Israeli Repression and the Language of Liars

[CyberGnu]

Millions of people around the world depend on alms for life, and many more starve, often in camps. For example, there are refugee camps all over the rift valley in Africa, refugee camps in various parts of Europe, and refugee camps in the Arab world for both Palestinians and others. Have you noticed a lot of riots, let alone suicide bombings, by Iraqis in refugee camps in Saudi Arabia? They have even less hope of achieving their goals than the Palestinians do.

? What do they have to do with this? Who would these refugess riot against? The people who feed them?

And even in those camps, they still have hope that the political situation will change for the better.

Israels occupation of palestine has lasted more than 50 years. People have been born in occupation and died in occupation... and for every year that passes, the despair grows...

Obviously if you view this as a situation in which the Palestinians have to get back all of the West Bank at all costs, then this makes sense.

Ahh, yes, these greedy palestinains, demanding a whopping 22% of what is theirs! And the audacity to ask for a viable state instead of a bantustan!

Natan, it is in times as these you really make me feel sick...

[Natan]

As for the J'lem post and Die Welt, I can't find the Die Welt article but a quick search for "Jerusalem Post" (http://www.welt.de/finden/index.htx?...Jerusalem+Post) shows that the staff of Die Welt are clearly reading the Post and have been for some time - yet no complaint about the Jerusalem post fabricating stories from Die Welt or anywhere else appear. I am not sure why I can't find the original story, but I also can't find any editorial/opinion content either - does Die Welt really run no editorials, has it left them (and possibly other stuff) off the internet site, or (quite possible) am I just having trouble finding it?

[CyberGnu]

Ned, the Camp David offered land equivalent to 95% of the palestinian territories, but part of the stumbling block was the quiality of land. Barak substituted lots of land in east jerusalem for pretty much worthless land in the Negev.

And a solid fact is that Barak offered less land in Camp David than what was agreed upon in the Oslo accord... 'Generous deal' my a$$.


Israels occupying status depends on whetehr you are asking about a moral or a practical definition.

Morally, I believe Israel has no right to exist on any palestinian soil. (while I do think that jews should have a state of their own, I fail to see why the land for that state should be stoeln from arabs)

Practially, I realize that Israel is there to stay, and so if Israel would solve the ROR, accept a divided jerusalem and retreat to the green line, I would be willing to settle for Israel granted 'non-occupying' status. So would most europeans.

But it is hard to claim you are a victim when you are occupying the land, killing the people, and hold the key to ending the conflict...

[Natan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
? What do they have to do with this?

If you want to explain the Palestinian suicide bombers as resulting from a loss of hope, you have to explain why others without hope do not resort to suicide bombings.

Who would these refugess riot against? The people who feed them?

They could try to form a resistance to go back and fight against the Ba'ath. Or, to take another example, the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon could fight against the restrictions on them.

And even in those camps, they still have hope that the political situation will change for the better.

Israels occupation of palestine has lasted more than 50 years. People have been born in occupation and died in occupation... and for every year that passes, the despair grows...

Yes, and American blacks were born into slavery and then neo-slavery for centuries, yet few revolts and no suicide bombings. While Saudis who live lives of luxury want to commit suicide bombings in far-away Afghanistan and New York. This is a political tactic based on the hope of success. It represents a loss of hope in achieving the ends through other means, yes, but that's what every change in military or political strategy (arguably, any change in human behavior) means.

[CyberGnu]

Natan, are you saying that it would be better if the JP quoted an editorial as fact?

Well, keep trying. Write Die Welt. Or just face reality... That article doesn't exist.

[CyberGnu]

Because they are not without hope. The Iraqi refugees in Saudi-Arabia still hope that the US will depose of Saddam. And you don't seem to get the lebanon part: It's not lebanons fault that the palestinians are there, so why would they riot against the lebanese?

