Abbas sets conditions for direct talks with Israel

[Apocalypse]

"In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

- Menahem Begin, Israeli Minister without Portfolio in 1967

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it."

- Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967

"After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was."

- Moshe Dayan, Israel's Defense Minister in 1967

It was generally agreed in every country, including Israel, that Egypt would have to be insane to initiate a war, because it would definitely lose, and that Nasser had no desire for war. If you look at those statements portrayed as statements of aggression they are actually threatening a strong response to aggression, not threatening to initiate it.

That's BS, the statements you are referring to were made in reference to the Egyptian massing of troops along the Israeli-Egyptian border. The casus beli of that war was the blockade on the Tiran straits, not the Egyptian troops massing.

It is widely believed that Nasser didn't want war, yes, it is believed that he wanted victory without actually going to war, by pressuring Israel into surrendering using methods such as the blockade on the straits of Tiran.
That blockade was an Israeli casus beli, it has strangled the Israeli economy and Israel has had to react, and so it did. It was a defensive war.

What part of "I was not starting with Israeli independence" did you not understand?

You were claiming, and I quote, that "Israel was always the aggressor".
That would include 48' and the rest of the wars.
Propaganda is never a safe bet buddy.

 

[ObamaYoMoma]

Abbas, who has absolutely no power whatsoever because his term of office ended in 2009, will not agree to a deal with Israel, because if he did he would be dead before the ink dried on any agreement he signed. In any event, even if he did, it would not be worth the paper it is written on, since Hezbollah and Hamas are fighting a genocidal war to wipe Israel off the map. Not to mention that nothing will stop Iran from getting nukes to destroy Israel except intense brutal force.

Hence, the Obama administration, which is trying to coerce Israel into returning to the pre 1967 indefensible Auschwitz border, at the same time they also armed and trained the Palestinians and armed the Lebanese, couldn’t be more incompetent.

Moreover, Israel is not the cause of all the problems in the Islamic world, as the Left gullibly believes and claims. Instead, the problem is the jihad ideology, which is about as mainstream in Islam as it gets, since every sect and division within Islam and also every school of Islamic jurisprudence teaches and preaches it. Hence, even if Israel gets wiped off the map in a genocidal blood bath of jihad, it would only embolden the Islamic world and magnify the problems exponentially emanating from the Islamic world.

Therefore, the answer lies not in strengthening the Islamic world as the naive Obama administration is foolishly doing, but in weakening the Islamic world. In addition, the Left believes that if Israel is wiped out it will solve all the world’s problems. They are in for a very rude awakening.

 

[CJ 2.0]

In every history course, the main point about the first world war is that the treaty of Versailles was totally unfair and is one of the immediate causes of the second world war. Israel may have the power to impose its will upon Palestinians, there won't be peace in the M/E as long as a fair solution isn't found, and that fair solution includes the respect of the 1967 borders.

Besides the fact that those history courses are expressing a view that is contestable, in every history course the main point about the second world war was that the complete and utter defeat of Germany and Japan, combined with significant geogrpahic carve-outs from their pre-war territorial holdings and massive transfer of civilians based on ethnic characteristics created a complete sea-change in the posture of those countries, completely eliminating the threats that they posed to civilians all over the world and to international order.

The Palestinians need to be defeated like in WWII to fix the problem. Any solution that allows them to maintain their never abandoned goal of destroying Israel at the core of their existence will fail.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Were the Polish people "losers" when Nazi Germany occupied Poland?

Wrong question. right one is asking about the Sudeten Germans that were jubilant to be reunited with their "homeland" until the Germans lost the war, who were then expelled by the millions.

They were "losers", but their loss was less important than removing any justification for Germany to play a do-over.

No one here is talking about implementing that sort of remedy. But the analogy is far mroe apt than the Poles. Even if ity does not go far enough because the Palestinians were far more closely aligned to the Arab states than the Sudetens were with Germany.

