snopes.com Post new topic  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » SLC Central » War, What Is It Good For? » Jimmy Carter's "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Jimmy Carter's "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid."
NancyFancyPants
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for NancyFancyPants     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Steve, et al: I've found this to be a very complete history of the conflict: Big Lies: Demolishing the Myths of the Propaganda War Against Israel.

It's repulsive that the violence on both sides has gone on for so long, and I truly believe that Israel needs to be the example here. The "tit for tat" approach isn't working. Sure, it disgusts me every time there is a suicide bombing - of course it does! But responding with more violence is getting Israel nowhere. I'm not saying that Israel has no right to defend herself; I think she had every right to do so this summer and in the previous wars. I'm only saying that I think responding to the random, single acts of violence with more violence isn't exactly helping Israel's cause.

--------------------
And on the 7th day, God said, "Let there be lips!"

Posts: 296 | From: Munhall, PA | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Steve Eisenberg
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Eisenberg   E-mail Steve Eisenberg   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NancyFancyPants:
I'm only saying that I think responding to the random, single acts of violence with more violence isn't exactly helping Israel's cause.

First of all, I appreciate that you are (hope I am not being presumptive) basically on my side here. Despite criticism you get here, your balanced approach is probably better PR for Israel than is mine.

Second, you are right that Israel responding to "random, single acts of violence" does not help its cause outside the region, such as on this board. Just about any response to acts of war will hurt Israel's image abroad, even mild and proven self-defense measures such as limiting movements between West Bank cities known to harbor suicidal Palestinian soldiers. However, consistently responding to repeated acts, such as daily shelling from Gaza (see Woman Killed in Sderot was Muslim) or Lebanon (no more shelling of Kiryat Shemonah due to the summer war), does, at a terrible cost, help Israel's cause in terms of convincing enemies not to attack. Trying to get approval from Europeans for not responding to military attack would demoralize Israel and embolden its enemies.

--------------------
"Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?"
Julius Lester

Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
NancyFancyPants
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for NancyFancyPants     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Steve, yes, I'm on your side. I have no problem with, for instance, a response to the rockets fired at the North this summer. I only have a problem with things such as, "Well, one of 'your' suicide bombers blew up a busload of Israelis, so we Israelis are going to blow up a house in Gaza." I may not be very good at putting it into words, but I'm pretty sure you know what I mean.

What really blazes me is when people are very hardline about "giving the land back" to the Palestinians. It hasn't been theirs in a very long time. It was given to the Israelis in '47 by the rightful owners. If we use the mentality that the land must go back to the Palestinians, then it would only be right for the whole world to go back to its original borders. So...where does that leave me? Do I go live in Ireland? Poland? the former Yugoslavia? If the latter, then exactly where? Do I need to do some serious genealogy to figure out where? What about all the other "mixed breed" people in the world? And if we do "give it back," then it really isn't "Palestine" anyway. But what is it - Philistia? Judea? Samaria? Canaan? Do we trace everyone's lineage back to the Ghassulians? Or even before that?

I'm sure I'll get attacked for all this, but whatever. Just one girl's opinion...

--------------------
And on the 7th day, God said, "Let there be lips!"

Posts: 296 | From: Munhall, PA | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Steve
Happy Holly Days


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Eisenberg:
First of all, I appreciate that you are (hope I am not being presumptive) basically on my side here. Despite criticism you get here, your balanced approach is probably better PR for Israel than is mine.

I'm curious what you mean balanced here. That is, do you consider that Front Page Magazine article linked to above to be a balanced view?
Posts: 1699 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NancyFancyPants:
Steve, yes, I'm on your side. I have no problem with, for instance, a response to the rockets fired at the North this summer. I only have a problem with things such as, "Well, one of 'your' suicide bombers blew up a busload of Israelis, so we Israelis are going to blow up a house in Gaza." I may not be very good at putting it into words, but I'm pretty sure you know what I mean.

Very realistic and sensible. Someone once said that a random reprisal is indistinguishable from a random attack.

In the massive wars of the past, this made a little more sense: the Allies were at war with *all* of Germany and Japan. There were a few completely uninvolved civilians...but not many. But today's smaller wars leave a lot more people only peripherally involved; many of them are actually opposed to what is being done in their name!

