Israeli presence on Palestinian land 'irreversible'

[Demon of Light]

You stated:

"Demanding recognition of Israel as a state for Jews actually prejudices the outcome of talks.."

Please explain how.

The obvious point raised is the right of return. Also to be considered is how it impacts the status of Israeli-Arabs.

You stated:

"What has been demanded of the Palestinians is far beyond anything Israel has offered to concede."

What are you referring to?

I mentioned it earlier in the post.

You stated:

"Demanding they disarm should not be a precondition for a settlement. An armistice is all that is really required."

It is illogical to think someone will sit and talk with a terrorist whose charter is to wipe them out. It is precisely why for example no peace talks could commence in Northern Ireland until the IRA disarmed.

If you can't understand the symbolic let alone practical issues of asking someone to sit with a person whose stated belief is to wipe them out, then maybe you should consider it.

Israel does not have a charter calling on the wiping out of Palestinians. Hamas and Intifada and Hezbollag and Fatah Hawks do. No this is not some kind of game where we pretend a terrorist is interested in discussing peace. If they are genuinely interested they will do what Mr. Abbas does, establish their legitimacy by stating armed violence is not acceptable and disarming. This then makes it possible for the IDF to be withdrawn and strengthens Palestinian arguments that Israel does not need additional post 1967 land as a terror buffer zone.

At least Mr. Abbas understand the symbolism if not the practicality as to why one can not talk peace while pointing a gun at Israel.

Many peace agreements are reached while both sides are still armed. Hamas disarming means that instead of them both pointing guns at each other Israel is the only one with a gun.

 

[William Rea]

...Many peace agreements are reached while both sides are still armed. Hamas disarming means that instead of them both pointing guns at each other Israel is the only one with a gun.

As NI is being raised, the London Government was covertly speaking to the IRA in the early 1990s while it was still armed and operational. I dislike the British Conservative Party but the Major government showed some real leadership on this issue and it is sad that Blair got most of the credit.

 

[Mika-El]

1-The obvious point raised is the right of return. Also to be considered is how it impacts the status of Israeli-Arabs.

2-Many peace agreements are reached while both sides are still armed. Hamas disarming means that instead of them both pointing guns at each other Israel is the only one with a gun.

In regards to 1, no you did not explain in your earlier post nor in the response in 1 why recognizing Israel as a Jewish state in itself would prejudice law of return issues for Palestinians or Israeli Arabs.

To start with let us deal with Israeli Arabs. Their legal rights are not negatively impacted on the state being Jewish. The notion you have that if Israel stopped being Jewish they would suddenly be entitled to more land is legally not valid. This assumption you may have that if Israel is not Jewish then suddenly Arab Israelis have more legal rights to land rights within Israel is baseless. Please provide the legal basis for that assumption because certainly no Israeli-Arab citizen has ever argued that. Arabs who chose to stay in Israel after it was declared a nation own the land they lived on and live in the highest standard of any Arab in the Middle East. I would suggest you are mixing up their land right issues with those of alleged absentee Palestinians who left and never came back to Israel. They are not the same legal issue as to ownership or title rights at all.

Now in regards to Palestinians who claim they have a right to return to Israel but this would be prejudiced by the state being Jewish-such an assumption is based on the conclusion that Israel can never be a Jewish state and anyone who identifies as Palestinian should be able to walk into Israel, be given any land they claim belongs to them, and presto bango the problem is solved.

This is part of the fiction of dismantling Israel and giving it back to Palestinians. Its part of the fiction that pretends 78% of Palestine was already made Jew free and now the remaining 6% shouldn't be a Jewish state but also a majority Muslim state.

No recognizing Israel as a Jewish state is not prejudicial to Israeli Arabs. In fact they have indicated they do not wish to give up Israeli citizenship. No self proclaimed Palestinians should not have the unrealistic expectation Israel can't be a Jewish state but Jordan can be a jew free state, Palestine on the West Bank and in Gaza would be Jew free as Mr. Abbas stated, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia would all continue to forbid Jewish citizenship and ownership of land but Muslims could own whatever land they want in Israel. That is illogical.