 

[Apocalypse]

Do you see where your flawed argument is weak? Exactly how are the Palestinians the losing side? The losers of the war in question were Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. The Palestinians were the victims of that war. Warfare was thrust upon them with no consent or care for their well-being, and once that was over they were living in occupation.

So before 67' the Palestinians were not living under occupation?
The Egyptian occupation of Gaza and the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem were not occupations?
Can it only be called occupation if Israel is the controlling entity?

 

[CJ 2.0]

No proper self-governing political institutions were set up to even facilitate Palestinian participation.

I'm sorry, whose responsibility was that?

"It's not my fault, you didn't set up my self-governance institutions"

You don't see the sheer perversity of that statement? Who set up the Jews' self-governnance institutions?

In any event, nothing was set up because the Arabs in palestine were not really a political grouping, but rather existed within larger populations of Egyptians, Syrians, "Jordanians" etc.

What actually happened, as unfortunate as it may be, is that a portion of territory from a much larger civilization was lost to a rival civilization, with a massive piopulation exchange following. Then, for propaganda purposes, that larger civilization created a subset of the population (created through propaganda and the systematic denial of rights to those deemed to fall within that population group) in order to advance territorial claims and change the (correct) impression that this was a tiny loss of immaterial territory to a smaller distinct society, with minimal impact on that wider civilization (particularly beyond the impact on the affected subset of the efforts to use them for propaganda purposes).

The impact on the Arabs displaced from Palestine, once factoring out the impact of their being purposely manipulated by the Arab world, was far less significant than the impact on Jewish cvivilization in the middle east, which had existed in communities that hadd been established THOUSANDS of years beforehand and which were systematically depopulated by surrounding Arab governments.

Now, all this is an aside, of course, because while history is important, what really matters is a settlment and end of conflict. And for that to happen, the Palestinians need to give up their supreme goal of destroying Israel and actually look to building their own society based on something other than destroying Israel.

Call it a "pre-condition" if you want, but that's just a fact.

 

[jmh423]

Besides the fact that those history courses are expressing a view that is contestable, in every history course the main point about the second world war was that the complete and utter defeat of Germany and Japan, combined with significant geogrpahic carve-outs from their pre-war territorial holdings and massive transfer of civilians based on ethnic characteristics created a complete sea-change in the posture of those countries, completely eliminating the threats that they posed to civilians all over the world and to international order.

The Palestinians need to be defeated like in WWII to fix the problem. Any solution that allows them to maintain their never abandoned goal of destroying Israel at the core of their existence will fail.

The result of WWII in reality was to hand power over to Communists in Easternn Europe who killed more civillians than Germany, and Communists in China who killed more civillians than Japan....You are correct in that it was "a complete sea change", but not necessarily better for the huge populations who were murdered or forced to live under brutal dictatorships. Meanwhile, the US still occupies both Germany and Japan some sixty years later.

Sure, complete annihilation and domination of the native semitic population in Palistine would "fix the problem" in your world. But any way you slice it, those in power in Israel/Palistine today are foreign invaders from eastern Europe who are in the process of ethnically cleansing the Palistinians which was their goal since the inception of Zionism.

 

[Gardener]

Sure, complete annihilation and domination of the native semitic population in Palistine would "fix the problem" in your world. But any way you slice it, those in power in Israel/Palistine today are foreign invaders from eastern Europe who are in the process of ethnically cleansing the Palistinians which was their goal since the inception of Zionism.

This is just hate speech and nothing more.

THe agitprop just keeps getting more and more disgusting in his forum.

 

[donsutherland1]

But any way you slice it, those in power in Israel/Palistine today are foreign invaders from eastern Europe who are in the process of ethnically cleansing the Palistinians which was their goal since the inception of Zionism.

There is no ethnic cleansing underway.

