Get Used to It: Israel Is Here to Stay

[Kondor3]

For clarification's sake, I am, indeed, a prick; however, I do my best to be an agreeable prick rather than a disgusting one...

I knew it was a only a matter of time before you saw things my way.

This does nothing to help us differentiate between Occupation and Fenced-off Separation, in an Israeli-Palestinian context, but, since you mentioned it again...

I've never believed nor held nor pretended otherwise; I just don't go out-of-my-way to manifest in that mode.

 

[MHunterB]

Just which 'fudamental' rights don't 'arab-Israelis' have, according to you? And do you actually mean 'arab Israelis' - or do you mean 'Israelis who are not Jewish'?

After all, over half of Israeli Jews are Mizrachi or Sephardi - which is to say 'arab' Jews.....

The Knesset has outlawed any rememberence of Nakba Day. Arab-Israeli's are not allowed to ride busses with jewish-Israeli's. There are "jew-only" roads; "jew-only" communities and about 29 other laws that have codified apartheid in that country.

The first is factually completely incorrect: the government simply allowed local municipalities, etc, to choose to NOT FUND such 'remembrance' from their budgets. Basicaly, your 'statement' is an outright falsehood, a lie.

So is the second, so far as I am aware.

As to the third, I believe that is also a mis-statement.

Some list of those alleged '29 other laws' would be helpful - from some reliable source. So far, you're totally in error and have presented nothing to document those 'facts' which have ben your excuse for so much obscenity, name-calling and outright demonization directed at other posters.

It makes you appear very uninformed and extremely ill-equipped to actually *discuss* the topic.

 

[Connery]

Thread cleaned

The Administration and the Moderation Team are serious in their efforts to have a civil discourse as it pertains to the OP and any further posts which violate Zone 2 rules will be viewed in a more serious manner where infractions will be administered on a case by case basis.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Just which 'fudamental' rights don't 'arab-Israelis' have, according to you? And do you actually mean 'arab Israelis' - or do you mean 'Israelis who are not Jewish'?

After all, over half of Israeli Jews are Mizrachi or Sephardi - which is to say 'arab' Jews.....

The Knesset has outlawed any rememberence of Nakba Day. Arab-Israeli's are not allowed to ride busses with jewish-Israeli's. There are "jew-only" roads; "jew-only" communities and about 29 other laws that have codified apartheid in that country.

The first is factually completely incorrect: the government simply allowed local municipalities, etc, to choose to NOT FUND such 'remembrance' from their budgets. Basicaly, your 'statement' is an outright falsehood, a lie.

So is the second, so far as I am aware.

As to the third, I believe that is also a mis-statement.

Some list of those alleged '29 other laws' would be helpful - from some reliable source. So far, you're totally in error and have presented nothing to document those 'facts' which have ben your excuse for so much obscenity, name-calling and outright demonization directed at other posters.

It makes you appear very uninformed and extremely ill-equipped to actually *discuss* the topic.

I've never heard of Jew-only busses in Israel or even in the West Bank. Many times I've ridden on busses with Arabs. Link? Some "Jewish-only" roads were established on the West Bank after the Second Intifada, because of the snipers and shooting going on the regular roads. This was purely a matter of security. Haifa is fairly intermixed with Jews and Arabs, as are many cities in Israel. However, in the grand tradition of Chinatown, Little Italy, Spanish Harlem, etc., certainly there are some separate Jewish and Arab neighborhoods. Please visit Israel before you make further ridiculous statements, loinboy.

 

[Beachboy]

Thread cleaned

The Administration and the Moderation Team are serious in their efforts to have a civil discourse as it pertains to the OP and any further posts which violate Zone 2 rules will be viewed in a more serious manner where infractions will be administered on a case by case basis.

Just as a reminder to myself, and anyone else who has not checked out what Zone 2 rules are recently, here they are:
​

"Zone 1": Clean Debate Zone (CDZ) / Introduce Yourself (Welcome Threads): Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No negative repping. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics.

"Zone 2": Political Forum / Israel and Palestine Forum / Race Relations/Racism Forum / Religion & Ethics Forum: Baiting and polarizing OP's (Opening Posts), and thread titles risk the thread either being moved or trashed. Keep it relevant, choose wisely. Each post must contain content relevant to the thread subject, in addition to any flame. No trolling. No hit and run flames. No hijacking or derailing threads.

"Zone 3": Main Forums: Normal Site Wide Rules apply. This includes PM's (Private Messaging), Visitor Messages, Reputation Comments, and Publicly Viewed Social Groups (Though Lightly Moderated).