Fire-bombing Tokyo or Dresden was not a "good thing" by any means, but razing neighborhoods in Gaza City because a rocket was fired from within it, while perhaps "legal" under the arcane rules of war, is counter-productive. It sows hatred, which will be reaped later in full measure.

I am extremely reluctant to mention this, but...what about a system of hostages? Hamas and Hezbollah already practice it; why shouldn't Israel? For every death in a suicide bombing, a hostage would be executed.

The advantage are that the persons involved *are* enemy combatants, and that the action is a *direct* response to an attack.

The disadvantages are that it also sows hatred, creates martyrs...and is illegal and immoral.

(But...war is immoral, isn't it?)

Silas

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Dara bhur gCara
As Shepherds Watched Their Flocks Buy Now Pay Later


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dara bhur gCara     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Speaking frankly about Israel and Palestine, by Jimmy Carter.

quote:
I SIGNED A CONTRACT with Simon & Schuster two years ago to write a book about the Middle East, based on my personal observations as the Carter Center monitored three elections in Palestine and on my consultations with Israeli political leaders and peace activists.

We covered every Palestinian community in 1996, 2005 and 2006, when Yasser Arafat and later Mahmoud Abbas were elected president and members of parliament were chosen. The elections were almost flawless, and turnout was very high — except in East Jerusalem, where, under severe Israeli restraints, only about 2% of registered voters managed to cast ballots.

The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations — but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.

It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would ever deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or even Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents. What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.

With some degree of reluctance and some uncertainty about the reception my book would receive, I used maps, text and documents to describe the situation accurately and to analyze the only possible path to peace: Israelis and Palestinians living side by side within their own internationally recognized boundaries. These options are consistent with key U.N. resolutions supported by the U.S. and Israel, official American policy since 1967, agreements consummated by Israeli leaders and their governments in 1978 and 1993 (for which they earned Nobel Peace Prizes), the Arab League's offer to recognize Israel in 2002 and the International Quartet's "Roadmap for Peace," which has been accepted by the PLO and largely rejected by Israel.



--------------------
This wrinkle in time, I can't give it no credit, I thought about my space and it really got me down.
Got me so down, I got me a headache, My heart is crammed in my cranium and it still knows how to pound


Posts: 2794 | From: London, UK | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Troberg
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Troberg     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I am extremely reluctant to mention this, but...what about a system of hostages? Hamas and Hezbollah already practice it; why shouldn't Israel? For every death in a suicide bombing, a hostage would be executed.
In a way, they already do. They hold thousands of Palestinian civilians prisoners, and deaths are not uncommon.

--------------------
/Troberg

Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
NancyFancyPants
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for NancyFancyPants     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
They're not being held prisoner; they've imprisoned themselves. So childish...kind of like, "We can hold our breath longer than you can!"

And you still didn't answer my question.

--------------------
And on the 7th day, God said, "Let there be lips!"

Posts: 296 | From: Munhall, PA | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 02 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NancyFancyPants:
They're not being held prisoner; they've imprisoned themselves. So childish...kind of like, "We can hold our breath longer than you can!"


Uh, where can they go, in reality?

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Troberg
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Troberg     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
They're not being held prisoner; they've imprisoned themselves.
They are held in prisons, they are not allowed to leave, they are not allowed visits and they damn sure did not go into those prisons willingly. I don't see your point.

quote:
And you still didn't answer my question.
I didn't think it merited any answer.

Basically, I don't consider the colonial era rulers that legitimate. The rule should always be based on the people who live on the land, not some foreign occupation regime. To me, that's basic democracy.

--------------------
/Troberg

Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Dara bhur gCara
As Shepherds Watched Their Flocks Buy Now Pay Later


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dara bhur gCara     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NancyFancyPants:
They're not being held prisoner; they've imprisoned themselves. So childish...kind of like, "We can hold our breath longer than you can!"

And you still didn't answer my question.

Sorry, what are you talking about? There are over 10,000 Palestinians currently in Israeli custody, of which 855 are in administrative detention, and 377 are currently in indefinite custody under interrogation orders, that is to say they have been detained without little or no due process. Of the remainder, while it is beyond doubt that some of them are militants/terrorists/whatever, grave doubts exist about the safety of their prosecutions. I don't think these people are free to go any time they choose, nor are they holding their breath.

