What do want from Israel ?!

Personally I am not an opponent of the idea of a fence - it can and probably will protect Israel from terrorist attacks (look at the Gaza Strip). What I do oppose however is the fact the fence is being build on Palestinian land, and the problems caused by that.

0 Replies

Another brick in the wall
The wall is built where it can bring the best security. Its only goal is to bring temporary security. It is not a border, it should not be.
We know that borders are set by negotiations. This was the case with the Egyptian and Jordanian borders.
Some of the 1967 lines could not bring temporary security. If it had been a good line, the wall's path would have been on this line. The wall, in some places, on "after 1967 areas" and in other places on the "1967 line".
The After 1967 areas are in a way a "no man's land" you cannot say that this land is legally belong to specific some one.
The current inhibiters of the "after 1967 lands" have no long history on the land. They are refuges that settled the land in the last 100-200 years. We, as a nation, have a longer history on the land.

As a solution we, as a democracy, had long decided that the solution to the conflict is by territorial concession. This was proven by the process that we started in 1993 and by Ehud Barak's offer in 2000 (he had offer 95%-ish of the territorial demand, include concession in Jerusalem - but no actual concession in the "right of return" which is the demand for Pale's refuges to resettle Israeli's "Before 1967 land").
Arafat's answer to the offer was this planned "intifada" (the current last three years of dirty war against Israel).

0 Replies

Jim,
I wonder if it wasn't an issue because Palestinians were allowed to live and make a living there at that time?
Itabib, you said: The current inhibiters of the "after 1967 lands" have no long history on the land. They are refuges that settled the land in the last 100-200 years. We, as a nation, have a longer history on the land.
100-200 years is a long time. Your history is biblical. The bible should not be taken so literally. I'd say putting 200 years into the land is a legitimate claim.
I wish that you would read my links.

0 Replies

Re: About Israel's alleged "occupier" status

ltabib wrote:

Well, Mr. MyOwnUsername has earned the Moishe3rd's segment:
"Most people would rather stick with pre-conceptions and misinformation that supports what they want to believe than study the facts and change their mind"
Is it seem reasonable to you that I said :
" 1. Those lands (Gaza and Shomron) have been occupied from Jordan/Egypt (during a war that they started in 1967).
2. Those lands are not continues territory. If you what to go from Gaza to the Shomron you would have to walk through a lot of Israel's "before 1967" lands)
3. Egypt gave up Gaza in 1982 as part of our peace agreement."
And you answered :
"But, it's still their land. Their OCCUPIED land.".
If you have a point, and I am sure that deep down you have one, just say it - but do not forget to follow your declarations with a little facts or a list some explanations.

You know, Itabib, you are making points that I, as an American, would never dare to make.
The world (including myself and my staunchly pro-Israel friends) has been so brainwashed over and over again to believe that Gaza and Shomron are the West Bank and Gaza Palestinian lands occupied by Israel, that we forget, completely, that this is not true.
It is quite amazing, when you think about it.
It proves the axiom that if you tell a lie enough times over and over again, everyone believes that it's the truth.
Weird.

An additional point about the fence and the objections to it.
The "famous" UN resolution 242 that the pro-Pals like to quote and the Camp David accords and the Oslo and Wye agreements, etcetera, all emphatically say that borders and a peaceful resolution to this problem will be negotiated. (Between many parties, actually, including Jordan and Egypt).
Negotiated.
After there is negotiation, there will be borders and peace.
Until then, even according to these agreements, Israel has all the rights ownership and the Palestinians none.

0 Replies

Jim wrote:

There's something I've never understood.

The issue of Palestinian land seems to be one of the most important issues in world politics today. But why is it all of a sudden important today? Prior to the Six Day War in 1967, all of the Gaza and West Bank land belonged to either Egypt or Jordan. Why wasn't it important then?

IMO, it's simply due to the fact that Arafat has been, for years, a media whore, nothing more, nothing less. There are many other similar causes in the world that get no press whatsoever.

0 Replies

Moishe3rd,

Is the Prime Minister of Israel Ariel Sharon brainwashed too? He said it was occupation. He said it was illegal. He said he will end it.

You are engaging in fallacious argument ploys by merely trying to write off different opinions as blind ideology when yours is the closest to the position of ideologue herein.

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

Jim wrote:
There's something I've never understood.

The issue of Palestinian land seems to be one of the most important issues in world politics today. But why is it all of a sudden important today? Prior to the Six Day War in 1967, all of the Gaza and West Bank land belonged to either Egypt or Jordan. Why wasn't it important then?

