Why Israel's position is immoral

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by faded glory
Great, another Israel bashing thread. I think we have proved time and again, the Israel is right here.

I think the vast majority of us must have missed that.

Mid 2000, Ehud Barak offered Yasir Arafat 96% of the west bank and e. Jerulasem, as well as Gaza. Palestinians would have had access to enough water under the clinton-barak deal. What stopped arafat from accepting this deal???

The fact that the Palestinians didn't want to live in divided Bantustans, that they didn't control their water, that the settlements weren't removed, that the Right of Return of the refugees wasn't acknowledged, that None of Jerusalem was returned. It was a horrible, horrible peace deal, an insult. I'm surprised it didn't start a new intifada.

[Natan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The fact that the Palestinians didn't want to live in divided Bantustans

So why didn't Arafat propose his own borders?

that they didn't control their water

Don't tell me people are dying over water prices.

that the settlements weren't removed

Um, no. Barak agreed to give back most of the settlements, except for the Jewish suburbs of Jerusalem - an entirely reasonable proposition.

that the Right of Return of the refugees wasn't acknowledged

The Palestinians don't recognize any Jewish right of return to the lands Jews lost in the war, so why should Israel be obligated to do the reverse?

that None of Jerusalem was returned.

um, Barak offered half of the Old City.

It was a horrible, horrible peace deal, an insult. I'm surprised it didn't start a new intifada.

Uh, it did Chegitz.

CyberGNU: The Fatah constitution is quite clear that there will never be any peace between the Palestinians and Israel.

[GePap]

Camp David, and Other Myths

Faded glory:
Thye 'generous' camp David offer by Barak is a myth. At the meeting, Barak offered to annex 10% of the west bank, and the Palestininas would get 90%, but , over the past 34 years, the Israeli government has slowly being taking land from Palestinians in these areas, and making them Iisraeli State lands, owned by Israel. Interestingly enough, about 50% of the West Bank now fits that category- so, if Israel as to annex 10%, did that mean that the 40% left which was owned by the state of Israel, going to be given up to the Palestininas? NO! The deal at camp David was 10% to Israel, 50% to the Palestinians, 40% in a palestinian state but owned and thus controlled, by Israel. Wow, what a generous offer! If you doubt this, read ha'aretz from october 3, 2000.

I would add that the plan meant to give the Pallestinian 3 divided sections, travel between them still controlled by Israel, Travel with the outside world still controlled by Israel, since the state would have no international borders. Even more generous, no?

Natan:
It always nice when defenders of Israel decide to have short term memory loss! All the policies I stated started years ago, decades ago sometimes, so the notion that they are there to stop terrorism is convinient way of trying to forget how things begun. As for your disoc comment- yes, that bombing, and every other bombing is a terrible crime, crimes carried out by fanatical and dangerous groups- but the Israeli responses to these attacks have killed more innocent civilians than the crimes themselves, which is in tiself a terrible thing. Were the 6 people killed back in august 01 that died when you Israel launched missiles into the offices of the PFLP to kill the leaders any less innocent that any of those teenagers that died at the disco?

What many seem to forget is how this started. After Sharons little visit, there were violent protests started by the palestinians, but these were stone throwing protests, to which Israel answered with gunfire. According to B'Tselem, in Sept. 2000, 12 Palestinian civilians and 3 PA police were killed in exchanges that also killed 1 Israeli Soldier. In fact , the first large number of Israeli citizens to be killed inside Israel proper during this whole affair were the 13 Israeli arabs shot by their own police! in October, a month in which 100 Palestininas died in the occupied Territories, along with 10 Israelis in the occupied Territories (again, from B'Tselem) and no Israeli Jews within the green line. So, if no one can add, by the end of October 2000, 115 Palestinians dead, 24 Israeli dead, though 13 of those killed by Israel itself.
I don't know what you see in these figures, but I see the recipe for the disaster that followed as Israel used horribly excessive force, giving Extremist (whom I do not belive are controlled by Arafat) the reasons they needed to call for criminal retribution against Israel.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Natan

Don't tell me people are dying over water prices.

Um, no. Barak agreed to give back most of the settlements, except for the Jewish suburbs of Jerusalem - an entirely reasonable proposition.