I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make here, exactly. Perhaps you're thinking of the 30 or so Palestinian electors, who are essentially being held to ransom by Israel, who have offered to release them if various conditions are met? I suppose they might be construed to have some control over their destiny, but it would be a very tenuous link indeed.

There is currently one Israeli in Palestinian custody, which is of course to be deplored, and one hopes that he is safe and well, and will be released soon.

--------------------
This wrinkle in time, I can't give it no credit, I thought about my space and it really got me down.
Got me so down, I got me a headache, My heart is crammed in my cranium and it still knows how to pound


Posts: 2794 | From: London, UK | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Dara bhur gCara
As Shepherds Watched Their Flocks Buy Now Pay Later


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dara bhur gCara     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Troberg:

quote:
And you still didn't answer my question.
I didn't think it merited any answer.

Basically, I don't consider the colonial era rulers that legitimate. The rule should always be based on the people who live on the land, not some foreign occupation regime. To me, that's basic democracy.

But doesn't that now mean that the existence of Israel is legitimate, since they now live on the land? Or is that different, somehow?

It's certainly my argument for the legitimacy of the existence of Israel; that it exists and all.

--------------------
This wrinkle in time, I can't give it no credit, I thought about my space and it really got me down.
Got me so down, I got me a headache, My heart is crammed in my cranium and it still knows how to pound


Posts: 2794 | From: London, UK | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
NancyFancyPants
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for NancyFancyPants     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Ditto. There were plenty more than just Palestinians living there in 1947. If that were true, I guess a large portion of the US should now belong to Mexico.

--------------------
And on the 7th day, God said, "Let there be lips!"

Posts: 296 | From: Munhall, PA | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
NancyFancyPants
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for NancyFancyPants     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dara bhur gCara:
Sorry, what are you talking about? There are over 10,000 Palestinians currently in Israeli custody, of which 855 are in administrative detention, and 377 are currently in indefinite custody under interrogation orders, that is to say they have been detained without little or no due process. Of the remainder, while it is beyond doubt that some of them are militants/terrorists/whatever, grave doubts exist about the safety of their prosecutions. I don't think these people are free to go any time they choose, nor are they holding their breath.

I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make here, exactly. Perhaps you're thinking of the 30 or so Palestinian electors, who are essentially being held to ransom by Israel, who have offered to release them if various conditions are met? I suppose they might be construed to have some control over their destiny, but it would be a very tenuous link indeed.

There is currently one Israeli in Palestinian custody, which is of course to be deplored, and one hopes that he is safe and well, and will be released soon.

I was under the assumption that he was referring to the citizens of Israel who call themselves Palestinians, not those in Negev Prison.

--------------------
And on the 7th day, God said, "Let there be lips!"

Posts: 296 | From: Munhall, PA | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Dara bhur gCara
As Shepherds Watched Their Flocks Buy Now Pay Later


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dara bhur gCara     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NancyFancyPants:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dara bhur gCara:
[qb]I was under the assumption that he was referring to the citizens of Israel who call themselves Palestinians, not those in Negev Prison.

Do you mean Palestinians in, for example, East Jerusalem who have refused to adopt Israeli citizenship because it would be de facto recognition of Israel's sovereignty over East Jerusalem? Because I think referring to them as being 'childish' and 'holding their breath' is somewhat unfair. You know, what with Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem being generally deemed in violation of international law and everything.

No country, not even the United States, has acknowledged East Jerusalem as being part of Israel.

If that's not what you mean, then I'm still at something of a loss. I think you need to be a little clearer.

--------------------
This wrinkle in time, I can't give it no credit, I thought about my space and it really got me down.
Got me so down, I got me a headache, My heart is crammed in my cranium and it still knows how to pound


Posts: 2794 | From: London, UK | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dara bhur gCara:
There is currently one Israeli in Palestinian custody, which is of course to be deplored, and one hopes that he is safe and well, and will be released soon.

One? I thought that several Israeli soldiers had been captured, just within the last year.

Silas

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Dara bhur gCara
As Shepherds Watched Their Flocks Buy Now Pay Later


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dara bhur gCara     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer:
quote:
Originally posted by Dara bhur gCara:
There is currently one Israeli in Palestinian custody, which is of course to be deplored, and one hopes that he is safe and well, and will be released soon.