IMO, it's simply due to the fact that Arafat has been, for years, a media whore, nothing more, nothing less. There are many other similar causes in the world that get no press whatsoever.

Sure, it's not like self-determination is a big deal or anything. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Itabib wrote:

The wall is built where it can bring the best security. Its only goal is to bring temporary security. It is not a border, it should not be.

You can claim it is not a border, but we have no single clue whether this fence will EVER go away. What I recall is that when a group of Orthodox colonists occupied the center of Hebron in 1967 (yes, I call it occupying), it was believed, also in Israel, that the settlers would soon be removed. 37 years later, and they are still there. So how can you be so sure this fence will only be temporary?

Itabib wrote:

The current inhibiters of the "after 1967 lands" have no long history on the land. They are refuges that settled the land in the last 100-200 years. We, as a nation, have a longer history on the land.

Can you imagine that there are a lot of Palestinians who believe that European Jews who have lived in Europe for ages do not have the right to claim land in the West Bank or in the Gaza Strip? What I find rather odd, is that you believe that these European Jews do have the right to claim the land, though at the same time you do not recognize the claim of a lot of Palestinians, who - as you point out yourself - have a history in this part of the world too. It is only partly true when you would say that ALL Jews who emigrated to Israel have always thought Israel to be their homeland; there are a lot of (assimilated) Jews, especially from Western Europe, who believed their country in Western Europe (Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Belgium, France etc.) was their HOMELAND, and not Israel, but eventually did emigrate to Israel forced by other reasons (fleeing from the Nazi's, believing after WW II that the best option to live among is fellow Jews and not "Gentiles"). Than it is also discussable to what extent you can call the Jews a nation, a nation which believes Israel is their homeland. What about the anti-Zionists, the assimilated Jews etc.?

Itabib wrote:

... (he had offer 95%-ish of the territorial demand, include concession in Jerusalem - but no actual concession in the "right of return" which is the demand for Pale's refuges to resettle Israeli's "Before 1967 land").

I am not a supporter of the claim of "right of return", not because I don't believe (certain) Palestinians have the right to claim that, but because I believe it will only cause more bloodshed, more problems, and because it will mean the end of the Jewish state, which I can understand is from the view of many (Jewish) Israelis the worst thing what can happen. But why not 100% instead of 95%? Imagine I occupy my neighbor's garden, and than propose I will give back 95%. Do you think they will understand that decision?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

cavfancier wrote:
Jim wrote:
There's something I've never understood.

The issue of Palestinian land seems to be one of the most important issues in world politics today. But why is it all of a sudden important today? Prior to the Six Day War in 1967, all of the Gaza and West Bank land belonged to either Egypt or Jordan. Why wasn't it important then?

IMO, it's simply due to the fact that Arafat has been, for years, a media whore, nothing more, nothing less. There are many other similar causes in the world that get no press whatsoever.

Sure, it's not like self-determination is a big deal or anything.

Craven - Did the Palestinians have self-determination when Gaza was occupied by Egypt, and the West Bank was occupied by Jordan?

0 Replies

Jim wrote:

Craven - Did the Palestinians have self-determination when Gaza was occupied by Egypt, and the West Bank was occupied by Jordan?

Much more so than they do today. It's an absurd comparison to make. Egypt and Jordan never made nearly the imposition on Palestinian self-determination that Israel has. It's really laughable to even try to compare it.

Furthermore self-determination is such that they get to choose whether it's a big deal. Not you. That's what it's all about. If they were satisfied with Egypt/Jordan and are not satisfied now with Israel then this is their prerogative.

You are a citizen of a nation that suddenly decided it was a big deal and this is a big part of the freedom-based ideology in America.

Regardless of the tired old Egypt/Jordan argument self-determination is sacred in America and what you forward simply doesn't in any way invalidate their self-determination.

Here's a simple question:

Do you have a problem with Palestinians realizing self-determination?

If so, then why?

If not, then the Egypt/Jordan was just a regurgitated partisan mantra with no bearing on the legitimacy of the Palestinian will for self-determination.

0 Replies

I don't have a problem with anyone having self-determination.

I just don't understand the double standard, that's all. Egypt and Jordan occupy Palestinian land. Yawn. Ho-hum. Israel occupies Palestinian land and you'd think the world is going to come to a fricking end.

OK Craven. Here's your big chance. The Iranians, Turks and Syrians occupy Kurdish land. Let's hear an equal world outcry about their lack of determination as we're hearing about the Palestinians.