The need for Israel to be a Jewish state is a direct response to dhimmitude in the rest of the Middle East which forbids Jews from owning land, having equal citizenship and legal rights and having expelled 900,000 Jews illegally stealing all their property and forcing 700,000 of them to flee to Israel.

No in the real world, you don't tell a people they are second class, can't own land, can't testify in court, can't own a business, and then in the next breath say, by the way you can't have any of this because we are Muslim nations and our religion says this dhimmitude apartheid is acceptable to be practiced against you and by the way you know that country you want to live in that guarantees you won't be treated this way, uh no, we want to move there and become majority Muslim as well so we can impose Sharia law there was well.

 

[danarhea]

The UN missed an unprecedented opportunity by not investigating what Israel asked for i.e. atrocities committed against Israelis and their human rights by Palestinians.

If there had been a dual investigation and Israel's case was held up, that would help further the moves towards reconciliation as Palestinians and their supporters would have to address issues raised. Equally, any findings that showed that Israeli actions had treated Palestinian human rights badly would have had more weight. As it is, the UN asked only for investigations into Israel's actions which yet again put Israel on the defensive.

Israel plainly stated its objections 3-4 years ago when Falk was first appointed and the UN has had 3-4 years to address Israels concerns. Now however, the cause of treatment and collective punishment of Gazans during the first 3 years of the blockade can be whitewashed away by both sides whose main concerns are scoring points rather than reaching a solution.

Whoever put together the restricted mandate and then placed people into the post of Special Rapporteur who Israel saw as one sided and hostile (i.e. Falk and John Dugard before him) has done the two state solution or eventual peace no good whatsoever.

This cartoon should be put up at the entrance to the UN:

 

[Demon of Light]

This cartoon should be put up at the entrance to the UN:

Yeah, I mean, why even bother beating around the bush anymore? Just outright say "the Palestinians are out to kill all the Jews so everything Israel does should be rewarded!"

 

[bub]

He is exceptionally biased. If one reads the actual document, Mr. Falk accuses Israel of Apartheid, colonization, ethnic cleansing, etc., none of which is accurate if the terms are used properly.

There's some debate about the use of the word "apartheid" (even though South Africans themselves talk about an apartheid in Palestine) but I'm very curious about the word "colonization" "not being used properly".

 

[Gardener]

There's some debate about the use of the word "apartheid" (even though South Africans themselves talk about an apartheid in Palestine) but I'm very curious about the word "colonization" "not being used properly".

Why would anybody consider people living in their original homeland to be colonists?

 

[Demon of Light]

Why would anybody consider people living in their original homeland to be colonists?

Maybe you should ask the Zionist Organization why they considered them colonists.

 

[bub]

Why would anybody consider people living in their original homeland to be colonists?

Because that "original homeland" does not belong to them maybe? It would be OK if they lived under Palestinian authority, but that's not what they're doing, they're stealing land that belongs to the Palestinians.

It's just as if I moved to Kenya, built my home without any permit and started my own independent country, without asking Kenyans and without being under Kenyan authority, arguing that modern humans came from africa 40 or 50,000 years ago and that this entitles me to do that. That would be considered as an act of war by any nation.

 

[Degreez]

Because that "original homeland" does not belong to them maybe? It would be OK if they lived under Palestinian authority, but that's not what they're doing, they're stealing land that belongs to the Palestinians.

It's just as if I moved to Kenya, built my home without any permit and started my own independent country, without asking Kenyans and without being under Kenyan authority, arguing that modern humans came from africa 40 or 50,000 years ago and that this entitles me to do that. That would be considered as an act of war by any nation.

Spot on, bub.

Every single human being on this planet's most common recent ancestor is from Ethiopia. Does that give every person a right to come to Ethiopia and do whatever I want with total disregard for the current indigenous population?

Hell no.

 

[Apocalypse]

Because that "original homeland" does not belong to them maybe? It would be OK if they lived under Palestinian authority, but that's not what they're doing, they're stealing land that belongs to the Palestinians.

