Israel & Palestine (v2)

They never wanted that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am offended with that statement.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure they did they never expressed it in those terms but that is what they wanted.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why? Its what they wanted. Either that or they wanted a state for themselves that was they removed the resident population from. I decided to use the one less morally repugnant. You cannot say they wanted a state that would be for them and anyone else who wanted to be a part of it. Even to this day Israel is a state for Jews(a religion(which offends me. Religions don't deserve their own state)) and not a state for Israelis(citizens of the country). Israel is the only country in the world defined as for a group other than its citizens.

 

Understanding what caused something allows you to either prevent it from happening again or encouraging it to happen again.

 

Palestinians make it to The Daily Show.

Jon Stewart hosts Anna Baltzer and Mustafa Bargouti on October 28

http://www.thedailyshow.com/guests

Part One:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-28-2009/exclusive---anna-baltzer---mustafa-barghouti-extended-interview-pt--1

Part Two:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-28-2009/exclusive---anna-baltzer---mustafa-barghouti-extended-interview-pt--2


Could a mod please add Anna's website to the resources list? She is an American peace activist

http://www.annainthemiddleeast.com/

UN to debate Goldstone Report on Nov 4

Will the Americans veto it?

 

It started before 1948. The massacres of the Hebron Jewish community by marauding Arab mobs were already commonplace in the 1920s.

 

And so it continues. ( the arguing I mean).

 

Thats because weve repeated this cycle a dozen times... it seems to me people in here know what history is, but dont learn from it.

 

How about Egypt? Egypt occupied the Gaza, and they still have a blockade in place.

All access into and out of the Gaza is tightly controlled by Egypt, and there are strict limitations on what can and cannot be imported and exported to and from the Gaza.

 

will it matters it is reletively moot. The amount of goods that could travel on gaza egypt border pales to what even a partial lifting by Israel could let in.

How they have no abilty to control most of Gaza's border's. ITs still the same old shit with you blame the arabs minor cause while Israel is still more to blame in that sector.

as with Israel and Israel controls well over 95% of the Gazan border.

 

which was caused by the jewish immigration to acheive dominion thanks to Balfour.

 

It seems to me no one knows the history other than what one side has told them. You can't learn from what you don't get.

 

You're right. I'm going to borrow a summary of the history that I've bookmarked from here

I'll start by addressing a few inaccuracies discussed in this thread and then I'll move on to several key issues concerning tonight's topic. My focus will be on the important details often ignored by the mainstream media in the US.



1. Labeling Ottoman rule in the Middle East as "Muslim Crusade" is categorically inaccurate. Equating Ottoman rule in the region to what the crusaders did, is an unfair disregard for the truth.



2. The entire Israeli Palestinain issue is mainly a product of nationalism and idiology, religion is only secondary. Religion is simply a tool used by populists on either side to rally the masses. But, the entire conflict had nothing to do with religion. Let me elaborate:



In the early 1900s, there were Muslims, Jews and Christians living in Palestine. The region was ruled by the British Empire. At about the same time period, as nation states were becoming - shall we say - the latest trend, Zionism, the idoeology, was being promoted by east European Jewish elites as Jewish nationalism. Many Jews, even in the United States (you can check the NYT archives) were against the idea. But, those elites managed to pressure the British government to give Palestine as a home to Jews. The Zinoist leaders at the time described Palestine as an empty desert with a few nomadic tribes scattered here and there. The truth, however, is that there were about 75,000 Jews in Palestine at the time and about 800,000 Muslims+Christians.



In the years between 1920 and 1947, various incidents would take place. An Arab revolt against the British Mandate and the increasing immigration of European Jews to Palestine would take place, Zionist militias would carry out what the British termed at the time "terrorism". One famouse case involved the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. Among the group responsible for the bombing which killed 92 people was one Menachem Begin. He would later become an Israeli prime minister.



When Britian withdrew in 1948, it helped Zionist militias take control of the land. They supplied them with weapons, ammunition and military vehicles. Israeli historians put Jewish land owenrship figures - at the time - at about 7%. Yes, Jews in Palestine at around 1947 owned about 7% of the land.



In the same year, the Zinoist movement lobbied the world's powers (US, Britain, France) to support a plan to partition Palestine. This was later known as the 1947 UN Partition Plan. But, the plan granted Zionists more than 60% of Palestine (remember that 7% figure?) and the rest was left for Muslims+Christians.



