1
   

Carter blames Israel for Mideast conflict

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 03:19 pm
Jerusalem land seizures 'illegal'

Israel's attorney general has told the government to call an immediate halt to confiscating Palestinian property in East Jerusalem under a 1950 land law. Meni Mazuz said he was never consulted about the policy, which was secretly approved by the cabinet last summer.

He wrote to the finance minister saying the law could not be used for people absent from their property because of Israeli security measures.

The legislation entitles Israel to take Arab-owned land without compensation.

Palestinians say the cabinet decision was meant to allow the takeover of thousands of hectares of Palestinian-owned land around Jerusalem and cement Israel's control over the occupied eastern half of the city.

Hundreds of hectares have been seized in recent months, say lawyers for Palestinian landowners.


This decision is not legally defensible, that it cannot stand up to either Israeli or international law
Jacob Galanti
Justice Ministry spokesman

The United States has expressed concern about Israel's decision to apply the 1950 Absentee Property Law after it was brought to light last month.

A meeting between top Israeli envoy Dov Weisglass and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is thought to have discussed the issue on Monday.

Not defensible

Mr Mazuz ruled that reviving the long-dormant law was illegal, justice ministry spokesman Jacob Galanti told journalists.

"Mazuz gave his opinion to ministers that this decision is not legally defensible, that it cannot stand up to either Israeli or international law," he said.


Many of the Palestinian "absentees" affected by implementation of the 55-year-old law are cut off from their land by new structures like roads to Jewish settlements and Israel's separation barrier, which has been deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice.

The law was originally devised to expropriate property belonging to the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who fled their homes during the conflict that accompanied the creation of Israel in 1948.

Israel captured East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza from Jordan in the 1967 war.

It then expanded Jerusalem's municipal boundaries into the West Bank and annexed the enlarged eastern Jerusalem, a move not recognised internationally.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/4226497.stm
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 11:31 pm
Take over a little wasteland, and all hell breaks out. But blow up a bakery, and everything is cool.

To see if you are a liberal anti-semite, take the following test.

http://www.slate.com/id/2158962
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Feb, 2007 04:32 am
Arabs are Semites too. To suggest that one semite treat another semite well is not anti-semitism.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Feb, 2007 10:27 am
talk72000 wrote:
Arabs are Semites too. To suggest that one semite treat another semite well is not anti-semitism.



Try not to be too literal. The term refers to discrimination against Jews. See:

Main Entry: an·ti-Sem·i·tism
Pronunciation: "an-tE-'se-m&-"ti-z&m, "an-"tI-
Function: noun
: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group
- an·ti-Se·mit·ic /-s&-'mi-tik/ adjective
- an·ti-Sem·ite /-'se-"mIt/ noun

--Merriam-Webster
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Feb, 2007 02:48 pm
Function: noun
: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Feb, 2007 03:05 pm
Now with less recommendation.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Feb, 2007 07:04 am
Quote:
What 'Israel's right to exist' means to Palestinians

February 02, 2007 edition

Recognition would imply acceptance that they deserve to be treated as subhumans.
By John V. Whitbeck


JEDDAH, SAUDI ARABIA - Since the Palestinian elections in 2006, Israel and much of the West have asserted that the principal obstacle to any progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace is the refusal of Hamas to "recognize Israel," or to "recognize Israel's existence," or to "recognize Israel's right to exist."

These three verbal formulations have been used by Israel, the United States, and the European Union as a rationale for collective punishment of the Palestinian people. The phrases are also used by the media, politicians, and even diplomats interchangeably, as though they mean the same thing. They do not.

"Recognizing Israel" or any other state is a formal legal and diplomatic act by one state with respect to another state. It is inappropriate - indeed, nonsensical - to talk about a political party or movement extending diplomatic recognition to a state. To talk of Hamas "recognizing Israel" is simply to use sloppy, confusing, and deceptive shorthand for the real demand being made of the Palestinians.

"Recognizing Israel's existence" appears on first impression to involve a relatively straightforward acknowledgment of a fact of life. Yet there are serious practical problems with this language. What Israel, within what borders, is involved? Is it the 55 percent of historical Palestine recommended for a Jewish state by the UN General Assembly in 1947? The 78 percent of historical Palestine occupied by the Zionist movement in 1948 and now viewed by most of the world as "Israel" or "Israel proper"? The 100 percent of historical Palestine occupied by Israel since June 1967 and shown as "Israel" (without any "Green Line") on maps in Israeli schoolbooks?