The silence is deafening.

0 Replies

the reincarnation of suzy wrote:

I wish that you would read my links.

Well, maybe itabib doesn't want to comment...
From one of your links:

Quote:

These events reveal a stubborn political fact: that AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents, along with their powerful fellow travelers, Christian Zionists, have forged a bipartisan consensus in Washington that Middle East policy must privilege the "special relationship" between the United States and Israel. In practice, this solid consensus means putting Israeli security before peace; supporting even such extreme Israeli measures as the separation wall and assassinations; and delegitimizing the Palestinian leadership.

The whole piece is written in the same vein.
It is biased, inflammatory, and attempts to put what is accurate in a negative light.
The United States should have a special relationship with Israel. It is in our national interests to do so.

Israeli security has always been a condition of peace. As far back as the famous UN 242; the Camp David Accords; the Oslo Agreement; and the Road Map. All require that Israel be secure before peace.

The fence is the least extreme measure that any Middle Eastern country can take (or has taken) to keep murderers from carrying out their plans.

In light of the last point, deligitimizing Palestinian leadership, assassinating these terrorist leaders of the organizations that are murdering Israelis has been an extremely effective deterrent to these murders. That is the ultimate form of deligitimization.

The fact is, that those who would like to sue for peace with the Israelis by recognizing Israel; recognizing negotiation; recognizing that Israel is the current owner of the land that they would like as a state; etc. - these Palestinians are in turn "deligitimzed" by their own people.

0 Replies

Jim wrote:

I don't have a problem with anyone having self-determination.

I do, not every group should get self-determination all the time.

For example, Texas should not get self-determination.

Sao Paulo should not...

etc etc

Quote:

I just don't understand the double standard, that's all. Egypt and Jordan occupy Palestinian land. Yawn. Ho-hum. Israel occupies Palestinian land and you'd think the world is going to come to a fricking end.

This is a joke. Israel kills them, Israel destroys their homes, Israel creates roadblocks...

Yes Israel has their reasons for doing so, but if you think that kind of thing does not constitute a significant difference then we probably do not have much to discuss.

For there to be a "double standard" the situations need to be equitable.

They are not. Israel's occupation is nothing at all like the ambiguity of the past status.

Do you assert that there are no qualitative differences in the scenarios?

If you do see differences do you think they might be significant?

Quote:

OK Craven. Here's your big chance. The Iranians, Turks and Syrians occupy Kurdish land. Let's hear an equal world outcry about their lack of determination as we're hearing about the Palestinians.

The silence is deafening.

Jim this is bullshit. They do not "occupy Kurdish land". The Kurds want self-determination but have no current legal claim to any such independent enclave.

You'd do better to say that the US is occupying Indian land.

Again, if you are trying to make a case for a double standard the situations need to be equitable.

Do you see no differences between the scenarios?

I can provide some hints for you if you do not.

If you do, do you think said differences might be significant? And that the difference in the treatment of each situation might owe to those differences?

Why do you think the US position is that the Palestinians should get their state and not the Kurds? What reasons can you think of for this?

If you seriously draw up blanks then I can answer for you, but if you can see differences you will be on your way to answering your own question.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Jim wrote:

Craven - Did the Palestinians have self-determination when Gaza was occupied by Egypt, and the West Bank was occupied by Jordan?

Much more so than they do today. It's an absurd comparison to make. Egypt and Jordan never made nearly the imposition on Palestinian self-determination that Israel has. It's really laughable to even try to compare it.

Furthermore self-determination is such that they get to choose whether it's a big deal. Not you. That's what it's all about. If they were satisfied with Egypt/Jordan and are not satisfied now with Israel then this is their prerogative.

You are a citizen of a nation that suddenly decided it was a big deal and this is a big part of the freedom-based ideology in America.

Regardless of the tired old Egypt/Jordan argument self-determination is sacred in America and what you forward simply doesn't in any way invalidate their self-determination.

Here's a simple question:

Do you have a problem with Palestinians realizing self-determination?

If so, then why?

If not, then the Egypt/Jordan was just a regurgitated partisan mantra with no bearing on the legitimacy of the Palestinian will for self-determination.

