Palestine Today

[admonit]

You just believe that Israel can do no wrong.

Israel does lots wrong.

Good to know.

Are you going to argue that Israel is perfect?

Are you going to argue that the only alternative to "doing lots wrong" is "perfect"?
You blame Israel in "doing lots wrong", without elaborating, in the context of this antisemitic thread - that was the reason for my remark.

Anyone who reads my posts on any sort of regular basis knows what I think Israel is doing wrong. But I'd be happy to elaborate if you want to have that discussion with me.

But, it sounds like we agree on the essential point that Israel makes moral or political or military mistakes

In fact I never supported your criticism of Israel.

but that we never have the chance to discuss any of that because we are too busy addressing the antisemitism which runs rampant in this section of the board.

Who forces you to feed antisemitic trolls?

 

[Shusha]

In fact I never supported your criticism of Israel.

Which is totally fine. No one is asking you to support my criticisms of Israel. Do you think Israel has done nothing worthy of criticism?

Who forces you to feed antisemitic trolls?

I'm challenging the trolls. Because they need challenging. And, more importantly, the useful idiots who read these pages, but don't comment, or don't comment often, need to see the challenges.

 

[Shusha]

There is a big difference. Immigrants move to a country to join the existing population and become a part of that society.

Settlers move to a country to live separate (in colonies) from the existing population with the plan to remove them and take over for themselves.

There is a complete difference in the purpose.

This is actually really good. I agree, in theory, with your concepts.

Immigrants give up their (individual) rights to self determination, in favor of their assimilation with their new culture.

Colonizers impose their (collective) self determination on the existing population.

Returnees re-establish their (collective) self determination.


Your hypocrisy is in not recognizing Jewish indigeneity, Arab colonization and Jewish reclamation.

 

[admonit]

In fact I never supported your criticism of Israel.

Which is totally fine. No one is asking you to support my criticisms of Israel. Do you think Israel has done nothing worthy of criticism?

I already answered this question: Israel is not and should not be perfect.

I'm challenging the trolls. Because they need challenging.

The trolls should be challenged by moderators.

And, more importantly, the useful idiots who read these pages, but don't comment, or don't comment often, need to see the challenges.

So, you try to educate useful idiots? Good luck.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,



• 12/03/1982 A/RES/37/43 Right of peoples to self-determination - GA resolution •
NON-BINDING RESOLUTION

Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination
and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for
the effective guarantee and observance of human rights
​

Considering that the denial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self determination, sovereignty, independence and return to Palestine...

(COMMENT)

This (supra) is clearly stated as a "consideration" within a non-comprehensive and non-binding resolution.

No one makes the claim that Arab Palestinians do not have the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, sovereignty, independence and return to Palestine... IF and ONLY IF → the Arab Palestinians recognizing these same rights in the Israeli people as codified in: THE International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) which entered into force on 23 March 1976 (BINDING).

Article 1 - CCPR
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
​

By covenant, the Israelis had the Right of Self-Determination in the creation of the State of Israel. By charter, the Israeli people have the:

◈ Defend against the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel.

◈ Inherent right of self-defense in the face of an armed attack against Israel.​

No right can the Arab Palestinian claim that makes the rights of Israelis inferior.

Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

(COMMENT)

As previously discussed, the Arab Palestinians have rejected all opportunities by the various powers to establish a peaceful state.

To my knowledge, only the Arab Palestinians have utilized an external military force (outside interference by the Arab League) in attempts to conquer land in the territory of formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.

Strongly condemns those Governments that do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of all peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;

(COMMENT)

This is not even applicable in the Question of Palestine.

◈ Israel recognized that the Arab Palestinians have the Right of Self-Determination.

◈ The Arab Palestinians have not been under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation.​

There is no parent nation sponsoring a colonial action to bring the Arab Palestinians under domination or control. It is the Arab Palestinians that continue to challenge the Right of Self-Determination of the Israelis.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Velvet by Huzama Habayeb, translated by Kay Heikkinen, Bloomsbury (2019)

For many, refugee camps are a world apart. This latest novel from Huzama Habayeb, an award-winning Palestinian writer, goes some way in bringing that world closer.