The term "ethnic cleansing" first gained international usage during the Balkans civil war (Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia) during the early 1990s. Andrew Bell-Fialkoff, formerly a Research Fellow at the Center for the Study of Small States, has extensively studied historic events that might fit the definition of ethnic cleansing. He provided the following definition:

At the most general level...ethnic cleansing can be understood as the expulsion of an "undesirable" population from a given territory due to religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological considerations, or a combination of these.

Israel has not engaged in the expulsion of Arabs from its boundaries. It is not engaging in such practices. Most of Israel's non-Jewish population (now about 1.7 million) is comprised of Arabs. Israel's Arab population enjoys the rights of Israeli citizens including but not limited to educational opportunities, employment, and political participation.

Mr. Bell-Fialkoff's historical research that goes back Assyrian ruler Tiglath-Pileser III (745-727 B.C.) does not cite Israel as ever having engaged in what can be defined as ethnic cleansing.

Source: Andrew Bell-Fialkoff, "A Brief History of Ethnic Cleansing," Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993.

In addition, there has been no judgments by the International Court of Justice charging Israel with ethnic cleansing.

 

[Tashah]

Sure, complete annihilation and domination of the native semitic population in Palistine would "fix the problem" in your world. But any way you slice it, those in power in Israel/Palistine today are foreign invaders from eastern Europe who are in the process of ethnically cleansing the Palistinians which was their goal since the inception of Zionism.

Propagandists of your ilk can never quite explain how a population under a supposed regimen of "ethnic-cleansing" manages to increase substantially year after year after year after year...

Palestinian population up 30 pct in a decade-census | Reuters

[Note: Census figures for the West Bank and Gaza (1998-2008) were collected by The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. This PCBS census was co-funded by Australia, Norway, the United Nations Population Fund, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Saudi Arabia.]

 

[ObamaYoMoma]

The Palestinians need to be defeated like in WWII to fix the problem. Any solution that allows them to maintain their never abandoned goal of destroying Israel at the core of their existence will fail.

Wrong. The Palestinians could be defeated utterly. Hell, they could be wiped out in a genocide, but it would not end the jihad against Israel, since the jihad against Israel is permanent and will last as long as Israel doesn’t commit national suicide or otherwise until the ummah is rendered incapable of waging jihad.

 

[jmh423]

This is just hate speech and nothing more.

THe agitprop just keeps getting more and more disgusting in his forum.

That is an interesting term as it was first used to describe the forebearers of the "Neo-Conservative" movement here in the US, and also the Zionists who have ruled in Israel since before its charter was given in '48. (It is hard to find where one ends and the other begins as their motives are one in the same). Most from both the neoCONs and the Irgun Likudis are from eastern bloc Bolchevik stock. The fact is that anything that strays from your parroting of the standard zionist "agitprop" is mischaracterized as hatespeech by you and your comrades.

Cheers



Agitprop (, from Russian агитпроп ) is a portmanteau of agitation and propaganda. The term originated in Bolshevist Russia (the future Soviet Union), where the term was a shortened form of отдел агитации и пропаганды (otdel agitatsii i propagandy), i.e., Department for Agitation and Propaganda ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agitprop

 

[Demon of Light]

You said that Israel has always been the agressor, if we'll put the Six Days war aside which have already been discussed on numerous threads in this forum so all the arguments were said and everyone's position is known. The war in 1948, first war ever between Israel and Arab was started by Arabs on the same day Israel was founded between 1949 and 1967 Israel suffered numerous terrorist attacks by fedayeen from Egypt and Jordan, Syria was shelling villages around the sea of Gallilee on regular bases, and if we expand it to the Pre-Israel era the pogroms in the late 1920s and in the 1930s. It is absolutly clear that Israel (and the Jewish population) wasn't always the agressor

You were claiming, and I quote, that "Israel was always the aggressor".
That would include 48' and the rest of the wars.
Propaganda is never a safe bet buddy.