And the ideologue repeats himself, repeats himself.
No, in the case of the Palestinians, Israel gets to determine "self-determination." (Jordan and Egypt and Syria too... Rolling Eyes

)
Go back and read 242; the Camp David Accords; the Oslo Agreement; the Wye River Memorandum; the Road Map; whatever....
Israel gets to negotiate with the residents of Gaza and the West Bank (if they had someone to negotiate with) and Jordan and Egypt, etc. on Palestinian "self-determination."
And the primary right of Israel in all of these documents is the right of being SECURE (as in not being murdered and attacked)
Fact.
Fact.

0 Replies

Moishe3rd,

You demonstrate reading incomprehension.

Self-determination is by definition what they, themselves, want. Israel has a degree of influence in determining the path to statehood but has considerably less influence in determining what they want, which is what self-determination ultimately represents.

Please try to be more careful with your reading. You missed my point entirely.

I'll spell it out for you in simple words:

I was telling Jim, that regardless of whether he thinks the status of the territories now are equitable to when Egypt and Jordan had authority that self-determination is the notion of them having their opinion on this, regardless of what he thinks. Just like the colonists had their opinion on self-determination regardless of what others may have thought best for them.

I went on to challenge the attempt to assert an equitable state between the scenarios.

I trust this clears up your confusion.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Moishe3rd,

You demonstrate reading incomprehension.

Self-determination is by definition what they, themselves, want. Israel has a degree of influence in determining the path to statehood but has considerably less influence in determining what they want, which is what self-determination ultimately represents.

Please try to be more careful with your reading. You missed my point entirely.

I'll spell it out for you in simple words:

I was telling Jim, that regardless of whether he thinks the status of the territories now are equitable to when Egypt and Jordan had authority that self-determination is the notion of them having their opinion on this, regardless of what he thinks. Just like the colonists had their opinion on self-determination regardless of what others may have thought best for them.

I went on to challenge the attempt to assert an equitable state between the scenarios.

I trust this clears up your confusion.

So sorry.
I was mistakenly under the impression that "self-determination" means "determination by one's self," or "Determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own political future without coercion from powers outside that region."

I didn't realize you were using the definition that:

Quote:

self-determination is the notion of them having their opinion on this

I will try to be more prescient in the future.
Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

The Jordan-Pale's relationship
Just search the web for the "Black September in Jordan 1970-1971".
Examples:
http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/bravo/blacksept1970.htm
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~samuel/september.html
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_jordan_expel_plo.php
http://www.multied.com/mideast/BlkSept.html
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/blksept.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2000/uk_confidential/1089694.stm

The problems in Jordan with the Pale's were right from the foundation of Jordan. (King Abdullah was killed by Pale's http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_kings.html#The%20Martyrdom%20of%20King%20Abdullah )

You can read about Jordan history in :
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/middle_east/jordan/history.htm
http://www.ukans.edu/history/VL/near_east/jordan.html
http://www.nationbynation.com/Jordan/History1.html

I used google, or you think that google s also non objective.

Self-determination to the Pale's was not granted in Jordan and the Pale's still an 80% minority in Hashemic Jordan.

0 Replies

The Egypt-Pale's relationship
In 1981, the Egyptian leader Sadat was murdered by in Islamic Jihad group (a well known Pale's group).
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/africa/egypt/history.htm
http://www.nationbynation.com/Egypt/History2.html
.
.
.

not a direct Pale's Self-determination issue, but still has it's root from the minority status of the Pale's in Egypt.

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

I will try to be more prescient in the future.

Thank you.

I will offer a helpful parable:

Polly is screaming rape while beset by Igor.

Jim says, "gee well Polly had sex with Ed and John before and I don't see why the sex now is such a scandal, this is a double standard."

Craven points out that the decision is really up to her, not Jim.

Moishe3rd interjects, "it's clearly not up to her. Look! Igor's firmly in control."

Get it yet?

I was telling Jim that ultimately self-determination is about the Palestinian's deciding and not Jim.

And you interject that Israel has the wheel. Yes, no kidding but that wasn't the point or the topic.

0 Replies

Re: The Jordan-Pale's relationship

ltabib wrote:

Self-determination to the Pale's was not granted in Jordan and the Pale's still an 80% minority in Hashemic Jordan.

That's nice, now is this supposed to be an argument against them getting self-determination now?

I hope not, as that would be the ole "a previous wrong makes this right" arguement.

I'll again provide a helpful parable picking up where the last one left off.

ltabib joins the scene and upon seeing Polly being raped by Igor attempts to allay concerns with; "Aww that's nothing new. Polly had already been raped in the past. And she didn't scream nearly as lound, this is a double standard."

0 Replies

What do want from Israel ?!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know