"Zone 4": Flame Zone/Badlands/Rubber Room: The least moderated forum on the site. Not viewed by non members. Site wide rules still apply, but are more loosely enforced. Extreme flaming threads and posts belong here. If the OP (Opening Post) of Your Thread is focused on Mocking or Ridicule, It belongs here.

 

[Beachboy]

The OP

Get Used to It: Israel Is Here to Stay​

October 24, 2012
By David Solway

---

For it is almost inconceivable that a few million citizens of a newly established nation could successfully resist the military onslaught of vastly larger armies time and again. It must also contend against the enmity of its nominal allies in the West, the propaganda campaigns of the world’s major NGOs and opinion-forming bodies, the lies and slanders of the political and media elites, the ignorance of multitudes, and the specter of daily terror. It is equally inconceivable that this same beleaguered nation could at the same time become one of the world’s leading innovators in science, technology, medicine and agriculture, offering benefits to mankind out of all proportion to its numbers and circumstances—while reaping, for the most part, resentment, envy and violence.

For some, the continued existence of Israel is a sign of divine solicitude; for others, of human fortitude, hope and commitment at its most incandescent. But whatever the reason for this rarest of phenomena, the emergence of the theoretically impossible, it is a safe bet that Israel will still be around when its adversaries and detractors have succumbed to their own contradictions and dilemmas. Get used to it. Israel is here to stay.

Get Used to It: Israel Is Here to Stay

 

[pbel]

The OP

Get Used to It: Israel Is Here to Stay​

October 24, 2012
By David Solway

---

For it is almost inconceivable that a few million citizens of a newly established nation could successfully resist the military onslaught of vastly larger armies time and again. It must also contend against the enmity of its nominal allies in the West, the propaganda campaigns of the world’s major NGOs and opinion-forming bodies, the lies and slanders of the political and media elites, the ignorance of multitudes, and the specter of daily terror. It is equally inconceivable that this same beleaguered nation could at the same time become one of the world’s leading innovators in science, technology, medicine and agriculture, offering benefits to mankind out of all proportion to its numbers and circumstances—while reaping, for the most part, resentment, envy and violence.

For some, the continued existence of Israel is a sign of divine solicitude; for others, of human fortitude, hope and commitment at its most incandescent. But whatever the reason for this rarest of phenomena, the emergence of the theoretically impossible, it is a safe bet that Israel will still be around when its adversaries and detractors have succumbed to their own contradictions and dilemmas. Get used to it. Israel is here to stay.

Get Used to It: Israel Is Here to Stay

This is the kind of bravado of invincibility that lulls its claimants to defeat...No empire has lasted forever, and I simply doubt Israel will last beyond a couple of hundred years if she stays on a war footing with Islam, especially when the entire ME is armed to the teeth with Nukes.

Armament Parity has been the great neutralizer in History. Stay tuned.

 

[American_Jihad]

Obama’s Leaks & Sabotaging Israel’s Defense

November 4, 2013 By Joseph Klein

Israel has established a clear-cut red line when it comes to preventing the transfer of advanced arms from Syria to Hezbollah. And unlike the Obama administration, Israel means what it says. Israel has conducted military strikes to destroy advanced Iranian and Russian weapons in the Syrian regime’s hands before they could be added to Hezbollah’s growing stockpile of offensive arms aimed at Israeli population centers or used to thwart Israeli defense systems.

Instead of providing covert support for Israeli operations, or at least staying out of Israel’s way, the Obama administration is deliberately compromising Israel’s security by leaking sensitive information on Israeli attacks against the Syrian weapons targets.

The latest episode of Obama administration betrayal of America’s closest ally in the Middle East came last week when an Obama administration official leaked to CNN that Israeli warplanes had attacked a Syrian base, targeting “missiles and related equipment” to prevent their delivery to Hezbollah. The Israeli Air Force attack targeted Russian-made SA-8 Gecko Dgreen mobile missiles in the Syrian port of Latakia. Israel reportedly also struck a similar shipment in Damascus. The latest leaks continue a disturbing pattern, including the U.S. intelligence community’s public disclosure last summer of an Israeli air and naval strike on a shipment of highly advanced Russian anti-ship missiles.

...

Now comes word, revealed by DEBKAfile’s intelligence and Iranian sources, that there was an unexplained explosion last week at Iran’s Arak heavy water reactor that is under construction and would have the capability to produce plutonium for use in nuclear bombs as an alternative to enriched uranium. There is no indication yet whether Israel may have been involved in some sort of act of sabotage. But if Israel was involved, will the Obama administration sabotage Israel’s covert activities with yet another embarrassing leak? Based on its pattern of leaking Israel’s strikes on advanced weapons in Syria destined for Hezbollah, the answer sadly is most likely yes.



Obama?s Leaks & Sabotaging Israel?s Defense | FrontPage Magazine

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

This is a filler article; and not too bright.