It's just as if I moved to Kenya, built my home without any permit and started my own independent country, without asking Kenyans and without being under Kenyan authority, arguing that modern humans came from africa 40 or 50,000 years ago and that this entitles me to do that. That would be considered as an act of war by any nation.

Kenyans are the rulers of their country, the Palestinian Arabs were not the rulers of the land the Palestinian Jews have received self-determination in. Hence a false analogy.

 

[Degreez]

Kenyans are the rulers of their country, the Palestinian Arabs were not the rulers of the land the Palestinian Jews have received self-determination in. Hence a false analogy.

The contention was that people from their original homeland are not colonists.

By that logic, every human beings' original homeland is Northern Africa, and thus if one was to return to Northern Africa, he or she would not be a colonist.

All of that aside, bub is still referring to Israel's illegal settlement policy. You know, transferring its own civilian population onto occupied territory. That is not part of the territory Israelis received self-determination in. Yet they treat it as such with total disregard for indigenous population.

 

[Apocalypse]

The contention was that people from their original homeland are not colonists.

By that logic, every human beings' original homeland is Northern Africa, and thus if one was to return to Northern Africa, he or she would not be a colonist.

I believe you got yourself mixed between "people" as individuals and "people" as to nations.
Every nation's original homeland is absolutely not in Africa, and rather it is the place where the group of individuals have established their nation and became a people.

 

[Gardener]

Spot on, bub.

Every single human being on this planet's most common recent ancestor is from Ethiopia. Does that give every person a right to come to Ethiopia and do whatever I want with total disregard for the current indigenous population?

Hell no.

Although the extremely biased propaganda you indulge in here is quite commom, the facts of the matter are that Jewish people have had a continuous presense there for over 3000 years. They speak the language that arose there (as opposed to those who speak the alien language Arabic), follow the religon that arose there (as opposed to the alien religion imported into the land) and have cultural ties as a distinct people to this land for millenia (rather than existing as a people for only a few decades).

If one is to talk about "colonialization", an easier case could be made that it is the Arabs who have done so rather than the Jews.

 

[Demon of Light]

If one is to talk about "colonialization", an easier case could be made that it is the Arabs who have done so rather than the Jews.

Did you not even pay attentiont to what I said? The Zionist Organization considered Jews moving to Israel colonists. It just did not see anything wrong with that. Also, the Palestinian Arabs are likely descendants of the original inhabitants as well. Arab just refers to the language they speak.

 

[Degreez]

Although the extremely biased propaganda you indulge in here is quite commom, the facts of the matter are that Jewish people have had a continuous presense there for over 3000 years. They speak the language that arose there (as opposed to those who speak the alien language Arabic), follow the religon that arose there (as opposed to the alien religion imported into the land) and have cultural ties as a distinct people to this land for millenia (rather than existing as a people for only a few decades).

If one is to talk about "colonialization", an easier case could be made that it is the Arabs who have done so rather than the Jews.

The only person with purporting propaganda around here is you with your distorted view of reality.

The Jewish people have had a continuous presence there. My ancestors have had a continuous presence in northern Africa.

The alien language Arabic? Hebrew was just as alien of a language when compared to Akkadian and other Semitic languages that existed well before it.

I have ties to my ancestors who live in northern African. It would still be colonization if I were to go back to my original homeland.

 

[bub]

Kenyans are the rulers of their country, the Palestinian Arabs were not the rulers of the land the Palestinian Jews have received self-determination in. Hence a false analogy.

I'm not talking about Israel, I'm talking about territories in West Bank that are being annexed since 1967 and which were attributed to Palestinians by the UN

 

[bub]

All of that aside, bub is still referring to Israel's illegal settlement policy. You know, transferring its own civilian population onto occupied territory. That is not part of the territory Israelis received self-determination in. Yet they treat it as such with total disregard for indigenous population.

thank you degreez

 

[Apocalypse]

I'm not talking about Israel, I'm talking about territories in West Bank that are being annexed since 1967 and which were attributed to Palestinians by the UN

No new territories have been annexed by the state of Israel since the end of the six-day war in '67.