Slaves had hope as well. Do you think it was out of the goodness of their heart that the slaveowners allowed slaves to buy their own freedom? Of course not, it made the slaves work an extra day a week, and it kept hope alive... For is it not better to serve for 40 years and then be free than die today? But when you are faced with the choice of serving forever and dying to better the lot of those around you, the choice gets harder.


Just out of curiosity, how do you explain the suicide bombers? 'Goverment propaganda' doesn't cut it, people don't kill themselves for that...

[Natan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Natan, are you saying that it would be better if the JP quoted an editorial as fact?

Let's try one of your favorite gimmicks, the reading exerice. The key words are italicized:
"does Die Welt really run no editorials, [or] has it left them (and possibly other stuff) off the internet site, . . .?"

Well, keep trying. Write Die Welt. Or just face reality... That article doesn't exist.

Yes, the staff of Die Welt, while secretly fuming at the Jerusalem post for attributing to them a story they didn't write, but keep citing them as a source even though another English-language Israeli newspaper is available.

[Natan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Because they are not without hope. The Iraqi refugees in Saudi-Arabia still hope that the US will depose of Saddam.

Yeah right.

And you don't seem to get the lebanon part: It's not lebanons fault that the palestinians are there, so why would they riot against the lebanese?

So what? It's the Lebanese fault that the Palestinians are forced to live in camps and can't practice law or medicine outside of them.

Slaves had hope as well. Do you think it was out of the goodness of their heart that the slaveowners allowed slaves to buy their own freedom? Of course not, it made the slaves work an extra day a week, and it kept hope alive... For is it not better to serve for 40 years and then be free than die today? But when you are faced with the choice of serving forever and dying to better the lot of those around you, the choice gets harder.

A Palestinian has a better chance of immigrating to another country than slaves had of buying their freedom.

Just out of curiosity, how do you explain the suicide bombers? 'Goverment propaganda' doesn't cut it, people don't kill themselves for that...

Firstly, of course people do - The Hitler youth, Stalin's loyalists, the Sadamyoun etc. But that's not really the main cause here, it's more general societal and political pressure which goes beyond the government. What we're seeing is religious and nationalist fanaticism, not even that closely related to government activity, which often leads people to take their own lives. Cults like Heaven's Gate, the Kamikaze pilots, the PPS in Lebanon and Syria are some examples of this. If people are willing to kill themselves over religion in the West, where doing so is frowned upon by society, then why is it surprising that a few more percentage wise are willing to do so in cultures or sub-cultures which encourage it, especially when they expect to reap genuine and tangible political benefits?

[Ned]

CyberGnu, What's this "steal" Palestinian land? Is that your point? Israel is the aggressor because it is stealing Palestinian land?

In another thread I asked about how Israel was acquiring title to the settlement property. Natan said that Israel either owned the settlement land from prior to 1948, purchased it from Arabs, or used eminent domain if no property owners were identified. Settlement property land is owned by Israel, fair and square. They have title.

The West Bank is not a state. There is not now and there has never been a Palestinian state. Only a Palestinian state could own unclaimed land. Israel is not stealing land from anybody. Regardless, I understand that the Palestinians can and do make claims in Israeli courts for compensation for property taken by eminent domain.

What the Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza want is a Palestinian state. They want that state to be in the whole of the West Bank and Gaza. Israel is apparently willing to give the incipient Palestinian state some of the settlement land they now own. But the failure to give all of the land to the Palestinians is not theft. Neither is it aggression.

You may want to make the point that Israel has no right to settle its people in so-called "occupied" territories. However this "prohibition" is a provision in the Fourth Geneva Convention that applies only to conflicts among high contracting parties. These provisions do not apply where one of the parties is not a state, such as we have in the present circumstances. The Treaty in these cases has separate provisions that apply. These separate provisions do not include a clause about settlements.