By 1948, Jewish immigration from Europe and other parts of the world had changed the demographics. Both Christaians and Muslims in the region objected to the partition plan as it were unjust. They moved to stop it from materializing. The Iraqi-Jordanian and Egyptian forces involved in the ensuing war were outnumbered 10 to 1 by Zionist forces (again see Israeli historians such as Tom Segev, Illan Pappe, Avi Shlaim, Benny Morris). During the war, Zionist militias massacred Palestinians and destroyed about 460 Palestinian villages. More than 700,000 Palestinians were also driven out of their homes and towns and so they became refugees.



As a result, tensions began to rise in neighboring Arab states between Jewish and non-Jewish communities. This pushed many Arab Jews to move to Israel. But these tensions were non-existant in places like Iraq and Egypt. In fact, when it comes to Egypt, the Israei government had to use scare tactics to get Jews in EGypt to leave and move to Israel. The Lavon Affair is a well known case in which Israeli agents planted bombs in move theaters frequented by Jews in Egypt to make it seem as if it was Muslims or Christians behind those actions.



Jumping forward to 1967 we find that Israel started the war (also known as the six-day war) by bombing Egypt. A few days later, Israel invaded the Golan Heights and occupied the land from Syria. Both Israeli historians and the events that took place during the 1967 war, indicate that Israel was seeking to expand territorially. The bombing of the USS Liberty off the coast of Egypt confirms that Israel was afraid that the US would stop it, should the US Navy and the White House catch wind of its plans to invade Syria as well.



In 1967, Israel also occupied the West Bank and at that point, the old city of Jerusalem (aka East Jerusalem) was in the hands of Israel. Since 1967 until today, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have been under a military occupation along with all the features and hardships that come with any military occupation. Since 1967, the Israeli government has encouraged Jews to build colonies in the occupied territories of the West Bank, the Golan and Gaza. Many receive tax breaks and incentives to live in colonies in the West Bank. The people that live in those colonies will tell you that their ownership of the land is God's will and that it is biblically theirs.



Resistance to the the occupation came in the form of the Intifada in 1987. In 1993 when the Oslo accords were signed between Israel and Fatah (Arafat's party), the Palestinian authority was established, but it had very limited jurisdiction over an area that looks like swiss cheese on a map. But, the Oslo accords did not deliver, mainly due to a refusal by the Israeli government to end the buildup of colonies. Suicide attacks would later become the modus operandi of Hamas. For the record, however, attacks on Israeli military personnel far outnumber those on Israeli civilians. We tend to hear a lot about suicide bombings in the media. Cable news thrives on this as it serves an agenda.



In 2005, Israel evacuated the colonies from the Gaza Strip, but later put the residents of those colonies in the West Bank and redeployed troops around Gaza. Some attempt to claim that the 2005 withdrawal ended the occupation of Gaza, but the truth is that Israel simply moved out of the city centers and redeployed to the perimeter, thus choking off any movement into or out of the Strip.



In 2006 after Fatah, the opposition party to Hamas, failed to deliver to the Palestinian people any freedoms or end the occupation through negotiations with Israel, the people voted for Hamas. Ironically, it was the Bush administration who pushed for those elections. Displeased with the outcome, Israel imposed a siege on Gaza in 2007 and continued with a decades old policy of targeted assasinations. The siege, sealed the border crossing and access to the sea for fishing.Incidentally, during the same period, Hamas would declare that it was abandoning suicide attacks and seeking to act as a full functioning government with a legislature, elected officials, police force, social services and health services.



Hamas launched rockets into the Israeli side of the separation wall. In 2008 a ceasfire was agreed to by Hamas and Israel. Hamas stopped the rockets, but Israel continued with the siege and the raids on Gaza. When the ceasfire ended in December of 2008, Israel launched a massive attack killing more than 1400 Palestinians. On the Israeli side, there were about 35 casulties in total over an eight year period due to those rockets. The 1400 dead Palestinians were killed when Israel attacked Gaza in its 22 day offensive.



Also, this year, Obama failed in reaching any breakthrough. The Netanyahu government does not recognize the Palestinians' right to an independent state. Obama has also failed in getting Israel to stop colonial expansion and buildup on Palestinain land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.