Israel has never defined its own borders, since doing so would necessarily place limits on them. Still, if this were all that was being demanded of Hamas, it might be possible for the ruling political party to acknowledge, as a fact of life, that a state of Israel exists today within some specified borders. Indeed, Hamas leadership has effectively done so in recent weeks.

"Recognizing Israel's right to exist," the actual demand being made of Hamas and Palestinians, is in an entirely different league. This formulation does not address diplomatic formalities or a simple acceptance of present realities. It calls for a moral judgment.

There is an enormous difference between "recognizing Israel's existence" and "recognizing Israel's right to exist." From a Palestinian perspective, the difference is in the same league as the difference between asking a Jew to acknowledge that the Holocaust happened and asking him to concede that the Holocaust was morally justified. For Palestinians to acknowledge the occurrence of the Nakba -; the expulsion of the great majority of Palestinians from their homeland between 1947 and 1949 - is one thing. For them to publicly concede that it was "right" for the Nakba to have happened would be something else entirely. For the Jewish and Palestinian peoples, the Holocaust and the Nakba, respectively, represent catastrophes and injustices on an unimaginable scale that can neither be forgotten nor forgiven.

To demand that Palestinians recognize "Israel's right to exist" is to demand that a people who have been treated as subhumans unworthy of basic human rights publicly proclaim that they are subhumans. It would imply Palestinians' acceptance that they deserve what has been done and continues to be done to them. Even 19th-century US governments did not require the surviving native Americans to publicly proclaim the "rightness" of their ethnic cleansing by European colonists as a condition precedent to even discussing what sort of land reservation they might receive. Nor did native Americans have to live under economic blockade and threat of starvation until they shed whatever pride they had left and conceded the point.

Some believe that Yasser Arafat did concede the point in order to buy his ticket out of the wilderness of demonization and earn the right to be lectured directly by the Americans. But in fact, in his famous 1988 statement in Stockholm, he accepted "Israel's right to exist in peace and security." This language, significantly, addresses the conditions of existence of a state which, as a matter of fact, exists. It does not address the existential question of the "rightness" of the dispossession and dispersal of the Palestinian people from their homeland to make way for another people coming from abroad.

The original conception of the phrase "Israel's right to exist" and of its use as an excuse for not talking with any Palestinian leaders who still stood up for the rights of their people are attributed to former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. It is highly likely that those countries that still employ this phrase do so in full awareness of what it entails, morally and psychologically, for the Palestinian people.

However, many people of goodwill and decent values may well be taken in by the surface simplicity of the words, "Israel's right to exist," and believe that they constitute a reasonable demand. And if the "right to exist" is reasonable, then refusing to accept it must represent perversity, rather than Palestinians' deeply felt need to cling to their self-respect and dignity as full-fledged human beings. That this need is deeply felt is evidenced by polls showing that the percentage of the Palestinian population that approves of Hamas's refusal to bow to this demand substantially exceeds the percentage that voted for Hamas in January 2006.

Those who recognize the critical importance of Israeli-Palestinian peace and truly seek a decent future for both peoples must recognize that the demand that Hamas recognize "Israel's right to exist" is unreasonable, immoral, and impossible to meet. Then, they must insist that this roadblock to peace be removed, the economic siege of the Palestinian territories be lifted, and the pursuit of peace with some measure of justice be resumed with the urgency it deserves.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0202/p09s02-coop.html


This is a fantastic article which raises some interesting points.

How the heck can Palestinian's recognize a borderless Israel?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Feb, 2007 09:11 am
Zip says: "This is a fantastic article which raises some interesting points.
How the heck can Palestinian's recognize a borderless Israel?" The article comes from Saudi Arabia, that paragon of human rights.