(REFERENCE)

Obama’s Leaks & Sabotaging Israel’s Defense

November 4, 2013 By Joseph Klein
Obama?s Leaks & Sabotaging Israel?s Defense | FrontPage Magazine

(COMMENT)

The idea that the US "leaked" the story (implying some compromise by association) is rather dull. Who the hell else, besides Israel, is making such strikes? Does Joe Klein believe for a moment that it was a mystery to either the Russians or the Syrians?

DEBKAfile, citing its Washington sources, explained that “because the administration is immersed in a complicated joint diplomatic maneuver with Moscow on Syria, it can’t afford to leave the impression of US involvement in the Israeli attack or its approval.”

I think that the Quartet and the Regional Governments know by now that the US has little influence over self-defense operations by Israel. Israel does what it believes is in its best interest; when it wants and where it wants. It doesn't follow US guidance that it believes is detrimental to Israeli Security.

The leaks appear to be part of the Obama administration’s strategy to put Netanyahu in his place by telling him, in effect, that the U.S. has the capacity to monitor every move the Israelis make, including preparations for a military strike to halt Iran’s nuclear program, and to expose Israel’s plans preemptively, if the Obama administration deems necessary, to protect its ongoing negotiations with Iran.

There is no evidence, past or present to suggest that the US would in any way, tactically compromise future Israeli Operations relative to either Syria or Iran. This is all supposition based on imagination. It is common knowledge that Israel has conducted operations against targets in Syria that might pose a threat to Israeli sovereignty or improve Hezbollah strike capabilities. And I think everyone regionally understands Israel position on Iran and it potential nuclear advancements.

The DEBKAfile report went on to say that Israeli government and military insiders consider the Obama administration’s leaks to be “in breach of the understandings and agreements reached between Israel and the White House on Syria.”

What the article does do is take the spotlight off the fact that Russia is providing material support to either the Assad Regime or Hezbollah Terrorists; or both. The article redirects the focus on US-Israeli relations. The leaks shift the center of the story away from nature and scope of the Russian involvement all together.

This kind of story is for the masses, and not the people that analyze the facts and connect the dots.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

What the article does do is take the spotlight off the fact that Russia is providing material support to either the Assad Regime or Hezbollah Terrorists; or both. The article redirects the focus on US-Israeli relations. The leaks shift the center of the story away from nature and scope of the Russian involvement all together.

I find it funny that Israel is too pussy to stop the Russian's.

 

[Billo_Really]

This is the kind of bravado of invincibility that lulls its claimants to defeat...No empire has lasted forever, and I simply doubt Israel will last beyond a couple of hundred years if she stays on a war footing with Islam, especially when the entire ME is armed to the teeth with Nukes.

Armament Parity has been the great neutralizer in History. Stay tuned.

I don't think there is any country in the ME that can match Israel's military might.

Not now, or anytime in the future.

 

[Billo_Really]

I think you tend to stretch the meaning and interpretation way out of shape.

No I'm not, the message is clear.

The indigenous arabs had (and have) the right to self-determination.

That "right", was stripped from them the moment the "jewish state" was declared.

Other than what might be expected in any other Middle Eastern society, I do not see any significant action, by the Israeli that "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."

Tell that to the residents of Deir Yassin.

One of the most notorious cases of the terrorizing of civilian population occurred, according to Palestinian and other sources, in April 1948 at Deir Yassin, a village near Jerusalem, situated in territory assigned to the Jewish State by the partition resolution. A former Israeli military governor of Jerusalem writes:

"We suffered a reverse of a different nature on April 9 when combined Etzel and Stern Gang units mounted a deliberate and unprovoked attack on the Arab village of Deir Yassin on the western edge of Jerusalem. There was no reason for the attack. It was a quiet village, which had denied entry to the volunteer Arab units from across the frontier and which had not been involved in any attacks on Jewish areas. The dissident groups chose it for strictly political reasons. It was a deliberate act of terrorism ...

You don't call wiping out an entire village for political reasons, "prejudicing" their "civil and religious" rights?

But nothing in this calls for the consent of the existing non-Jewish communities in the establishment of either the Jewish National Home or the Jewish State.

Yes it does. If the indigenous arabs have the right to self-determination, how is that "right" not abridged, without their consent for the state of Israel?

I see nothing, on the part of the Israeli, that retracts, restricts or hampers the right to liberty and security, freedom of conscience, worship any religion, expression, press, assembly and association, speech, the right to privacy, the right to equal treatment and due process and the right to a fair trial, as well as the right to life. On the contrary, the exact opposite was noted. It was the Arab Palestinian that said: “The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out – man women and child." It was the Arab-Palestinian that created the Black Hand. It was the Arab-Palestinian that opened up conflict on the passage of General Assembly Resolution 181(II).