Let's say we are talking bout an uninterrupted process rather than talking about each event separately. We certainly can't separate the Six-Day War, War of Attrition, and Yom Kippur War because ultimately the last two result from the first. However, it is best to view the entire thing as a state of constant warfare with lulls and flareups. The beginning of this process can only be the beginning of the policy that created Israel. That is to say, the Zionist project to fill Palestine up with Jews so that it might be claimed as a Jewish state.

All "pogroms" or riots, I would say it is inappropriate to call any of the events in Palestine pogroms save maybe the 1920 riot, that took place were direct reactions to this project. More importantly it only began when the British took over since the British had already endorsed the Zionist project.

From the beginning Arabs were responding to an aggressive takeover by a foreign people backed by a colonial administration they felt had betrayed them. Attacking noncombatants is usually unacceptable, but when said noncombatants are part of a policy seeking to take away another people's land this would be an exception. The Native Americans often initiated hostilities against European settlers and attacked non-combatants, but then the European settlers were seeking to take their land.

Like I said before, no one made a peep about expelling Germans from countries where they had lived much longer than nearly all Jews living in Palestine.

That's BS, the statements you are referring to were made in reference to the Egyptian massing of troops along the Israeli-Egyptian border. The casus beli of that war was the blockade on the Tiran straits, not the Egyptian troops massing.

It is widely believed that Nasser didn't want war, yes, it is believed that he wanted victory without actually going to war, by pressuring Israel into surrendering using methods such as the blockade on the straits of Tiran.
That blockade was an Israeli casus beli, it has strangled the Israeli economy and Israel has had to react, and so it did. It was a defensive war.

"While it is indeed true that the closing of the Straits of Tiran was an act of aggression, a causus belli, there is always room for a great deal of consideration as to whether it is necessary to make a causus into a bellum."

- Menahem Begin, Israeli Minister without Portfolio in 1967

Of course, the Straits of Tiran were closed because Egypt believed Israel was preparing to go to war with Syria, no doubt in part because Israel kept threatening to invade Syria and occupy Damascus, and after Israel's policy of escalation along the Syrian-Israeli frontier led to major clashes earlier that year including Israeli air raids on Syria.

There is no ethnic cleansing underway.

The term "ethnic cleansing" first gained international usage during the Balkans civil war (Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia) during the early 1990s. Andrew Bell-Fialkoff, formerly a Research Fellow at the Center for the Study of Small States, has extensively studied historic events that might fit the definition of ethnic cleansing. He provided the following definition:

At the most general level...ethnic cleansing can be understood as the expulsion of an "undesirable" population from a given territory due to religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological considerations, or a combination of these.

Israel has not engaged in the expulsion of Arabs from its boundaries. It is not engaging in such practices. Most of Israel's non-Jewish population (now about 1.7 million) is comprised of Arabs. Israel's Arab population enjoys the rights of Israeli citizens including but not limited to educational opportunities, employment, and political participation.

Mr. Bell-Fialkoff's historical research that goes back Assyrian ruler Tiglath-Pileser III (745-727 B.C.) does not cite Israel as ever having engaged in what can be defined as ethnic cleansing.

Source: Andrew Bell-Fialkoff, "A Brief History of Ethnic Cleansing," Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993.

In addition, there has been no judgments by the International Court of Justice charging Israel with ethnic cleansing.

Israel most certainly has engaged in ethnic cleansing. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs were expelled by force during the 1948 War and this included all the depravities of ethnic cleansing. Honestly, if the ICJ/UN was consistent they would declare Israel's actions against Arabs in 1948 to be genocide since it was largely consistent with Serbian treatment of Bosniaks.

 

[ObamaYoMoma]

From the beginning Arabs were responding to an aggressive takeover by a foreign people backed by a colonial administration they felt had betrayed them.