One? I thought that several Israeli soldiers had been captured, just within the last year.

Silas

No, Cpl Ghilad Shalit is the only Israeli in Palestinian custody.

(I can only presume you're thinking of the two Israeli soldiers taken prisoner by Hizballah, which sparked the Israel-Lebanon war in the summer. They are still being held prisoner, but Hizballah are by no stretch of the imagination a Palestinian organisation.)

--------------------
This wrinkle in time, I can't give it no credit, I thought about my space and it really got me down.
Got me so down, I got me a headache, My heart is crammed in my cranium and it still knows how to pound


Posts: 2794 | From: London, UK | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
NancyFancyPants
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for NancyFancyPants     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dara bhur gCara:
quote:
Originally posted by NancyFancyPants:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dara bhur gCara:
[qb]I was under the assumption that he was referring to the citizens of Israel who call themselves Palestinians, not those in Negev Prison.

Do you mean Palestinians in, for example, East Jerusalem who have refused to adopt Israeli citizenship because it would be de facto recognition of Israel's sovereignty over East Jerusalem? Because I think referring to them as being 'childish' and 'holding their breath' is somewhat unfair. You know, what with Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem being generally deemed in violation of international law and everything.

No country, not even the United States, has acknowledged East Jerusalem as being part of Israel.

If that's not what you mean, then I'm still at something of a loss. I think you need to be a little clearer.

How's this for clear? Refusal of citizenship is not a good reason to call yourself a prisoner. And it's not Israel's fault that the Arab countries refuse to give these folks citizenship, only "refugee status." Gimme a break. It never ceases to amaze me into how many small bits people in here will pick apart a post. And I strongly believe that the reason for that is that no of you is prepared to listen to any position but your own.

The issue I commented on originally was not political prisoners, or refusal of citizenship. The issue was ownership. It's Israel, not Palestine. It became Israel when the owners gave it to the Israelis. No amount of the other two can change that.

--------------------
And on the 7th day, God said, "Let there be lips!"

Posts: 296 | From: Munhall, PA | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Archie2K
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Archie2K   Author's Homepage   E-mail Archie2K   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Eisenberg:
quote:

The establishment of buffer zones of settlements on the West Bank primarily has only strengthened the Palestinian cause and helped create a forty years and counting conflict.


Forty years? You may want to read more about this conflict. For example, as a percentage of Israel's population, the hundreds killed in 1950's attacks on Israeli civilians seem to me greater than those killed in the infitadahs.

The world would be a wonderful place if turning the other cheek to those trying to kill you usually worked. Every conflict is different, to be sure.

Following the Six Day War, David Ben Gurion said that Israel should only keep Jerusalem and hand everything back to the Palestinians. Fourty years later, the same deal is essentially supported by most moderates; A Palestinian state in the territories free from Israeli control, in exchange for a genuine peace agreement. 400,000 settlers on the West Bank and 750,000 Palestinian refugees have made this harder however.

I can totally understand Israel's retaliations. I can't imagine what it would be like to have the people of West Reading firing rockets at us, not caring what they hit. I'd totally want to retaliate too. One TV program I saw followed the lives of two teens from Tel Aviv and Ramallah. They both essentially said, "I understand why they hate us. I'd hate us too if I were them." I'm trying to think of an uprising that has successfully been put down by military force alone and am drawing a blank. I don't believe that the Palestinians will ever stop trying to regain their land.

--------------------
Vox populi vox canem

Posts: 1985 | From: Reading, England | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NancyFancyPants:
And I strongly believe that the reason for that is that no of you is prepared to listen to any position but your own.


Of course not, dear.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Archie2K
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Archie2K   Author's Homepage   E-mail Archie2K   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
That is of course because I am right and eventually you will all come to realise that.

--------------------
Vox populi vox canem

Posts: 1985 | From: Reading, England | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Lainie
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lainie   E-mail Lainie   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NancyFancyPants:
Gimme a break. It never ceases to amaze me into how many small bits people in here will pick apart a post.