Israel has also taken on a policy of thwarting non-violent and peaceful movements withing Palestinian society by imprisoning and attacking leaders of non-violent movements. Making matters worse are the intensifying actions of the Israeli government to remove Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem and demolish the homes of those who refuse.



A permenent solution to this issue would require Israel withdrawing from the West Bank and allowing the Palestinains to establish their own state with the 1967 borders. The 2002 Arab League initiative, by the way, proposes that all Arab states will normalize relations with Israel and sign peace treaties provided that Israel withdrew to the 1967 line and ended the occupation. The initiative was dismissed by Israel since it also calls on Israel to allow Palestianian refugees to return to their homes which they have lost in 1948.



For reference, please see the following articles:



lrb.co.uk/v31/n02/sieg01_.html



democracynow.org/2009/1/14/leading_israeli_scholar_avi_shlaim_israel



haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035414.html



antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=14031



vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804



guardian.co.uk/world/2006/apr/09/israel



guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians



btselem.org/english/statistics/casualties.asp



csmonitor.com/2008/0425/p99s01-duts.html​

 

Im going to stop reading this thread before I lose my temper.

See you guys somewhere else.

 

Yes, that is true, but for it to become a reality guess what need to happen? The Arabs of Gaza need to stop their war against Israel, as long as Israel is being attacked by the Gazians, they are under no stricture to allow supplies in that provide any support to people attacking them.

But they have the ability to control the area that abuts the Egyptian boarder, and as of today, that is tightly controlled and only a minimum of imports and exports are allowed by the Egyptian,

And again Israel is under no obligation to allow supplies into a enemy who is actively engaging in war against them, daily attacks, and refusal to make a lasting Peace, only the Hudna, so again why should Israel open the boarder?

 

non sequiter.

They are willing to end it if and only if Israel stops its war against the palestinians people and acknowledge their rights.

Which even if it was fully open wouldn't do much. The infrastructure to rapidly move the goods into Gaza to the extent needed is not availible on that border. Not to mention Gaza is a port city

An occupied and attacked people have the right to defend them selves. Blaming the palestinians for defending their land and rights is a tevesty. If Israel does not wish to be attacked it should wage war agaisnt them.

the palestinians have tried make lasting peace. so have arabs in general. Israel has always refused it.

The total closing of the border is not the debate. it the refusal to let needed things in to gaza and to allow it to have an economy that's the issue.






Your still bigotedly trying to put all the blame for the conflict on the arabs. Israel bears more blame for the conflict and plight of the palestinians than their arab neighbors. Not once has Israel even tried to make a reasonable proposal for peace. The arab states have. from 48 onward(look up arab peace proposals in 48).

 

From mondoweiss:

A Jewish focus won’t end a more-than-Jewish problem

by Ahmed Moor on October 30, 2009

Something special is happening to the discourse about Palestine and Israel in the United States. New spaces are opening up where none existed before. For instance, some Palestinians, Israelis and Jews are talking openly about a one-state solution to the heretofore-intractable conflict. A greater number of Jewish people talk about being post-, or anti-Zionist and they’re talking about it within their communities. On the Palestinian side, more people are coming to the realization that there will never be a Palestinian state – although Palestinian elites have been slow to publicly admit the reality. A number of factors have contributed to the changing and splintering of the conversation, most notably, amongst Jewish groups in the United States.

First, there was the London Review of Books article published by Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer in 2006. The article aroused so much interest and controversy that it was lengthened and adapted into a book. It prompted a new discussion highlighted by the question of whether Israel’s foreign policy interests were necessarily the same as America’s foreign policy interests. The discussion took on new relevance as Israel destroyed southern Lebanon and American troops faced escalating violence in nearby Iraq. Today, few American policy advisers would insist that it is in America’s best interest to attack Iran, or to permit an Israeli attack on Iran.

President Carter’s book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, went a long way towards introducing the reality of apartheid to an American audience. He was publically vilified for accurately describing a situation that most Americans are instinctively against; the ethnic separation of two peoples, with one subjugating and dominating another to enhance its control of resources and maintain its racial privilege. Neocolonialism would have been an apt description as well. Zionists sharply condemned the use of the word “Apartheid” because of the psychological linkage it created between Zionist Israel and Apartheid South Africa. This despite the fact that Zionist Israel and Apartheid South Africa share many characteristics, including an institutionalized preference for one race over another.