The Pals can recognize Israel's right to exist, and sit down with Israel and establish firm borders. Israel is more than merely amendable to this.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Feb, 2007 07:59 pm
"Who speaks for Jews in Britain?" We will not accept the vilification of those who protest at injustices carried out in the name of the Jewish people.
Brian Klug

If there is one thing on which Jews can agree, it is this: it's good to argue. Jewish culture has thrived on argument - frank, sincere disagreement - ever since Moses disputed with God. But today an oppressive and unhealthy atmosphere is leading many Jews to feel uncertain about speaking out on Israel and Zionism. People are anxious about contravening an unwritten law on what you can and cannot discuss, may or may not assert.

It is a climate that raises fundamental questions: about freedom of expression, Jewish identity, representation, and the part that concerned Jews in Britain can play in assisting Israelis and Palestinians to find their way to a better future.

As the situation in the Middle East deteriorates yearly, more and more Jews watch with dismay from afar. Dismay turns to anguish when innocent civilians - Palestinians and Israelis - suffer injury and death because of the continuing conflict. Anguish turns to outrage when the human rights of a population under occupation are repeatedly violated in the name of the Jewish people.

No one has the authority to speak for the Jewish people. Yet during Israel's war with Lebanon last summer, Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, told an American audience: "I believe that this is a war that is fought by all the Jews." His belief is not based on evidence: it is an article of faith, a corollary of the doctrine that Israel represents Jewry as a whole - in Britain included.

This is a fallacy; and, moreover, a dangerous one, since it tars all Jews with the same brush. Yet this misconception is reinforced here by those who, claiming to speak for British Jews collectively or allowing that impression to go unchallenged, only ever reflect one position on the Middle East. On its own account, the Board of Deputies of British Jews (which calls itself "the voice of British Jewry") devotes much of the time and resources of its international division to "the defence of Israel". When a "solidarity rally" was held in London last July in the midst of the conflict with Lebanon, it was the board that organised it.

All of which suggests that British Jewry, speaking with one voice, stands solidly behind the Israeli government and its military operations.

Two things are wrong with this suggestion. First, it's false. Jews were deeply divided over Israel's campaigns in Gaza and Lebanon last year. Certainly, there were those who shared the sentiment of the chief rabbi, Sir Jonathan Sacks, who, addressing the rally, said: "Israel, you make us proud." Others felt roughly the opposite emotion.

Second, the board has no business taking a partisan position on the Middle East. Let groups such as the Zionist Federation or perhaps the Israeli embassy organise solidarity rallies. The role of the board is to promote the welfare of British Jews in all their variety, not to defend Israel. Similarly, the chief rabbi is entitled, ex officio, to bring a religious perspective to political matters, but it is not his role to act as political spokesman for his flock.

Faced with this state of affairs, a group of Jews in Britain has come together to launch Independent Jewish Voices (IJV). We come from a variety of backgrounds..... http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_klug/2007/02/hold_jewish_voices.html
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Feb, 2007 08:40 pm
Interesting exchange between Chomski and Dershowitz HERE.

It's rather long, but Chomski confirms the land-grab by the Jews that creates isolated villages within the West Bank; actions sure to create disharmony and negative actions from those imprisoned by walls and military force. Exclamation
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 12:39 pm
Half of Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza malnourished link
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 12:55 pm
blueflame, I'm only surprised at the simple fact that it's only now being revealed in the media. It's also their inability to find jobs, get utilities, get water, and fund their schools for the children.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 12:58 pm
cicerone, in Lebanon Israel did not fare so well against a rag tag but not malnourished army.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2007 01:19 pm
From the NY Times:

March 12, 2007
In Reversal, Israel Praises Saudi Peace Proposal
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 12:04 pm
I'll toss this here for lack of a better location... from Haaretz.

Quote:
Here's to the '67 borders, the new middle of the road

By Bradley Burston

There was a time, not long past, that the mere mention of the 1967 borders was seen by many in the Jewish community as an expression of disloyalty, of sacrilege, of foolhardy risk, almost of profanity.

Gradually, remarkably, there are signs that the route of the middle of the road has shifted. That we've come a long, long way. At this point, for many on the Israeli side and, in fact, on the Palestinian side as well, the middle of the road passes very, very close to the Green Line, the post-1948 war, pre-1967 war boundary between the West Bank and Israel.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/940221.html
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 03:54 pm
Interesting, but in conflict with the latest news on Omert approving expanding the settlements on the West Bank.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/11/2021 at 12:43:48