Why you keep referring to the "passage" of 181, a non-binding resolution, is beyond me.

The United Nations partition resolution did not provide a solution to the Palestine problem

The UNSC never ruled on it's passage.

The Security Council could not take any effective decision after discussing General Assembly resolution 181 (II) (the partition resolution) in December 1947. In March 1948 the United States draft proposal to enable the Council to act on the partition resolution failed, and the Council only called for an end to the violence in Palestine.

The resolution just fizzled out and never went anywhere.

The United Nations Commission on Palestine, established by resolution 181 (II), could not move to Jerusalem, and only could hold consultations in New York. The formation of the armed militia, intended to assist the Commission in its functions in Palestine, became impracticable in the face of the accelerated British withdrawal in a deteriorating situation where the casualty toll in the first three months after the approval of the partition resolution was 869 dead and 1,909 injured

But the Security Council did pass resolutions 242 and 338 reaffirming the Palestinian's right to self-determination and the illegality of the occupation.

Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), as we reaffirmed on 29 June 1977, as well as on the following fundamental principles: first, acquisition of territory by force is unacceptable; secondly, Israel must end its occupation of territories it has held since the 1967 war; thirdly, the sovereignty, territorial integrity and the independence of each State in the region must be respected, as well as the right of each State in the region to live in peace with secure and recognized borders; fourthly, the establishment of a just and lasting peace must give due consideration to the rights of the Palestinians.

A "right" Israel took from them in 1948.

At the time, heads of state of the African Unity put it this way...

The Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity, meeting at Libreville in July 1977, declared: "... that a just and lasting peace can be attained only on the basis of total Israeli withdrawal from all occupied Arab territories and recognition of the national legitimate right of the Palestinian people to their territory, sovereignty and national independence and their right to self-determination and the creation of an independent State on their national territory."

Unlike 181, 242 and 338, are binding resolutions.

 

[Billo_Really]

The first is factually completely incorrect: the government simply allowed local municipalities, etc, to choose to NOT FUND such 'remembrance' from their budgets. Basicaly, your 'statement' is an outright falsehood, a lie.

So is the second, so far as I am aware.

As to the third, I believe that is also a mis-statement.

Some list of those alleged '29 other laws' would be helpful - from some reliable source. So far, you're totally in error and have presented nothing to document those 'facts' which have ben your excuse for so much obscenity, name-calling and outright demonization directed at other posters.

It makes you appear very uninformed and extremely ill-equipped to actually *discuss* the topic.

Do you consider former leaders of Israel and members of the Knesset, informed enough to speak about this subject?

Avraham Burg, Israel’s Knesset Speaker from 1999 to 2003 and former chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel, has long determined that “Israel must shed its illusions and choose between racist oppression and democracy,” insisting the only way to maintain total Jewish control over all of historic Palestine would be to “abandon democracy” and “institute an efficient system of racial separation here, with prison camps and detention villages.” He has also called Israel “the last colonial occupier in the Western world.”

Yossi Sarid, who served as a member of the Knesset between 1974 and 2006, has written of Israel’s “segregation policy” that “what acts like apartheid, is run like apartheid and harasses like apartheid, is not a duck – it is apartheid.”

Yossi Paritzky, former Knesset and Cabinet minister, writing about the systematic institutionalization and legalization of racial and religious discrimination in Israel, stated that Israel does not act like a democracy in which “all citizens regardless of race, religious, gender or origin are entitled to equality.” Rather, by implementing more and more discriminatory laws that treat Palestinians as second-class citizens, “Israel decided to be like apartheid‑era South Africa, and some will say even worse countries that no longer exist.”

Shulamit Aloni, another former Knesset and Cabinet member, has written that “the state of Israel practices its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.”

In 2008, the Association of Civil Rights in Israel released its annual human rights report which found that the dynamic between settlers, soldiers and native Palestinians in the occupied West Bank was “reminiscent, in many and increasing ways, of the apartheid regime in South Africa.”

Ehud Olmert, when he was Prime Minister, told a Knesset committee meeting, “For sixty years there has been discrimination against Arabs in Israel. This discrimination is deep‑seated and intolerable” and repeatedly warned that if “we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished.”

Ehud Barak has admitted that “[a]s long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic. If this bloc of millions of *Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.”

Or are they now part of the un-informed legions?

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

The Jordanian newspaper Al Urdun published a survivor's account in 1955, which said the Palestinians had deliberately exaggerated stories about atrocities in Deir Yassin to encourage others to fight, stories that had caused them to flee instead.