The Palestinians don't recognize any Jewish right of return to the lands Jews lost in the war, so why should Israel be obligated to do the reverse?

um, Barak offered half of the Old City.

Uh, it did Chegitz.

CyberGNU: The Fatah constitution is quite clear that there will never be any peace between the Palestinians and Israel.

1. People are dying over water prices. According to the UN, many Palestinians recieve less water than what the UN terms the lowest necessary level for a normal life, while settler nearby have water use starndards equal to that of Israelis within Israel, which, as a rich country, is pretty high. So, Palestininas don't get enough water to drink everyday while settlers get washing mashines! That seems imminently fair to you , doesn't it?

2. What land did Israel loose in which war? Israel and a Palestinan state were both meant to have about 50% of the land, with Jerusalem an open city, according to the 1948 UN partition plan. Israel ended up with 78% at the end of that war, including all the land initially meant for Israel, and more than half of what was mean for Arabs- so again, which land do you speak of?

3. Barak offered the Palestinians a capital in the village of Abbu Dis, right within the expanded borders of jerusalem, and semi-sovereignty over the Al-Asqua MOsque complex- not complete civil control of East Jerusalem, as you seem to think.

4. I think Chegitz was being facitiotus with that comment?

5. have you ever read the new P.A constituion? It call for a recognition of Israel within its 1967 borders. Have you ever read UN security council resolution 242, which has been accepted by both Palestinians and other Arab states as a template for peace? It also call for a recognition of the sovereignty and right to existence of all states in the region, including Israel, within their 1967 borders. All Arab state and the Palestinians have accepted that resolution. The only sticking point is that it demands that israel withdraw from the occupied territories, which Israel is unwilling to do. Since 1967 there has been a document that could have lead to peace in the middle east, but israel decided, absed on its military might, that who needed peace, when it could get the land. If israel had listened to Ben Gurion and traded that land for peace, instead of sticking with the chauvinists like Dayan and going for land, then all these threads, and discussions, would have become immaterial decades ago.

[Natan]

Re: Camp David, and Other Myths

Originally posted by GePap
Faded glory:
Thye 'generous' camp David offer by Barak is a myth. At the meeting, Barak offered to annex 10% of the west bank, and the Palestininas would get 90%, but , over the past 34 years, the Israeli government has slowly being taking land from Palestinians in these areas, and making them Iisraeli State lands, owned by Israel. Interestingly enough, about 50% of the West Bank now fits that category- so, if Israel as to annex 10%, did that mean that the 40% left which was owned by the state of Israel, going to be given up to the Palestininas? NO! The deal at camp David was 10% to Israel, 50% to the Palestinians, 40% in a palestinian state but owned and thus controlled, by Israel. Wow, what a generous offer! If you doubt this, read ha'aretz from october 3, 2000.

False. Israel was offering the Palestiniasn 90% of everything, including Israel state lands - not even Israel state lands in the West Bank and Gaza are considered part of Israel, they are governed by a military administration.

I would add that the plan meant to give the Pallestinian 3 divided sections, travel between them still controlled by Israel, Travel with the outside world still controlled by Israel, since the state would have no international borders. Even more generous, no?

I'd be cautious too if my negotiating partner has always and continues to insist that he will destroy me.

It always nice when defenders of Israel decide to have short term memory loss! All the policies I stated started years ago, decades ago sometimes, so the notion that they are there to stop terrorism is convinient way of trying to forget how things begun.

The terrorism started much before the Six Day War and the Israeli administration of the West Bank and Gaza. The Fedayeen were making raids in the 50s, Fatah was founded in 1964, and even before that there was terrorism, like the pogrom in Hebron in 1929, before Israel was even founded.

As for your disoc comment- yes, that bombing, and every other bombing is a terrible crime, crimes carried out by fanatical and dangerous groups- but the Israeli responses to these attacks have killed more innocent civilians than the crimes themselves

False.

which is in tiself a terrible thing. Were the 6 people killed back in august 01 that died when you Israel launched missiles into the offices of the PFLP to kill the leaders any less innocent that any of those teenagers that died at the disco?