Actually, Christian Arabs and Jewish Arabs didn’t have a problem with the Jews in Israel. It is only the Muslim Arabs that had the problem with the Jews in Israel. So lets get one thing straight right off the top, what is happening in Israel is a genocidal jihad being waged by Muslims against the Jewish infidels in Israel. In fact, the entire international Islamic ummah is waging jihad against the Jewish infidels in Israel. Indeed, whenever I talk to Muslims from Pakistan, Indonesia, and even Muslims born here in the USA, all of them without exception tell me they pray for the destruction of Israel.

Moreover, the creation of Israel came about after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in WWI when all of present day Israel and all of Jordan were set aside to become the future home of the Jewish state at the San Remo conference following WWI. Hence, by decree Israel was created out of the remnants of the old defunct Ottoman Empire and has just as much legal right to exist as all of the other Muslim countries that surround Israel today that were also carved from remnants of the old defunct Ottoman Empire after WWI and owe their existence today to the very same exact process.

The problem the Muslims have with Israel is the creation of Israel represents the reestablishment of the Dar al Harb in what was formerly the Dar al Islam, and per Islam land that was once formerly a part of Dar al Islam must always remain a part of Dar al Islam. Hence, the jihad currently being waged against Israel, which is to reestablish the Dar al Islam per the imposition of Sharia over the land of Israel, is permanent and will last until either Israel commits national suicide or otherwise until the ummah is rendered too weak to wage jihad.

Thus, it doesn’t matter how many peace processes the West sponsors, the Muslims will never stop pursuing jihad against Israel, as any Muslim who makes the mistake of making peace with Israel isn’t a true Muslim but an apostate, and apostates in Islam must be executed.

 

[ObamaYoMoma]

Israel most certainly has engaged in ethnic cleansing. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs were expelled by force during the 1948 War and this included all the depravities of ethnic cleansing. Honestly, if the ICJ/UN was consistent they would declare Israel's actions against Arabs in 1948 to be genocide since it was largely consistent with Serbian treatment of Bosniaks.

With all due respect, you seem to be very confused. While there are a few documented cases where some Jews scared some Arabs into fleeing, there are many more documented cases of Jews pleading with Arabs to remain. The truth is the vast overwhelming number of Arabs fled on their own accord after the Arab leaders urged them to leave to make way for the impending Arab invasion. In fact, they were told that they would be able to return after the annihilation to collect and confiscate the property of the dead Jews.

Furthermore, the Arabs subsequent to their defeat in the 1948 war in anger reacted by ethnically cleansing from their countries approximately 800,000 thousand Jews with nothing but the shirts on their backs while confiscating their property and murdering thousands of them in pogroms.

 

[donsutherland1]

Most from both the neoCONs and the Irgun Likudis are from eastern bloc Bolchevik stock. The fact is that anything that strays from your parroting of the standard zionist "agitprop" is mischaracterized as hatespeech by you and your comrades.

Moderator's Warning:

You are thread banned. Do not post in this thread again. Any subsequent posted messages in this thread will result in a DBAJ infraction. Ethnicity does not have a causal relationship with ideology. At the same time, misuse of the term "Zionist" runs counter to the subforum's martial law. One can readily express opposition to Israel's policies without resorting to baseless theories centered on ethnic origins and misuse of "Zionist" or "Zionism."

 

[donsutherland1]

Israel most certainly has engaged in ethnic cleansing. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs were expelled by force during the 1948 War and this included all the depravities of ethnic cleansing. Honestly, if the ICJ/UN was consistent they would declare Israel's actions against Arabs in 1948 to be genocide since it was largely consistent with Serbian treatment of Bosniaks.

There is little doubt that "population exchanges" occurred during the 1948 war, some of which were forced. However, the situation did not satisfy the criteria set forth by Bell-Fialkoff. If one wants to argue that there were some localized and widely scattered incidents that possessed some of the characteristics of ethnic cleansing, that's a different matter. There were a few such incidents that were carried out against Arabs and Jews. Few wars witness zero cases in which the Laws of War have not been violated. That war was no exception. One need not overgeneralize in order to criticize improper acts.