The impressionistic Velvet portrays the claustrophobic world of Baqa’a refugee camp, established in Jordan in the wake of the 1967 War.

Split between past and present, the present action follows Hawa, a 47-year-old divorced mother, as she spends the day excitedly anticipating her forthcoming wedding. The retrospective describes Hawa’s disturbing upbringing, disastrous first marriage and unusual friendship with her teacher.

As in her previous novels The Origin of Love (2007) and Before the Queen Falls Asleep (2011), Habayeb commands multiple threads of narrative and perspective expertly. In making Velvet a tapestry of past and present, Habayeb provides a protagonist with substantial depth, making Hawa’s struggle against tragedy and malevolence all the more admirable and, ultimately, emotive.

Darkness and desire

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is no parent nation sponsoring a colonial action to bring the Arab Palestinians under domination or control.

I have posted about settler colonialism several times but you keep bouncing back to the classic colonialism straw man.

 

[P F Tinmore]

◈ Israel recognized that the Arab Palestinians have the Right of Self-Determination.

Just not in Palestine. So where?

 

[P F Tinmore]

As previously discussed, the Arab Palestinians have rejected all opportunities by the various powers to establish a peaceful state.

Israeli bullshit talking point.

 

[P F Tinmore]

No right can the Arab Palestinian claim that makes the rights of Israelis inferior.

What about Israel putting the Palestinian's rights inferior in their own homeland?

 

[P F Tinmore]

• 12/03/1982 A/RES/37/43 Right of peoples to self-determination - GA resolution •
NON-BINDING RESOLUTION
Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination
and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for
the effective guarantee and observance of human rights

This resolution references international law that is binding.

 

[Coyote]

As to the final question, I don’t really know. Home demolitions seem to have zero impact, and I wonder if in fact it might even increase the violence? So why do it if it has no effect and is morally wrong?

The problem, and this is the part you won't like, is that I think the deterrents must be stronger.

In what way?

This is where it gets unpalatable. And I get that it is.

But, the only thing to do with an abusive partner, is to separate. Completely.

You are right, I would not agree.

Exactly. Which leads me back to the question.

What SHOULD Israel do to address/deter/respond to terrorism?

What it is doing, but not demolishing homes. Until they come up with a political solution, that is the best solution.

I disagree though with something else you said, that the “victims” wrong doing is not the source of the hate. It is, in part, very much so. You can not unmix it.

 

[Coyote]

There is a big difference between immigrants and settlers.

Well, yes. And returnees.

Why don't you take a shot at defining each?

Returnee
: one who returns especially : one returning to the U.S. after military service overseas

Settler
:a person who moves with a group of others to live in a new country or area.
"the early European settlers in America were often fleeing from religious persecution"

Immigrant
: one that immigrates: such as
a: a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence


Returnee by definition implies one once resided there. Settler and immigrant overlap considerable and one is often both.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

"Bad things never walk alone. Insistence and demands on the impossible come bad consequences.
...................................................................................... .........Chinese Proverb
​

Interesting responses, or should I say unresponsive, you have made.

As previously discussed, the Arab Palestinians have rejected all opportunities by the various powers to establish a peaceful state.

Israeli bullshit talking point.

(COMMENT)

If you are making an inference or suggestion that the Arab Palestinians has accepted opportunities for peace, in good faith, then give us the details on this event. I suspect you have nothing of substance to support your suggestion.

◈ Article 9 (Charter): Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.

◈ Article 13 (Covenant): There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.​

Who and When have these Arab Palestinian policy statements been rescinded?

No right can the Arab Palestinian claim that makes the rights of Israelis inferior.

What about Israel putting the Palestinian's rights inferior in their own homeland?

(COMMENT)

The question of: Palestinian's own homeland. Just where is that?

As for rights in the homeland: Not only does common sense dictate territorial peace, but the continuous belligerents of the Arab Palestinians demand that the Israelis suppress the hostility.

Article 43 Hague Regulation: The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.
​

◈ Israel recognized that the Arab Palestinians have the Right of Self-Determination.

Just not in Palestine. So where?