From a moral point of view, Jews under both Turkish and British Mandate rule had a right to live anywhere in Palestine. They had a right to purchase land anywhere in Palestine. They had a right to "settle" anywhere in Palestine. How could they lose these rights by virtue of aggression by Jordan and Egypt twice, first in 1948 when Jordan and Egypt occupied portions of Palestine, and then later in 1967 when they Israeli's retook the portions of Palestine occupied by foreign powers.

I see no case that the Israeli's are aggressors simply because they are unwilling to give up to a potential Palestinian state all of the settlement land. This presumes, as you said, that Israel stole it in the first place from a Palestinian state. But the presumption is false, therefor the conclusion is false.

[Panag]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Panang, what is up with the commas? they are driving me crazy. And I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Please try to write in coherent sentences.

hi ,

- - - "coherent sentences" - - - the day you shall start the members of ZOG shall do so to , .............

have a nice day

[Panag]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Panang, just occured to me: Have you considered following your own advice and visit the occupied territories?

hi ,

and now why should we start to talk about that , we go there at least ones a month , you , .......of course not , .......

since you take such views and side's , you really should go there ,......not just staying in a hotel in Tel-Aviv for three weeks or so , .....no , you should start in Eilat and work your way towards the northern frontier , ........true the LIBERATED land , ........

have a nice day

[Roland]

Natan/Gnu: If you tell me what exactly you are looking for, I can make a try at the welt archive.

Ned:

You are giving an excellent summary of the fantasy world most US media create. They usually don't lie (apart from the op-eds and FOX), but they always leave out some important facts.

"I believe that Europe has a better understanding of the United States position on a limited ABM capability."

No. One of the arguments against NMD pre 9/11 was that the dangers lie elsewhere, esp in terrorist groups acquiring weapons of mass destruction against which NMD like MAD is absolutely useless. 9/11 has clearly shown that, and we are slightly puzzled by the US admin still insisting on NMD.

" the draft Kyoto treaty was flawed. It essentially penalized United States and gave the Third World countries a free ride."

It gave the US a gigantic waiver to stay the most energy-wasting country. It was flawed by favouring the US way too much.

"At the time it was originally negotiated by Gore, the Senate voted 99-0 against the treaty."

The only resolution I've read about this (is there another one ?) insisted on getting 3rd world countries into the obligatory system as a condition for ratification. That has partially happened, and the US could have gained more by negotiating bona fide.

"I believe Bush stated that he was signing the steel tariffs to "restore" trade balance. Was this incorrect?"

An extremely lame excuse, yes.

"Europe clearly views the Israelis as the aggressor."

Wrong. From the EU to national governments to the mainstream media, everyone acknowledges Israel's right to defend itself. But in contrast to the US, we do think Sharon is extremely dangerous - not least for Israel itself, and we do not trust his motives.

"This extreme bias against the use of force even in self-defense is deeply rooted in leftism."

The european left has a bias against use of force, but that is slowly disappearing. What we have is a bias against stupid use of force. Hence we support the US in Afghanistan, but are very sceptical about Iraq.

[Roland]

Another point:

"However this "prohibition" is a provision in the Fourth Geneva Convention that applies only to conflicts among high contracting parties."

They have become part of international customary law.

"These provisions do not apply where one of the parties is not a state, such as we have in the present circumstances."

The occupation is the result of a war against Egypt and Jordan. The provision against settlements clearly applies. That Jordan has given up sovereign claim in favour of the PLO does not make the westbank a sort of res nullius.

[Roland]

CyberGnu:

"The suicide bombers have sprung up from a population feeling they have nothing left to lose..."

Do you really believe they just "sprung up" ? That they are unrelated to Hamas & co, and that they are not sponsored by the PA ?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Roland
Another point:

"However this "prohibition" is a provision in the Fourth Geneva Convention that applies only to conflicts among high contracting parties."

They have become part of international customary law.

What does that mean? Isn't "International Law" or "Law of War" just a set of treaties? And don't they bind only the signatories?

And what is "customary" international law. What does customary mean?