Everyone had reason to spread the atrocity narrative. The Irgun and Lehi wanted to frighten Arabs into fleeing; the Arabs wanted to provoke an international response; the Haganah wanted to tarnish the Irgun and Lehi; and the Arabs and the British wanted to malign the Jews.[55]

In addition, Milstein writes, the left-wing Mapai party and David Ben-Gurion, who became Israel's first prime minister on May 14, exploited Deir Yassin to stop a power-sharing agreement with the right-wing Revisionists—who were associated with Irgun and Lehi—a proposal that was being debated at the time in Tel Aviv.[56] Mordechai Ra'anan, the Irgun commander in Jerusalem, told reporters on April 10 that 254 Arab bodies had been counted, a figure published by The New York Times on April 13.[57]

In 1987, in a study regarded as authoritative, Sharif Kan'ana of Bir Zeit University concluded by interviewing survivors that 107 had died, with 12 wounded.[37]

Hazem Nuseibeh, the news editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service at the time of the attack, gave an interview to the BBC in 1998. He spoke about a discussion he had with Hussayn Khalidi, the deputy chairman of the Higher Arab Executive in Jerusalem, shortly after the killings: "I asked Dr. Khalidi how we should cover the story. He said, 'We must make the most of this.' So he wrote a press release, stating that at Deir Yassin, children were murdered, pregnant women were raped, all sorts of atrocities."[58] Gelber writes that Khalidi told journalists on April 11 that the village's dead included 25 pregnant women, 52 mothers of babies, and 60 girls.[59]

The stories of rape angered the villagers, who complained to the Arab emergency committee that their wives and daughters were being exploited in the service of propaganda.[60]

Abu Mahmud, who lived in Deir Yassin in 1948, was one of those who complained. He told the BBC: "We said, 'There was no rape.' He [Hussayn Khalidi] said, 'We have to say this so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews'."[58] "This was our biggest mistake," said Nusseibeh. "We did not realize how our people would react. As soon as they heard that women had been raped at Deir Yassin, Palestinians fled in terror. They ran away from all our villages."[58]

He told Larry Collins in 1968: "We committed a fatal error, and set the stage for the refugee problem."[61] A villager known as Haj Ayish stated that "there had been no rape". He questioned the accuracy of the Arab radio broadcasts which "talked of women being killed and raped", and instead believed that "most of those who were killed were among the fighters and the women and children who helped the fighters".[62] Mohammed Radwan, one of the villagers who fought the attackers, said: "There were no rapes. It's all lies. There were no pregnant women who were slit open. It was propaganda that ... Arabs put out so Arab armies would invade. They ended up expelling people from all of Palestine on the rumor of Deir Yassin."[63]

Radwan added "I know when I speak that God is up there and God knows the truth and God will not forgive the liars."[63] Historian Abdel Jawad states that women at Deir Yassin spoke to British interrogators about rapes occurring and their opinion that this was the worst thing that happened. He states that it was something that could not be discussed in their society and was never talked of by the men.[64] Citing Hasso (2000:495) Isabelle Humphries and Laleh Khalili note that in Palestine men's honour was tied to "the maintenance of kin women's virginity (when unmarried) or exclusive sexual availability (when married)", and that this culture led to the suppression of the narratives of rape victims.[65]

Deir Yassin massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONrI_-qexNw]Deir Yassin. (mirror) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[High_Gravity]

The fact remains Israel is the only first world nation in the middle of a whole bunch of third world shit holes, why is that?

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

I think you tend to stretch the meaning and interpretation way out of shape.

No I'm not, the message is clear.

The indigenous arabs had (and have) the right to self-determination.

That "right", was stripped from them the moment the "jewish state" was declared.

(COMMENT)

No where was that said or implied.

Other than what might be expected in any other Middle Eastern society, I do not see any significant action, by the Israeli that "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."

Tell that to the residents of Deir Yassin.

You don't call wiping out an entire village for political reasons, "prejudicing" their "civil and religious" rights?

Yes it does. If the indigenous arabs have the right to self-determination, how is that "right" not abridged, without their consent for the state of Israel?

• (H)ow is that "right" not abridged, without their consent for the state of Israel?
  • Where does it say, anywhere, that the Palestinian had the right to deny the Jewish People their right to self determination? I think you are confusing "civil and religious" rights with the "Rights of Indigenous Peoples" - (A/RES/66/142 30 March 2012) a very common mistake. Many debaters on the topic believe that these rights are ancient; but, in point of fact, were only adopted by the General Assembly on 19 December 2011 (A/RES/66/142). Contemporary thinkers have been kicking around this notion of "all people have rights" since the time of the American-Indian War and the French Revolution (but not much before then - and certainly not with any vigor). The preponderance of thought, prior to WWI, was the concept of the "Ruling Elite;" which is still today, that which dominates the thinking in the Middle East especially in the Religious Cast, Principalities, and Kingdoms. The idea that Palestine is an "Islamic Waqf" finds it roots in the concept of the "Ruling Elite." Oddly enough, the emergence of "religious rights" came first, then individual "civil rights;" and then, only recently did come the consensus on "indigenous rights." And it is these "indigenous rights" of which you speak; putting yourself way ahead of most other people. The articulation of these rights in GA/61/295 are less than a decade old, and the concept is not very well know.