Look, if the Palestinians were firing at Israeli troops and some Israeli civillians got killed in the crossfire, that would just be war. But when they make it their goal to massacre civillians, that's just plain evil.

What many seem to forget is how this started. After Sharons little visit, there were violent protests started by the palestinians, but these were stone throwing protests, to which Israel answered with gunfire.

Israel answered with rubber bullets until the Palestinians began using guns.

According to B'Tselem, in Sept. 2000, 12 Palestinian civilians and 3 PA police were killed in exchanges that also killed 1 Israeli Soldier.

So what you're admitting is that there was shooting on both sides. There was quite a lot of it in fact. Just look at Madhat Yusuf, who bled to death in front of Joseph's tomb because Palestinian gunmen prevented Israel from evacuating him for medical treatment.

In fact , the first large number of Israeli citizens to be killed inside Israel proper during this whole affair were the 13 Israeli arabs shot by their own police!

So if it's not a large number or if takes place outside of Israel, it doesn't count?

in October, a month in which 100 Palestininas died in the occupied Territories, along with 10 Israelis in the occupied Territories (again, from B'Tselem) and no Israeli Jews within the green line. So, if no one can add, by the end of October 2000, 115 Palestinians dead, 24 Israeli dead, though 13 of those killed by Israel itself.

So the IDF was better

I don't know what you see in these figures, but I see the recipe for the disaster that followed as Israel used horribly excessive force

No more excessive than the American use of helicopter gunships in Somalia which killed hundreds of Somalis in the course of a few hours in which perhaps two dozen American soldiers died. Palestinian gunmen were attacking entrenched Israeli troops with stone-throwers mixed in (the photos are out there, it's undeniable) so naturally, a lot of people died. I don't think the Israelis can be blamed if they hit the stone thrower two feet away instead of the gunman - firearms accuracy falls dramatically in a combat situation.

giving Extremist (whom I do not belive are controlled by Arafat)

If Arafat doesn't control them, why does he have to keep insisting that they are his brothers, that he is at unity with them, etc, as he did immediately following the Dolphinarium suicide bombing in June, as reported in The Guardian?

the reasons they needed to call for criminal retribution against Israel.

Actually, they don't need reasons. The suicide bombings continued throughout the "peace proccess."

[CyberGnu]

GePap, very good work indeed.

Natan, you claim to read NYTimes... Didn;t you read it today?

[CapTVK]

Good post Gepap, but one thing that seems to have slipped past in this discussion is that in relation to those 'international borders' Israel would keep full control of the border. Meaning they could close off and blockade the West Bank and other areas any time they wished to.

What a nice "take it or leave it"-deal...

[WFHermans]

The settler, who identified himself as "Baruch" spelled out
"the Jewish perception toward the Arabs in the land of Israel."

"They have two options, not three, either to be annihilated by the Jews like the cannanites were exterminated by our forefathers, or flee our land for their lives!"

Asked if the Israeli state accepted his views, Baruch said
"I'm sure (Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon has the same views, but as a Prime Minister he can't say so openly."

[Berzerker]

Natan -

Self-determination is a shaky concept - after all, when Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians demanded their rights to self-determination, the Federal government had some other thoughts about it.

You point to two of the most immoral acts committed recently by the federal government to support your position? The Randy Weaver case was not about "self-determination", it was about the feds trying to entrap and blackmail Randy Weaver into spying on "neo-Nazis", etc. Federal agents badgered Weaver into selling them a "sawed" off shotgun - a shotgun with a barrel an inch or so shorter than allowed by "law". The agents went so far as to explain to him where they wanted the barrel cut. Once he violated the law, they used that to blackmail him into spying on others - he refused. Then Weaver was sent false information about his arraignment date - a fact not in dispute - causing him to miss it and a bench warrant issued for his arrest. That was what "led" the feds to invade his property and murder his son and wife.

Both the judge and jury - "government" - were outraged at what the feds had done and the constant lies they told in court. I suggest you read what the judge said about the feds in this case. He was finally convicted of selling a sawed-off shotgun and was released for time served, but he and his friend were acquitted of all other charges including murder/manslaughter charges. As for the Davidians, the feds again lied to get the warrant claiming meth labs were there. That lie allowed for military involvement in the murders of dozens of people. "Self-determination" is only a "shaky" concept for people who don't believe in it...