I don't understand why that bothers you. I'm not being snarky, I really don't understand it: If you make, say, seven points in the course of one post, why shouldn't people respond to one or more of those points individually? There's no rule against it on this board; in fact, the rules encourage quoting only enough of a post to make one's point. Can you explain why you object to the practice?

quote:
And I strongly believe that the reason for that is that no of you is prepared to listen to any position but your own.

[Confused] If were weren't prepared to listen to any other position, why would we be here, cutting up your posts and asking you questions?

quote:
The issue I commented on originally was not political prisoners, or refusal of citizenship. The issue was ownership. It's Israel, not Palestine. It became Israel when the owners gave it to the Israelis. No amount of the other two can change that.
Troberg specifically used the word "prisoner," and you for some reason assumed he was not speaking about people in prison. I think that's where the confusion came in.

--------------------
How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black

Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Dara bhur gCara
As Shepherds Watched Their Flocks Buy Now Pay Later


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dara bhur gCara     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NancyFancyPants:
quote:
Originally posted by Dara bhur gCara:
quote:
Originally posted by NancyFancyPants:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dara bhur gCara:
[qb]I was under the assumption that he was referring to the citizens of Israel who call themselves Palestinians, not those in Negev Prison.

Do you mean Palestinians in, for example, East Jerusalem who have refused to adopt Israeli citizenship because it would be de facto recognition of Israel's sovereignty over East Jerusalem? Because I think referring to them as being 'childish' and 'holding their breath' is somewhat unfair. You know, what with Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem being generally deemed in violation of international law and everything.

No country, not even the United States, has acknowledged East Jerusalem as being part of Israel.

If that's not what you mean, then I'm still at something of a loss. I think you need to be a little clearer.

How's this for clear? Refusal of citizenship is not a good reason to call yourself a prisoner.


Who is saying that it is? I'm certainly not. Troberg isn't even, though he might now you've put the thought in his head. But I'm not saying that refusing the citizenship of the country that's forcibly invaded your homeland is "childish," either, for very good reason. I'm from Northern Ireland, which is legally part of the United Kingdom, and with the exception of one year as a post-grad in Dublin, have lived my entire life in various parts of the United Kingdom. However, I don't have a UK passport, nor would I have one, because my national identity is Irish, not British. That may seem childish to you, but perhaps issues of national identity, particularly in annexed territory under military occupation, are more complex than you realise.

quote:
And it's not Israel's fault that the Arab countries refuse to give these folks citizenship, only "refugee status."


No, you're right. On the other hand, if we are still talking about East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, it is Israel's fault that they've annexed their homes.

quote:
Gimme a break. It never ceases to amaze me into how many small bits people in here will pick apart a post.


Well, since you did misconstrue the argument being made, and didn't really clarify what you were talking about, you can hardly blame them, eh?

quote:
And I strongly believe that the reason for that is that no of you is prepared to listen to any position but your own.


Do you include yourself in that? Because you don't appear to be listening to anyone else's position, either.

quote:
The issue I commented on originally was not political prisoners, or refusal of citizenship. The issue was ownership. It's Israel, not Palestine.


But you have commented on political prisoners, albeit mistakenly, while thinking you were commenting on refusal of citizenship, so it seems somewhat disingenuous to argue that you're not talking about either of those things.

quote:
It became Israel when the owners gave it to the Israelis. No amount of the other two can change that.
So you favour an immediate return to the borders decided by the 1947 partition plan, and accepted by David Ben-Gurion? Since that was the limit of the territory given to the Israelis, and all.

For the record, I am not arguing that Israel shouldn't have a right to exist; indeed, I've been quite a vehement advocate of this on this board in the past. Troberg is, admittedly, but then that's very much his thing, and no amount of reasoning seems to work.

However, recognising and defending Israel's right to exist is not a blank cheque for Israel to do anything it likes. Former President Carter argues, and I agree, that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are being subjected to abominable human rights abuses, suffer a shocking democratic deficit, and that the actions of the IDF and Israeli government are perpetuating and exacerbating the current conflict.

--------------------
This wrinkle in time, I can't give it no credit, I thought about my space and it really got me down.
Got me so down, I got me a headache, My heart is crammed in my cranium and it still knows how to pound


Posts: 2794 | From: London, UK | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dara bhur gCara:
No, you're right. On the other hand, if we are still talking about East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, it is Israel's fault that they've annexed their homes.