That is neither a "civil right" or a "religious right" were abridged (your words); but something new in the way humanity thinks: "indigenous rights." (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 61/295. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - 13 September 2007)(See the Annex, it is very important.)
(COMMENT)

The indigenous Arab population did not have veto rights over the Jewish population to exercise their right of self-determination. Not in 1948, not in 1967, and not in 1973.

The recent Articles on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples do not come about in history until the 21st Century, more than a half century after the outbreak of hostilities. While you are a forward thinker, it is impossible to turn back the clock and retroactively apply 21st Century logic to a set of conditions with origins nearly a century before (the Zionist concept of a Jewish National Home Theodor Herzl's "Der Judenstaat" published in 1896).

Why you keep referring to the "passage" of 181, a non-binding resolution, is beyond me.

The UNSC never ruled on it's passage.

The resolution just fizzled out and never went anywhere.

(COMMENT)

That is your opinion. While it was not a binding resolution, it was partly implemented in 1948, with the recommendation of the UNSC (S/RES/69 S/1277 4 March 1949), and UNGA A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949. The original UNGA (A/RES/181(II) 29 November 1947) in the sense that neither the Arab party or the Jewish party was required to accept. But if either party accepted the terms and conditions, the UN would give "sympathetic consideration" "to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations."

But the Security Council did pass resolutions 242 and 338 reaffirming the Palestinian's right to self-determination and the illegality of the occupation.

Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), as we reaffirmed on 29 June 1977, as well as on the following fundamental principles: first, acquisition of territory by force is unacceptable; secondly, Israel must end its occupation of territories it has held since the 1967 war; thirdly, the sovereignty, territorial integrity and the independence of each State in the region must be respected, as well as the right of each State in the region to live in peace with secure and recognized borders; fourthly, the establishment of a just and lasting peace must give due consideration to the rights of the Palestinians.

A "right" Israel took from them in 1948.

(COMMENT)

• first, acquisition of territory by force is unacceptable;
  • The State of Israel did not annex (acquire by force) any territory.

• secondly, Israel must end its occupation of territories it has held since the 1967 war;
  • Correct, because the Hostile Arab Palestinian never termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

• thirdly, the sovereignty, territorial integrity and the independence of each State in the region must be respected, as well as the right of each State in the region to live in peace with secure and recognized borders;
  • Correct, because in 1967, there was no State of Palestine. Palestine did not come into being until 1988 with the Declaration of Independence;

• fourthly, the establishment of a just and lasting peace must give due consideration to the rights of the Palestinians.
  • The fulfilment of Charter principles requiring the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East was dependent on both parties (Israeli and Palestinian) making an effort; which the Palestinian never did.

At the time, heads of state of the African Unity put it this way...

The Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity, meeting at Libreville in July 1977, declared: "... that a just and lasting peace can be attained only on the basis of total Israeli withdrawal from all occupied Arab territories and recognition of the national legitimate right of the Palestinian people to their territory, sovereignty and national independence and their right to self-determination and the creation of an independent State on their national territory."

Unlike 181, 242 and 338, are binding resolutions.

(COMMENT)

The State of Israel never denied the Palestinian the "right of self-determination." In fact, the PLO did declare independence in 1988 during "occupation." However, the Palestinian, not withstanding the Arafat-Clinton Letter of 1998 was never acted upon by the Executive Committee of the PLO, never termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Israel and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

In this case, if the State of Israel is in violation, then so is the State of Palestine equally in violation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

The fact remains Israel is the only first world nation in the middle of a whole bunch of third world shit holes, why is that?

Broadly and metaphorically speaking (and conceding 'unfair-ness' or some modest inaccuracy in a few scattered areas [of effort and geography] here and there)...

Islam's been resting on its laurels and recovering from its own Dark Age for far too long...

Islam's Golden Age of Science and Medicine (along with Philosophy and Political Development and the rest of the 'soft' [non-scientific] disciplines) passed from the world stage by the 1000s and 1100s and 1200s in various regional settings...

A (relatively) brief hot-burning light to lead the Intellectual Life of Man for a couple of centuries - after The West had slipped into feudalism - and then it was gone...