 

[Apocalypse]

The only person with purporting propaganda around here is you with your distorted view of reality.

The Jewish people have had a continuous presence there. My ancestors have had a continuous presence in northern Africa.

The alien language Arabic? Hebrew was just as alien of a language when compared to Akkadian and other Semitic languages that existed well before it.

I have ties to my ancestors who live in northern African. It would still be colonization if I were to go back to my original homeland.

Did you miss my comment?
An homeland for a nation is the place where the group of individuals that constitute as that nation have established themselves as a people.
Therefore the reference to Africa as the homeland of the Chinese nation, of the Chinese people, would be extremely inaccurate.

 

[Degreez]

Did you miss my comment?
An homeland for a nation is the place where the group of individuals that constitute as that nation have established themselves as a people.
Therefore the reference to Africa as the homeland of the Chinese nation, of the Chinese people, would be extremely inaccurate.

Way to totally distort what I said. Northern Africa is the homeland to ALL people. I never onced made a reference to Northern Africa as the homeland of the Chinese nation. Northern Africa is the homeland to ALL people. Northern Africa is the homeland to ALL people. We as people constitute mankind. Where is the original homeland for all of mankind? Northern Africa.

Now will you stop misconstruing my post so that you have a weaker position to debate.

 

[bub]

No new territories have been annexed by the state of Israel since the end of the six-day war in '67.

Let's take factual examples to check this.

Ma'ale Efrayim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Founded in 1978 on Palestinian land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma'ale_Adummim

Founded in 1976 on Palestinian land.

Now these territories were "occupied" since 1967, but they were still Palestinian, no one ever granted these territories to Israel. Same goes for East-Jerusalem, annexed in violation of international law and who is not recognized as Israeli by anyone outside Israel (and maybe the USA).

Ma'ale Adumim is considered illegal under international law according to Fourth Geneva Convention (article 49), which prohibits an occupying power transferring citizens from its own territory to occupied territory. Israel disputes this and argues that international conventions relating to occupied land do not apply to the West Bank because they were not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state in the first place.[12] This view has been rejected as being without basis in international law by the International Court of Justice and the International Committee of the Red Cross

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma'ale_Adummim

Since these settlements are illegal, maybe they should just be destroyed, just like a mosque was destroyed last week in Southern Israel because it was "built without authorization". No double standard.

 

[Apocalypse]

Let's take factual examples to check this.

Ma'ale Efrayim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Founded in 1978 on Palestinian land.

Ma'ale Adumim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Founded in 1976 on Palestinian land.

Now these territories were "occupied" since 1967, but they were still Palestinian, no one ever granted these territories to Israel. Same goes for East-Jerusalem, annexed in violation of international law and who is not recognized as Israeli by anyone outside Israel (and maybe the USA).



Ma'ale Adumim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since these settlements are illegal, maybe they should just be destroyed, just like a mosque was destroyed last week in Southern Israel because it was "built without authorization". No double standard.

Bub, those settlements are not annexations of land, you merely seem to lack the knowledge that is needed to be able to tell the difference between occupying a land and annexing it.
Out of all of the examples that you've given only East Jerusalem is an annexation of land, and it was annexed in '67.

Thus you haven't even proven me wrong by the slightest, no new land has been annexed since the six-day war in '67.

 

[justabubba]

Bub, those settlements are not annexations of land, you merely seem to lack the knowledge that is needed to be able to tell the difference between occupying a land and annexing it.
Out of all of the examples that you've given only East Jerusalem is an annexation of land, and it was annexed in '67.

Thus you haven't even proven me wrong by the slightest, no new land has been annexed since the six-day war in '67.

east jerusalem was annexed PRIOR to the '67 war?

 

[Apocalypse]

east jerusalem was annexed PRIOR to the '67 war?

Nope, during, in the six-day war in '67.

As I said, no new land was annexed since the end of the six-day war in '67, and bub's comment merely tells of a great lack of knowledge on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.