[Natan]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Natan -

You point to two of the most immoral acts committed recently by the federal government to support your position? The Randy Weaver case was not about "self-determination", it was about the feds trying to entrap and blackmail Randy Weaver into spying on "neo-Nazis", etc. Federal agents badgered Weaver into selling them a "sawed" off shotgun - a shotgun with a barrel an inch or so shorter than allowed by "law". The agents went so far as to explain to him where they wanted the barrel cut. Once he violated the law, they used that to blackmail him into spying on others - he refused. Then Weaver was sent false information about his arraignment date - a fact not in dispute - causing him to miss it and a bench warrant issued for his arrest. That was what "led" the feds to invade his property and murder his son and wife.

Yeah, I know that. (I read David Kopel's "No More Wacos") It was a bad example, I admit. Although perhaps not, since many Americans still seem to consider him a kook who got what he deserved. The Freemen of Montana and those guys who started passing out checks on behalf of the "Republic of Texas" would have been better examples than Waco and Ruby Ridge, but more people have heard of the latter, so I used them.

As for the Davidians, the feds again lied to get the warrant claiming meth labs were there. That lie allowed for military involvement in the murders of dozens of people.

I'm not sure I'd call it murder since the Davidians were shooting back, but yeah, the police exercised terrible judgement.

"Self-determination" is only a "shaky" concept for people who don't believe in it...

Tell it to the feds after you evade your income tax on the grounds that your house is an independent country, declared as such by its inhabitants.

[Natan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Natan, you claim to read NYTimes... Didn;t you read it today?

Sontag's piece and Arafat's declarations would be more convincing if Arafat (and other Palestinians) didn't seem to go back and forth on this every day in their public statements while insisting in the Fatah constitution that Israel will be destroyed along with Zionist "political" "economic" and "cultural" presence in "the land of Palestine"(which is rather clearly defined as the land between the Jordan river and the Mediteranean sea).

[orange]

Originally posted by WFHermans
"They have two options, not three, either to be annihilated by the Jews like the cannanites were exterminated by our forefathers, or flee our land for their lives!"

Well isn't that perverting one part of history to make a racist statement What a moron...I suppose he forgot about how Palestine wasn't a Jewish home for many MANY years until the British got involved

[Berzerker]

Natan -

I'm not sure I'd call it murder since the Davidians were shooting back, but yeah, the police exercised terrible judgement.

I'd call it murder, the Davidians didn't commit suicide (assuming they did) in a vacuum, but after being attacked and surrounded for weeks of "psychological" warfare.

Tell it to the feds after you evade your income tax on the grounds that your house is an independent country, declared as such by its inhabitants.

Not a separate country, just private property. And pointing to the fact some people share your antagonsim toward "self-determination" to justify it is illogical.

Yeah, I know that. (I read David Kopel's "No More Wacos") It was a bad example, I admit. Although perhaps not, since many Americans still seem to consider him a kook who got what he deserved.

The fact many Americans consider him a "kook" deserving of death is immoral.
Besides, he wasn't the only one who died there...

[Natan]

Berzerker, I think the discussion of Waco is straying from the topic at hand. But by basing your argument on your right to private property rather than to self-determination (i.e., saying that the current government should protect a specific right rather than say that you have a right to overthrow the government) you are acknowledging my position. If you'd like to start a thread about Waco, I think it would be a most interesting discussion, but here is not the place for it.

Orange: I don't think that unattributed quotes without a source (especially when the quote itself is so moronic) even deserve a response. Although I should note that when he says "two options, not three" this man (assuming he is not a product of WFHermans's or someone else's imagination) is explicitly and apparently knowingly (hence the reference to three) contradicting the statement (incidentally taken out of context) of the Talmud.

[Comrade Tribune]

Re: Re: Camp David, and Other Myths

Originally posted by Natan
No more excessive than the American use of helicopter gunships in Somalia which killed hundreds of Somalis in the course of a few hours in which perhaps two dozen American soldiers died.

American soldiers had no business being in Somalia in the first place.

And Israel has no business occupying territory outside its recognized 1948 borders in the first place.