As the intellectual spark of Islam died in various regions, Islamic Science slipped into Maintenance Mode, and slowly degenerated, so that by the 1300s and 1400s, the spark was largely extinguished on a holistic domain-wide basis and their political unity also degenerated and fragmented and they slid still further backwards into tribal fiefdoms and monarchies and sheikdoms, at just about the time that Christianity was finally pulling out of its 1000-year-old Dark and Middle Ages epochs and beginning to manifest symptoms of recovery and new development such as the Renaissance period...

Trouble is, once Islam began to rest on its laurels, and began slipping backwards, they slid into a sort of 'Dark Age' themselves - suffering defeat after defeat and losses of lands and sovereignty after the re-emergence of a revitalized and strengthened and advanced edition of Christendom began to manifest, and falling desperately behind Christendom with its new-found energies and passions... and Islam is just now beginning to wake-up from its own 1000-year-long sleep and coming to the sickening realization that they've got far more catching-up to do then they might have hoped before they shook off their European Colonial and Imperial masters...

Give Islam time... they'll get it together again... if they don't bring the world to the threshold of nuclear war before they finish their generations-long 'makeover' and 'modernizing'.

Meanwhile, it leaves the Israelis dealing with the worst of the summer-school crowds, in a metaphorical political-science context, waiting for that batch of slow-movers to catch up...

 

[Hossfly]

The first is factually completely incorrect: the government simply allowed local municipalities, etc, to choose to NOT FUND such 'remembrance' from their budgets. Basicaly, your 'statement' is an outright falsehood, a lie.

So is the second, so far as I am aware.

As to the third, I believe that is also a mis-statement.

Some list of those alleged '29 other laws' would be helpful - from some reliable source. So far, you're totally in error and have presented nothing to document those 'facts' which have ben your excuse for so much obscenity, name-calling and outright demonization directed at other posters.

It makes you appear very uninformed and extremely ill-equipped to actually *discuss* the topic.

Do you consider former leaders of Israel and members of the Knesset, informed enough to speak about this subject?

Avraham Burg, Israel’s Knesset Speaker from 1999 to 2003 and former chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel, has long determined that “Israel must shed its illusions and choose between racist oppression and democracy,” insisting the only way to maintain total Jewish control over all of historic Palestine would be to “abandon democracy” and “institute an efficient system of racial separation here, with prison camps and detention villages.” He has also called Israel “the last colonial occupier in the Western world.”

Yossi Sarid, who served as a member of the Knesset between 1974 and 2006, has written of Israel’s “segregation policy” that “what acts like apartheid, is run like apartheid and harasses like apartheid, is not a duck – it is apartheid.”

Yossi Paritzky, former Knesset and Cabinet minister, writing about the systematic institutionalization and legalization of racial and religious discrimination in Israel, stated that Israel does not act like a democracy in which “all citizens regardless of race, religious, gender or origin are entitled to equality.” Rather, by implementing more and more discriminatory laws that treat Palestinians as second-class citizens, “Israel decided to be like apartheid‑era South Africa, and some will say even worse countries that no longer exist.”

Shulamit Aloni, another former Knesset and Cabinet member, has written that “the state of Israel practices its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.”

In 2008, the Association of Civil Rights in Israel released its annual human rights report which found that the dynamic between settlers, soldiers and native Palestinians in the occupied West Bank was “reminiscent, in many and increasing ways, of the apartheid regime in South Africa.”

Ehud Olmert, when he was Prime Minister, told a Knesset committee meeting, “For sixty years there has been discrimination against Arabs in Israel. This discrimination is deep‑seated and intolerable” and repeatedly warned that if “we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished.”

Ehud Barak has admitted that “[a]s long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic. If this bloc of millions of *Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.”

Or are they now part of the un-informed legions?

I guess it is not strange to find all this stuff on several sites, and the anti-Semites seem to know just where to find what Leftist Jews say. Meanwhile, of course, they never take into consideration what Blacks from South Africa who have visited Israel say -- that there is no apartheid in Israel. I wonder if Loinboy will ever go to Israel like these Blacks did to find out for himself. I also wonder if it would disturb Loinboy to know that in his own county when someone would order a preliminary title report for the sale of a home that it stated No Blacks and No Chinese allowed.

 

[Billo_Really]

I guess it is not strange to find all this stuff on several sites, and the anti-Semites seem to know just where to find what Leftist Jews say. Meanwhile, of course, they never take into consideration what Blacks from South Africa who have visited Israel say -- that there is no apartheid in Israel. I wonder if Loinboy will ever go to Israel like these Blacks did to find out for himself. I also wonder if it would disturb Loinboy to know that in his own county when someone would order a preliminary title report for the sale of a home that it stated No Blacks and No Chinese allowed.