Well, the Israelis weren't *totally* responsible for starting the Six-Day War.

As I said earlier: if the land is viewed as a "military buffer zone," then the occupation has some legitimacy, as Israel does have military enemies in the region. A "forward military defense" is entirely legal.

Colonization and civilian settlement, on the other hand, might not be, and, whether legal or not, is a big part of the problem.

Silas

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Dara bhur gCara
As Shepherds Watched Their Flocks Buy Now Pay Later


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dara bhur gCara     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer:
quote:
Originally posted by Dara bhur gCara:
No, you're right. On the other hand, if we are still talking about East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, it is Israel's fault that they've annexed their homes.

Well, the Israelis weren't *totally* responsible for starting the Six-Day War.


Of course not, but one can only blame the seizure of territory on the nation seizing the territory. While Israel were not wholly responsible for the Six-Day War (though they did launch a pre-emptive attack, war was probably inevitable from when Egypt expelled the UN observers from Sinai,) nobody forced them to seize any of these territories.

quote:
As I said earlier: if the land is viewed as a "military buffer zone," then the occupation has some legitimacy, as Israel does have military enemies in the region. A "forward military defense" is entirely legal.


Well, it should be recognised that both Egypt (which presumably the Gaza strip is to be a buffer against) and Jordan (which presumably the West Bank is to be a buffer against) recognise Israel and have signed peace treaties with Israel, so the need for military buffer zones against these two nations is not immediately apparent.

Israel does have enemies in the region, but not really those nations any longer.

--------------------
This wrinkle in time, I can't give it no credit, I thought about my space and it really got me down.
Got me so down, I got me a headache, My heart is crammed in my cranium and it still knows how to pound


Posts: 2794 | From: London, UK | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Steve Eisenberg
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Eisenberg   E-mail Steve Eisenberg   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Troberg:
They are held in prisons, they are not allowed to leave, they are not allowed visits and they damn sure did not go into those prisons willingly.

According to the human rights watch group B'Tselem, a third of Palestinian security prisoners in Israel are denied visits from loved ones. In other words, two-thirds of them are allowed visits by relatives who are, as I see it anyway, enemy nationals.

One reasonable point of comparison would be to ask what portion of Pakistani security prisoners in Indian prisons get such visits. The situations are really rather similar, with India founded the year before Israel, and both new nations facing partition followed by almost continuous low level irredentist warfare, largely coming out of the Muslim partition. So -- what percentage of Pakistani security prisoners in India do get visits from loved ones? Does anyone know? Does anyone (except for those immediately involved) care?

Maybe Amnesty International will soon come out with a report on visitation (and other) condition in Indian security prisons, but I can't find one at present. Certainly there are human rights groups active in India, as in Israel. What there don't seem to be, however, are people on this board who would judge India by the impossible choices it has to continuously make in responding to militant activity.

--------------------
"Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?"
Julius Lester

Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Steve Eisenberg
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Eisenberg   E-mail Steve Eisenberg   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dara bhur gCara, quoting Jimmy Carter:
the Arab League's offer to recognize Israel in 2002 . . .

Carter seems to be seeing what he wants to see rather than what is. From the New York Times abstract of the Saudi proposal accepted by about half of the Arab League members:

quote:
Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia proposes to Arabs that they pledge as one to accept Israel as their neighbor if it meets three demands: withdrawal from all occupied territories, creation of Palestinian state, with capital in Jerusalem, and return of Palestinian refugees . . .
The Palestinian diaspora comes to Israel, votes in whatever government it desires, and is forced to call it Israel.

I have no idea if Israel would really trade a Jew-free West Bank, and Jew-free Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, for a promise that Israel, as constituted in 1966, would be a permanent state. But the Saudi/Arab League plan hardly put Israel to such a test.

--------------------
"Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?"
Julius Lester

Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Eisenberg:
quote:
Originally posted by Dara bhur gCara, quoting Jimmy Carter:
the Arab League's offer to recognize Israel in 2002 . . .

Carter seems to be seeing what he wants to see rather than what is.