The rise of the blogosphere, and the proliferation of blogs such as this one, has further encouraged the splintering I mentioned earlier. A reader who is vexed by President Carter’s use of the word Apartheid to describe the actions of Zionist Israel need only probe superficially to gain access to a wide range of media, both for and against the characterization. Through viewing videos posted on YouTube, reading first-hand accounts by members of her community on their blogs, and participating actively in near real-time discussions about articles through blog response boards, the reader can gain a more accurate picture of reality than what has been narrowly presented by the various interests that impact the editorial decisions of many news editors around the country. The democratization of access to information has revealed the uncomfortable reality of Palestine to any American willing to look. That brutal reality presented itself most recently through the January Massacre in the Gaza Strip. Despite scant reporting and a near blackout of images of the carnage in American newspapers, readers saw the reality. Blogs like this one did the legwork.

Yet, despite all the progress made in recent years, I remain frustrated by one dominant discursive characteristic. That is the tendency of Jewish commentators to speak about the conflict through a Jewish lens. On its face, this criticism appears absurd. It’s natural for Jews who have identified with Israel for most of their lives to question Israel’s actions, and its very existence, through the identity that enamored them of Israel in the first place. Many of Israel’s Jewish critics are so critical precisely because of their love for Israel, or at least the Jewish people. However, it is this tendency that gives rise to a myopic view of the situation.

Jewish people who are critical of Israel are right to question what Israel means to them as Jews. “Not in my name” is a solid basis for taking issue with the often-criminal behavior of the Zionist Israeli government. But it is not enough to eventually heal the rift between the Jewish and Palestinian peoples. A purely Jewish focus on a more-than-Jewish problem causes many leftist Jews to take a paternalistic view of Palestinians. Rather than equals whose inalienable rights form the crux of the case against Zionism, the Palestinians are the clay of Jewish humanism, waiting to be fully actualized by thoughtful and reflective Jewish hands. Instead of insisting that Palestinians are human beings whose existence is the repudiation of Zionism, some Jews on the left argue that Zionism violates Jewish ethics. I am not suggesting that the two streams of thought are mutually exclusive, only that the focus on one may inhibit the realization of the other.

It is in this context that the new pro-Israel lobby, J-Street, was formed. Jews who felt that the actions of the Zionist government of Israel endangered the existence of the Jewish state formed an organization to protect Jewish privilege in Israel. Specifically, J-Street was created to wake other Zionists to the reality that settlements will undo the Jewish state. J-Street is a fundamentally-Zionist organization whose criticisms of Israel are couched in Jewish self-love to the exclusion of a broader humanity. This enables Jeremy Ben-Ami to explain to Jeffrey Goldberg that equality between Jews and non-Jews in Palestine/Israel is not only undesirable, but a “nightmare” scenario. All the while, Mr. Ben-Ami is lauded as a hero of the Progressive Jewish left for challenging AIPAC’s dominance as the sole representative of the interests of the Jewish State in the United States. J-Street was created to answer the question “What is best for the Jewish people?” rather than the more germane question “What is best for the people of Palestine/Israel?”

While I believe that the soul searching is positive, I want to emphasize to the Jewish community that the crisis at hand is not one of Jewish humanist values versus Jewish nationalism. While that is a very real struggle for the Jewish people, it must be remembered that the real struggle in Palestine/Israel is for the rights of the individual irrespective of creed or communal identification in the face of ethnocentric chauvinism. The focus ought to be shifted from “Where have we gone as Jews” to “What is happening to other human beings in Israel/Palestine?” Frankly, human beings are suffering at the hands of Zionists while well-meaning Jews engage in handwringing over Jewish identity and what that means in the context of Zionism. There is a right time to reflect on that question, but the more pressing issue is the humanitarian one. There is nothing ambiguous about the fact that all people are created equally and ought to be treated equally under the law.

Ahmed Moor is a 25-year-old Palestinian-American from the Rafah refugee camp. A graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, he now lives in Beirut.​

 

The only thing against that is the there won't be a palestinian state. A state that recognizing them on their own land will slowly become a palestinian state.

 

I think its an important step that Palestinians recognise there will be no Palestine.

And alter their movement from resistance to one which accomodates this reality.

Meanwhile, ethnic cleansing in progress:

http://harpers.org/archive/2009/10/hbc-90006003

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1125247.html