With respect to genocide, the situation did not remotely satisfy the international definition of the term. According to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide is:

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Neither during the 1948 war nor at any other time has Israel ever engaged in such acts, much less with the intent "to destroy, in whole or in part, a national ethnical, racial or religious group."

 

[CJ 2.0]

With respect to genocide, the situation did not remotely satisfy the international definition of the term. According to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

...

Neither during the 1948 war nor at any other time has Israel ever engaged in such acts, much less with the intent "to destroy, in whole or in part, a national ethnical, racial or religious group."

It's probably worth pointing out at this point that this is the core of Hamas' charter and "electoral" platform.


Edit: Probably also should have pointed out that this has been the core ideolgoy and purpose of all Palestinian "resistance groups" since the PLO was founded in 1964.

To advocate, promote and pursue genocide, as that term was defined in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Thinking about it, they probably could have saved a lot of time drafting, without needing to modify their agenda even remotely, by just adopting this definition as their charter and inserting the words "will pursue" beforehand and Israel/Jews afterwards.

Strange that DoL wouldbn't have picked up on this.

 

[donsutherland1]

So lets get one thing straight right off the top, what is happening in Israel is a genocidal jihad being waged by Muslims against the Jewish infidels in Israel. In fact, the entire international Islamic ummah is waging jihad against the Jewish infidels in Israel. Indeed, whenever I talk to Muslims from Pakistan, Indonesia, and even Muslims born here in the USA, all of them without exception tell me they pray for the destruction of Israel...

The problem the Muslims have with Israel is the creation of Israel represents the reestablishment of the Dar al Harb in what was formerly the Dar al Islam, and per Islam land that was once formerly a part of Dar al Islam must always remain a part of Dar al Islam. Hence, the jihad currently being waged against Israel, which is to reestablish the Dar al Islam per the imposition of Sharia over the land of Israel, is permanent and will last until either Israel commits national suicide or otherwise until the ummah is rendered too weak to wage jihad.

Moderator's Warning:

Please read DP's rules and refrain from overgeneralizations. There is no credible evidence that every Muslim seeks Israel's destruction. If one wants to argue that "radical Islamists" or "Israel's enemies" or some other specified group seeks Israel's destruction, that's a different matter. Overgeneralizations create problems within theads and undermine debate and discussion.

 

[Demon of Light]

There is little doubt that "population exchanges" occurred during the 1948 war, some of which were forced. However, the situation did not satisfy the criteria set forth by Bell-Fialkoff. If one wants to argue that there were some localized and widely scattered incidents that possessed some of the characteristics of ethnic cleansing, that's a different matter. There were a few such incidents that were carried out against Arabs and Jews. Few wars witness zero cases in which the Laws of War have not been violated. That war was no exception. One need not overgeneralize in order to criticize improper acts.

Many Israeli historians have argued otherwise. Benny Morris was clear that nearly all of the Nakba was caused by actions of the Israeli military and its predecessors. Even while he has become more supportive of Israel's policies he has never backed away from this claim. In fact, as it stands he claims Israel had to expel the Arabs and that he thinks Israel did the right thing in ethnically cleansing these people because in his opinion they were a potentially subversive minority.

There is no exaggeration in play here. In Lydda tens of thousands of Arabs were forcibly expelled from Israel. Yitzhak Rabin acknowledged that this was on the order of Ben-Gurion and when he included this in his memoirs it was censored. In Haifa the Israelis used psychological warfare and fired into civilian areas in an effort to drive out Arab populations.

From that point on every Israeli offensive on Arab lands led to the forcible expulsion of Arabs. Most importantly is that in all cases the depopulated villages that were not systematically destroyed were settled by Jews.