(COMMENT)

It depends on the territorial meaning of the ambiguous term: "Palestine." When you say "Palestine" in this critique, what are you talking about?

There is no parent nation sponsoring a colonial action to bring the Arab Palestinians under domination or control.

I have posted about settler colonialism several times but you keep bouncing back to the classic colonialism straw man.

(COMMENT)

You may disagree with me on this point (colonialism), but my responses are anything but an unresponsive Straw Man. I think I have been quite definitive and have always given world-recognized documentation to the effect. Just because you think it is colonialism, does not mean that the C-24 or the Encyclopædia Britannica (just two of many resources quoted to you) are unresponsive or evidentiary.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You need to read the actual Binding Law.

• 12/03/1982 A/RES/37/43 Right of peoples to self-determination - GA resolution •
NON-BINDING RESOLUTION
Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination
and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for
the effective guarantee and observance of human rights

This resolution references international law that is binding.

(COMMENT)

Nothing in the "references" of • 12/03/1982 A/RES/37/43 Right of peoples to self-determination - GA resolution • cited passages that supersede: THE International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) which entered into force on 23 March 1976 (BINDING). If you are going to challenge the law, then be specific on which of the references you think are superior to the Covenant.

I'm looking for the specific passages and citations you keep suggesting exist.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

RE: Palestine Today

⁜→ et al,


Now we are becoming rather philosophical → with the question → Is Israel:

✦ Perfect or Imperfect

✦ Right or Wrong

✦ Good or Evil​

This is (in a round-about way) claiming that the Israeli way of life and culture is fundamentally flawed, because the culture has not been proven to be "perfect," - "right," - "good." And that the culture of Israel cannot be defending because the government, the way of life, the morality/ethics and the justice system is imperfect.

The question of Israel, from the Arab Palestinian perspective:

✦ Views the establish of Israel as unlawful, improper, unprincipled or discordant because the Arab Palestinians were opposed to the process by which it employed the right of self-determination.

✦ It severely criticizes the resurrection of the Jewish National Home when the path set by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, which renounced all rights and title - handing-over the territories in question into the hands of the Allied Powers and allowed the future of these territories to be settled by the parties to the Treaty → as an instrument of victory.

✦ The concepts established through the Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void simply because the outcome is not to the satisfaction of the Arab Palestinian.

✦ Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the conception of what constitutes statehood.

✦ That Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality.

✦ The Jews cannot establish their own nation with an identity of their own.

✦ The Arab Palestinians are entitled to the entirety of Palestine, with the boundaries Palestine had during the British Mandate period.
​

And the Arab Palestine entangles America by claiming the Americans enable crimes and sins committed by the Jews against the Arab Palestinians, and that the Israelis have no right to the terriotrial integrity.

So, in the end, the Arab Palestinians believe that they are entitled something, based on an unknown, over actions taken since the end of The Great War (WWI).

Somehow, the Leaders of the various Arab Palestinian movements argue that sovereignty under their leadership would be - somehow - qualitatively better than that presented by the Israeli.


Most Respectfully,
R

The idea that Israel is not perfect, right, or good is a distraction from the real issue. The real issue is the settler colonial project.

Settler colonialism is when the natives are removed and they are replaced by foreign settlers. It is an aggressive act. This was started before 1948 and continues to today.

That isn’t exactly what happened. Accurate historical numbers are problematic in that region, but by and large it was found that Jewish immigration did not displace native Arab populations. The Jews tended to settle in different areas. With war, things changed, both Jews and Arabs were forced out of various areas, some through violence, some through well founded fear.

The problem with the often repeated meme of Jews as colonists is what does that make the foriegn Arabs who came to region from other countries, looking for jobs, and stayed? Are they colonists too?

Whose war?

There is a big difference between immigrants and settlers.

Not really.

There is a big difference. Immigrants move to a country to join the existing population and become a part of that society.

Settlers move to a country to live separate (in colonies) from the existing population with the plan to remove them and take over for themselves.

There is a complete difference in the purpose.

The Zionist Project - 1948

If so...then how do you account for the fact that they immigrated to Israel and JOINED the existing Jewish population there? How is that "living separate" from the existing population?

