. gave Israel assurances their interests would be protected, Sharon would have a better chance in giving back part or all of the occupied lands.

Foxfyre, I urge you to investigate the things you speak of. A cursory investigation into offers for military assistance would show you that Israel is steadfastly opposed to any outside intervention in a military form.

They want to keep creating their "facts on the ground" and they refuse to let any third party military in, even if it is to help protect them against attack.

So what, pray tell, are you talking about? Are you faulting the UN for not doing what Israel vehemently rejects?

0 Replies

Out of curiosity, Craven, when was the last U.N. reprimand of the Palestinians? How strong was it?And when were the last several U.N. reprimands of Israel? As I recall these were quite strongly worded.

Israel has resisted military help to date because they don't need it. They have the capability to defend themselves and they don't have any squeamishness about using it.

They have no reason that the U.N. will take their side on any issue at any time however.

I don't support what Israel does in many cases and I am not unsympathetic to the Palestinians who aren't blowing themselves up in shopping malls. But the issues Israelis are facing are not of their own making. And until we face on a daily basis the horrors and threats they are facing, I think it is very short sighted to assume we would not react just as strongly.

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

the bitter truth here may be (and i say 'may' since i have no evidence) that the current thrust of the 'press' in general, in spite of the fact that it tends to gravitate toward the 'sensational', seems to be to maintain the negative pressure on the "W" administration, to minimize the chances of his re-election.

While i totally support this 'tilt' to the news (in spite of the fact that there should be no 'tilt' to news) as it reinforces my wishes, the result is that the more sane voices of moderation in the world are not heard.

Goodness blatham! Someone outside of the borders of the US who is not chortling at the notion that the US press is biased.

BoGoWo

I can see you taking a guilty satisfaction in the 'tilt' you describe, but do you really fully support it? Sounds a lot like the end justifying the means.
And if its negative consequence is to silent the "sane voices of moderation," how can it achieve anything but a Phyricc Victory?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Out of curiosity, Craven, when was the last U.N. reprimand of the Palestinians?

May 19th 2004.

5 days ago.

Quote:

How strong was it?

As strong as resolutions ever are without using terminology indicating an impending war or such.

But I think you should just read it yourself. "How strong" is subjective.

My take is that given that it was a resolution against an Israeli action (that the US allowed because of our own very strong (for us) reservations about these particular Israeli actions) the passages about Israel are stronger. But I admit to being less concered by "how strong" than are you.

Quote:

And when were the last several U.N. reprimands of Israel? As I recall these were quite strongly worded.

5 days ago. Again, no need to guess, you can read it yourself (it's shorter than this post).

Quote:

Israel has resisted military help to date because they don't need it. They have the capability to defend themselves and they don't have any squeamishness about using it.

That's your opinion. My opinion is that despite their capacity a third party would help forward the peace process. I am also of the opinion that Israel rejects this because they are less interested in the peace process than they are in continuing the status quo which has enabled them to grow far larger than the land they were alloted.

The continuation of the conflict allows for the continuation fo "strategic" land being seized, occupied and annexed.

Quote:

They have no reason that the U.N. will take their side on any issue at any time however.

Indeed, and they shouldn't. It's kinda like how courts aren't supposed to have an understood side-taking.

But this is a comment that has little incommon with reality. In reality the UN has been very very kind to Israel (remember to include the US as part of the UN, we use our veto in their favor frequently).

Quote:

But the issues Israelis are facing are not of their own making.

That is your opinion. In my opinion Israel's actions are a significant reason that the conflict is where it is today.

Quote:

And until we face on a daily basis the horrors and threats they are facing, I think it is very short sighted to assume we would not react just as strongly.

Thankfully that assumption is neither present nor necessary in any of my arguments, redering the call to experience even more irrelevant than it normally would be.

0 Replies

I found lots of stuff. So far nothing that suggests the U.N. has ever reprimanded the Palestinians. I'm not saying it never has, but so far I haven't been able to find anything.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2004/s1112660.htm

http://www.israel-un.org/latest/press_releases/pr30jan2004.htm

http://clubs.ups.edu/fair/articles/clear_choice_for_EU.htm

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-05/19/content_1477139.htm

http://www.maarivintl.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=7575

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=236951&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

http://news.bostonherald.com/election2004/view.bg?articleid=6378

http

0 Replies

Did you even read the resolution from 5 days ago that I referenced?

Just read through the UN resolutions on the subject, nearly all of them will add the US-demanded contextual condemnation of Palestinian terror. It is a prerequsite for the resolutions' existence.

0 Replies

This one?

Doesn't seem to condemn the Palistinians to me, but I could be wrong.

0 Replies

Okay, here is the resolution:
http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/357/21/PDF/N0435721.pdf?OpenElement

I read through all of it. Not much to read. And it is all about reprimanding Israel and I see no reprimand of Palestinian terrorist activities.

0 Replies

You guys need to read the grandfathered clauses, the reason it's short is because of the reference to already hammered texts. The cited reaffirmations are not decorative, it's a part of the legal document.

Quote:

Reiterating the demand for an immediate cessation of all acts of violence,
including all acts of terrorism, provocation, incitement and destruction,

Quote:

Condemning all terrorist attacks against any civilians, including the terrorist
bombings in Israel on 18 and 19 September 2002 and in a Palestinian school in
Hebron on 17 September 2002,

Quote:

Expressing its grave concern at the further deterioration of the situation,
including the recent suicide bombings in Israel and the military attack against the
headquarters of the President of the Palestinian Authority,

Quote:

Reiterates its demand for the complete cessation of all acts of violence,
including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction;

Quote:

Calls on the Palestinian Authority to meet its expressed commitment to
ensure that those responsible for terrorist acts are brought to justice by it;

Quote:

Reiterates its demand in resolution 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002 for an
immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation,
incitement and destruction;

Quote:

Expressing its grave concern at the continuation of the tragic and violent
events that have taken place since September 2000, especially the recent attacks and
the increased number of casualties,

Quote:

Demands immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of
terror, provocation, incitement and destruction;

That's just a bit, I only went one level of reaffirmations deep.

0 Replies

If that's the case, I stand corrected.

I wonder why, however, the U.N. has not moved to create a homeland for the Palestinians as they did for Israel?

0 Replies

Any resolution granting them a state will be shot down by the US until we work out resolutions between the parties.

If, say, Syria proposed a resolution calling for a Palestinian state right now we'd likely veto it.

We just very recently set a precedent by declaring it a fait accompli for the future.

There is very strong resistance to the notion of a Palestinian state. The ruling party in Israel voted (within the last few years) to never allow a Palestinian state west of Jordan (i.e. to never allow a Palestinian state, their terminology is pretty much "let them go to Jordan").

0 Replies

While I think it would be wonderful for Jordan to create a homeland for the Palestinians, why would the U.S. or Israel care so long as that homeland isn't inside Israel itself?

0 Replies

The notion of a homeland in Jordan is not open for discussion. It's an Israeli euphemism for ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian territories that some Israeli zealots use.

They want to drive the Palestinians out of the Palestinian territories and across the Jordan river and then seize the Palestinian territories and complete "greater Israel'. It's a tired old mantra. The Israelis who want greater Israel reject any Palestinin state west of the Jordan river and want "transfer" of the Palestinians.

i.e. they want their land and think they should be moved.

Incidentally, the eventual Palestinian state will not be "indide Israel". Remember that those territories are not Israel, despite the desires of some Israeli zealots.

0 Replies

Tyranny of the Minorities

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know