Also, as I have noted elsewhere, from 1948 to 1966 a period of martial law took place where all remaining Arabs were essentially ghettoized and their original homes destroyed or handed over to Jews even though they were still living in Israeli territory. Freedom of movement for the Arab population was heavily restricted.

With respect to genocide, the situation did not remotely satisfy the international definition of the term. According to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide is:

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Neither during the 1948 war nor at any other time has Israel ever engaged in such acts, much less with the intent "to destroy, in whole or in part, a national ethnical, racial or religious group."

Like I said, calling it genocide would simply be consistent with the ruling on acts committed by Serbs against Bosniaks. I for one think what happened in Srebrenica does not satisfy the use of the term genocide and is an example of the term's increasing abuse by parties who have a vested interest in exaggerating certain actions. However, if we are to accept that definition than we would have to apply it to Israel's actions with regards to the Arab population. Israeli troops were frequently ordered to kill all adult male Arabs and many of the other practices were similar to those in Srebrenica.

However, it seems to me there were possibly a few acts of genocide or acts that border on genocidal, mainly perpetrated by Irgun and Lehi as well as their successor organizations in the IDF.

It's probably worth pointing out at this point that this is the core of Hamas' charter and "electoral" platform.


Edit: Probably also should have pointed out that this has been the core ideolgoy and purpose of all Palestinian "resistance groups" since the PLO was founded in 1964.

To advocate, promote and pursue genocide, as that term was defined in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Thinking about it, they probably could have saved a lot of time drafting, without needing to modify their agenda even remotely, by just adopting this definition as their charter and inserting the words "will pursue" beforehand and Israel/Jews afterwards.

Strange that DoL wouldbn't have picked up on this.

As I understand it they have only called for what the Palestinians originally called for: a single unitary state.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Most importantly is that in all cases the depopulated villages that were not systematically destroyed were settled by Jews.

Q: Which Jews?

A: Jews ethnicly clensed from Arab countries.

Just worth adding that to the record, in case it gets missed.

 

[24107]

Q: Which Jews?

A: Jews ethnicly clensed from Arab countries.

Just worth adding that to the record, in case it gets missed.

No need for you to deflect what he is specifically talking about, you know what he means.

 

[CJ 2.0]

As I understand it they have only called for what the Palestinians originally called for: a single unitary state.

Your understanding is beyond mistaken.

 

[CJ 2.0]

No need for you to deflect what he is specifically talking about, you know what he means.

I know what he means. But this is directly relevant. He was trying to score a propaganda point, not engage in a material substantive discussion. This rather important fact, omitted from his propaganda effort, kind of shifts the frame of discussion a bit. I am not saying that Jews never settled in these villages, only that these Jews were themselves expelled from Arab countries.

I get that the Palestinians see a very material advantage in being the only victim group, the only disenfranchised ones, the only innocent victims in everything that has happened, but that is not the way thigns worked. They were less than innocent, on a political grouping-wide level (such as such a grouping actually existed), while at the same time the wider civilization they were a part of (and had their identities tied to) engaged in precisely the systematic policy they have chosen to project onto the other side.

I am just pointing out that what happened was a population exchange. Jews went from like a third of baghdad, wherte they had lived for millenia, to vitruatlly zero.

And fewer Arabs were displaced from the sliver of land they were not able to ethnicly clense of Jews by force.

And this matters.

 

[Demon of Light]

Q: Which Jews?

A: Jews ethnicly clensed from Arab countries.

Just worth adding that to the record, in case it gets missed.

Excluding some of the finer points on that I honestly do not think there would have been any expulsions were it not for the 1948 War. In certain cases, like Egypt, Israel clearly brought about the situation through its own actions.

Your understanding is beyond mistaken.

Prove it, preferably with an objective source. I looked for the charter and found a long list of pro-Israeli sites and pro-Israeli books and they all seem to differ, leaving out passages or using widely diverging words. Honestly, I'm not finding anything compelling me to believe the alleged charter ever existed, let alone that it influences Hamas policy today.