 

[Coyote]

There is a big difference. Immigrants move to a country to join the existing population and become a part of that society.

Settlers move to a country to live separate (in colonies) from the existing population with the plan to remove them and take over for themselves.

There is a complete difference in the purpose.

This is actually really good. I agree, in theory, with your concepts.

Immigrants give up their (individual) rights to self determination, in favor of their assimilation with their new culture.

Colonizers impose their (collective) self determination on the existing population.

Returnees re-establish their (collective) self determination.


Your hypocrisy is in not recognizing Jewish indigeneity, Arab colonization and Jewish reclamation.

But likewise - you are not recognizing Palestinian "indigenous". They are a native people, not colonizers. If Jews immigrating from around the world to Israel (as is their right granted by the state) are "returnees" despite never living there, then so are Palestinians pressing for their "right of return" despite several generations that have never set foot there.

You can't insist that native populations that have existed there as long as "indigenous" ones are "colonizers" when they have been there thousands of years. The Israelites themselves were invaders on an earlier culture, the Canaanites (that no longer exists as a culture) but many people who are there now descended from them as well as from other peoples who hav invaded or immigrated through the ages. (and no this is not about the claim made by Palestinians that they are descended from the Canaanites, but about historical evidence in the region).

There is only one reason to do this and its the same ugly reason Tinmore uses to disenfranchise the Jewish rights there.

 

[Shusha]

There is a big difference. Immigrants move to a country to join the existing population and become a part of that society.

Settlers move to a country to live separate (in colonies) from the existing population with the plan to remove them and take over for themselves.

There is a complete difference in the purpose.

This is actually really good. I agree, in theory, with your concepts.

Immigrants give up their (individual) rights to self determination, in favor of their assimilation with their new culture.

Colonizers impose their (collective) self determination on the existing population.

Returnees re-establish their (collective) self determination.


Your hypocrisy is in not recognizing Jewish indigeneity, Arab colonization and Jewish reclamation.

But likewise - you are not recognizing Palestinian "indigenous". They are a native people, not colonizers. If Jews immigrating from around the world to Israel (as is their right granted by the state) are "returnees" despite never living there, then so are Palestinians pressing for their "right of return" despite several generations that have never set foot there.

You can't insist that native populations that have existed there as long as "indigenous" ones are "colonizers" when they have been there thousands of years. The Israelites themselves were invaders on an earlier culture, the Canaanites (that no longer exists as a culture) but many people who are there now descended from them as well as from other peoples who hav invaded or immigrated through the ages. (and no this is not about the claim made by Palestinians that they are descended from the Canaanites, but about historical evidence in the region).

There is only one reason to do this and its the same ugly reason Tinmore uses to disenfranchise the Jewish rights there.

Well, there are historical and factual errors in the above, as well as your confusion between individual and collective rights, but there is no point in beating that dead horse.

You are absolutely in the wrong for suggesting my position is the same as Tinmore's, and since you do seem to read my posts, you must be doing it deliberately.

I have always argued for self determination for BOTH peoples. I have always argued for return of BOTH peoples. I have always argued for a State for BOTH peoples.

Painting my position as "ugly" and used to "disenfranchise" people is a vile lie against the position I have held here since my first post.

 

[Shusha]

There is a big difference between immigrants and settlers.

Well, yes. And returnees.

Why don't you take a shot at defining each?

Returnee
: one who returns especially : one returning to the U.S. after military service overseas

Settler
:a person who moves with a group of others to live in a new country or area.
"the early European settlers in America were often fleeing from religious persecution"

Immigrant
: one that immigrates: such as
a: a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence


Returnee by definition implies one once resided there. Settler and immigrant overlap considerable and one is often both.

You see all of these designations as individual rights, with no collective rights, it seems. Perfectly consistent and sound position to take.

 

[Shusha]

What it is doing, but not demolishing homes. Until they come up with a political solution, that is the best solution.

What is Israel doing? Do you think it is enough to protect Israel's citizens and deter further terrorism?

I disagree though with something else you said, that the “victims” wrong doing is not the source of the hate. It is, in part, very much so. You can not unmix it.

We are probably going to have to agree to disagree on this one.