Ya know, I think I'm going to take Carter's word on this. He has, after all, been working on this thing since the time I was in grammar school.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Steve Eisenberg
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Eisenberg   E-mail Steve Eisenberg   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Eisenberg:
quote:
Originally posted by Dara bhur gCara, quoting Jimmy Carter:
the Arab League's offer to recognize Israel in 2002 . . .

Carter seems to be seeing what he wants to see rather than what is.

Ya know, I think I'm going to take Carter's word on this. He has, after all, been working on this thing since the time I was in grammar school.

The expert I cited, New York Times correspondent Neil MacFarquhar, speaks English and Arabic. Jimmy Carter speaks English and . . . Spanish.

--------------------
"Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?"
Julius Lester

Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I am not entirely sure what that has to do anything, but bully for Mr. MacFarquhar.

How does that make him more of an expert on the Israel/Palestine problem than Jimmy Carter, exactly?

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Steve
Happy Holly Days


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Eisenberg:
quote:
Originally posted by AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Eisenberg:
quote:
Originally posted by Dara bhur gCara, quoting Jimmy Carter:
the Arab League's offer to recognize Israel in 2002 . . .

Carter seems to be seeing what he wants to see rather than what is.

Ya know, I think I'm going to take Carter's word on this. He has, after all, been working on this thing since the time I was in grammar school.

The expert I cited, New York Times correspondent Neil MacFarquhar, speaks English and Arabic. Jimmy Carter speaks English and . . . Spanish.
I'll admit I don't know what bilingualism has to do with this, but I'm not sure if Neil MacFarquhar's take on the Saudi's offer is correct. Here's an English translation of the proposal:

http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Beirut+Declaration+on+Saudi+Peace+Initiative+-+28-.htm

"II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194."

And here's the resolution in question: http://www.mideastweb.org/194.htm

" 11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible"

When a 2002 document quotes this from 1948, does it mean that Israel has to allow in the current refugees or just those alive in 1948? I honestly don't know. Admittedly, maybe MacFarquhar meant the 1948 refugees in the part you quoted above. Is there some international law which states that Middle East peace settlements can't be written so that I can understand them?

Posts: 1699 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Freshman
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Freshman   Author's Homepage   E-mail Freshman   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Hang on, why did Israel supported the formation of Hamas exactly? I don't necessairly hold this view, but I heard it from a man who heard it from Noam Chomsky, so I dunno.

As for the Taliban thing, do you mean about the whole CIA helped Afghanistan fight the soviets and then left weapons there or something? Sorry, I'm rather tired

--------------------
"High-Five!" - Borat

Posts: 1056 | From: Racine, WI | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Steve
Happy Holly Days


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Wikipedia says "According to UPI, Israel supported Hamas starting in the late 1970s as a "counterbalance to the Palestine Liberation Organization".[50]" For some reason my computer won't open that citation, so I have no idea if this is true. But that's wikipedia's take on it.

And yes, the CIA helped the mujahideen and then forgot to collect their weapons. I'm pretty sure that's what Dara meant (though he did have the good taste to not mention the forgotten weapons).

Posts: 1699 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Troberg
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Troberg     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
But doesn't that now mean that the existence of Israel is legitimate, since they now live on the land? Or is that different, somehow?
You could probably guess my answer to this one:

It falls back to considering the israelis as being part of the colonial era rulers and foreign occupation regime refered to in:

"Basically, I don't consider the colonial era rulers that legitimate. The rule should always be based on the people who live on the land, not some foreign occupation regime."

quote:
Hang on, why did Israel supported the formation of Hamas exactly?
My guess is that they wanted to create inner strife to split Palestinians, much like they did when they supported both sides of the Iran-Iraq war in an effort to prolong the war and weaken both sides.

--------------------
/Troberg

Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
NancyFancyPants
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for NancyFancyPants     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Troberg:
quote:
But doesn't that now mean that the existence of Israel is legitimate, since they now live on the land? Or is that different, somehow?
You could probably guess my answer to this one:

It falls back to considering the israelis as being part of the colonial era rulers and foreign occupation regime refered to in:

"Basically, I don't consider the colonial era rulers that legitimate. The rule should always be based on the people who live on the land, not some foreign occupation regime."

Tell me...how much of the US should we give to Mexico?

--------------------
And on the 7th day, God said, "Let there be lips!"

Posts: 296 | From: Munhall, PA | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2