WTF are you talking about?

Leftist-Jews are kick-ass!

 

[Billo_Really]

No where was that said or implied.

Yes it was. In Lord Balfour's statement.

Where does it say, anywhere, that the Palestinian had the right to deny the Jewish People their right to self determination?

Where does it say the "Jewish People" had the right to deny the Palestinian's their right?

I think you are confusing "civil and religious" rights with the "Rights of Indigenous Peoples" - (A/RES/66/142 30 March 2012) a very common mistake. Many debaters on the topic believe that these rights are ancient; but, in point of fact, were only adopted by the General Assembly on 19 December 2011 (A/RES/66/142). Contemporary thinkers have been kicking around this notion of "all people have rights" since the time of the American-Indian War and the French Revolution (but not much before then - and certainly not with any vigor). The preponderance of thought, prior to WWI, was the concept of the "Ruling Elite;" which is still today, that which dominates the thinking in the Middle East especially in the Religious Cast, Principalities, and Kingdoms. The idea that Palestine is an "Islamic Waqf" finds it roots in the concept of the "Ruling Elite." Oddly enough, the emergence of "religious rights" came first, then individual "civil rights;" and then, only recently did come the consensus on "indigenous rights." And it is these "indigenous rights" of which you speak; putting yourself way ahead of most other people. The articulation of these rights in GA/61/295 are less than a decade old, and the concept is not very well know.

That is neither a "civil right" or a "religious right" were abridged (your words); but something new in the way humanity thinks: "indigenous rights." (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 61/295. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - 13 September 2007)(See the Annex, it is very important.)

Spare me the history lesson on semantics.

The indigenous arabs have the right to self-determination and that has been codified in subsequent resolutions.

What you said above, is irrelevant to those.

The indigenous Arab population did not have veto rights over the Jewish population to exercise their right of self-determination. Not in 1948, not in 1967, and not in 1973.

The "Jewish population" did not have veto rights over the indigenous arab population.

The recent Articles on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples do not come about in history until the 21st Century, more than a half century after the outbreak of hostilities. While you are a forward thinker, it is impossible to turn back the clock and retroactively apply 21st Century logic to a set of conditions with origins nearly a century before (the Zionist concept of a Jewish National Home Theodor Herzl's "Der Judenstaat" published in 1896).

Screw the history lesson! This is about international law.

That is your opinion. While it was not a binding resolution, it was partly implemented in 1948, with the recommendation of the UNSC (S/RES/69 S/1277 4 March 1949), and UNGA A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949. The original UNGA (A/RES/181(II) 29 November 1947) in the sense that neither the Arab party or the Jewish party was required to accept. But if either party accepted the terms and conditions, the UN would give "sympathetic consideration" "to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations."

181 was non-binding and un-enforceable.

All the UNSC said was a call to end the fighting. That's it.

And "sympathetic consideration", is just conjecture on your part.

first, acquisition of territory by force is unacceptable;

You got that right!

The State of Israel did not annex (acquire by force) any territory.

Oh yes they did!

secondly, Israel must end its occupation of territories it has held since the 1967 war;

Oh yes they do!

Correct, because the Hostile Arab Palestinian never termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Oh yes they have!

thirdly, the sovereignty, territorial integrity and the independence of each State in the region must be respected, as well as the right of each State in the region to live in peace with secure and recognized borders;

Who could be against that?

Correct, because in 1967, there was no State of Palestine. Palestine did not come into being until 1988 with the Declaration of Independence;

It doesn't matter if there was no formal "State of Palestine". Indigenous arabs have the right to self-determination and there's no derogation from that.

the establishment of a just and lasting peace must give due consideration to the rights of the Palestinians.

Absolutely!

The fulfilment of Charter principles requiring the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East was dependent on both parties (Israeli and Palestinian) making an effort; which the Palestinian never did.

How can they, when they are under the occupation of a foreign force?

They can only do, what the IOF allows them to do.

The State of Israel never denied the Palestinian the "right of self-determination."

Cut the crap! Oh yes they did. Did Zionists ask the indigenous arabs if they could create the State of Israel where they have been living for generations? The answer is "no", they didn't. As a consequence, their rights were denied.

In fact, the PLO did declare independence in 1988 during "occupation." However, the Palestinian, not withstanding the Arafat-Clinton Letter of 1998 was never acted upon by the Executive Committee of the PLO, never termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Israel and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

Not while their under the occupation of a foreign force. The "occupation", is the cause of all the violence in the area. Get that through your fucking head!

In this case, if the State of Israel is in violation, then so is the State of Palestine equally in violation.

Wrong! A population under occupation, does not share responsibility for the illegality of the occupation itself.