The tremendous power of the social paradigms created by WWII - Part I - The citizen

We can clearly distinguish in Coyote's thread the new social paradigm that emerged in America\West and most of the world:

The absolute racial equality among all the groups with a historical presence in the territory comprised by the state.

During the first half of the last century black americans were subjected to "mild" forms of racial discrimination, such as political disenfranchisement, segregation of public spaces, transportation and schools. Mild when compared to the ones that are imposed on the palestinian people. Nothing even remotely similar to ethnic enclaves surrounded with barbed wire fences, machine gun nests and minefields. But the presence of the social paradigm of racial equality makes Coyote's mind perceive even minor forms of discrimination like separate schools as abhorrent, repulsive, dehumanizing. Even if the segregated schools had the same quality of education Coyote would still condemn them as an expression of ethnic supremacism because of the act of segregating itself.

When you read the thread created by Coyote on the little black girl and "her" fight against segregation you would expect similar threads on the rights of the palestinian people because you'd think the paradigm of racial equality created by the armed conflict of the last century is applied equally and universally around the world. Much to your shock and surprise you find Coyote (aka, the average western citizen) supporting the moral depravation of a jewish supremacist state inflicting a level of dehumanization that makes the segregation endured by american blacks pale in comparison:

Originally posted by Coyote
No.

I'd dismantle all settlements on occupied territories.

Then, I'd defend the legally and historically defined borders of my nation with lethal force.

Would you build a wall Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Your first reaction is to refuse to believe the thread about Ruby and the post supporting the murder of palestinians in their own homeland were written by the same person. After confirming the authenticity of the posts you start wondering if a time period of 5, 10 years separate both messages... but no, they are sometimes posted on the same day.

The same person who express indignation with racial segregation in America expresses her support for this:

lady-is-overcome-and-weeps-at-destruction-of-her-neighbourhood.jpg


gaza_children_dead.jpg


You'd think someone who supports a jewish supremacist state in Palestine would not only support social segregation in America but even extra judicial killings that marked the history of the country:

black-people-lynched.jpg


To make sense of the absurd, contradictory way Coyote (aka, the average westerner) reasons you have to take into account that the paradigm of racial equality between ethnic groups with a historical presence in the country is the rule applied to almost all cases:

1 - Whites, blacks, hispanics in America

1 - Maoris, whites and asians in New Zealand

etc, etc, etc...

The dehumanising paradigm through which the palestinian people is viewed is the exception to the rule. Equality emcompasses virtually all cases but palestinians.

The way these paradigms compel people to think is so predictable that I can even anticipate Coyote's reply to the entire Board.

She's gonna say something along these lines:

"Wait a moment, José... You're comparing apples to oranges... Black americans were citizens of the country, palestinians in the OT are not israeli citizens."

She can't help but thinking about Palestinians in the OT as if they were as foreign to the region as Chinese or Russians, as if they were a people with no historical presence in Western Palestine and consequently no right to reside there.

The ways of thinking created by the last major war in Europe prevents her from perceiving this group of human beings:

Palestinians_inside_fence.jpg

as individuals entitled to same set of rights as this little girl:

post.jpg


As Coyote herself once told me, the right of refugees to live in Western Palestine "doesn't exist anymore", it's all "smoke and mirrors".

Having been born or having her formative years after WWII, Coyote (aka, the average westerner) is the result of these two complementary paradigms: the super humanization of the jewish people and the dehumanizing one applied to palestinians as well as equality among the rest.

It's ironic that the paradigms prevent her from realizing she perceives the Palestinian people through the same dehumanizing paradigm the white supremacists she lambasts...

tumblr_n4alqzOo8O1s0s6s8o1_500.jpg


She even goes further advocating the physical elimination of palestinians who fight against the exile in the ethnic enclaves:

Only when you take into consideration the combined effect of these 3 post-WWII social paradigms Coyote's schizophrenic political thought (racial equality in America and jewish supremacism in Palestine) becomes perfectly understandable.

As Montelatici would say, it's Orwellian (Orwellian in the sense of someone "learning to embrace inconsistent concepts without dissent").

Orwellian but perfectly comprehensible.

Wow. This is certainly an extremely inventive pyschological dissertation on my posts, not to mention a bit distorted.
 
Originally posted by Disir
Oh, I see, we are going to play to the Mods in an effort to lay a specific line of bullshit out. Got it.

I used Coyote's thread to exemplify the mindset of hundreds of millions of people around the world.

I could have used JakeStarkey, rightwinger, High_Gravity or any other poster who displays this same kind of double standards.

Don't take it personally. : )

A few things.

On the dehumanization of the Palestinians. I've often brought that up and agree with it.
I've also posted about the inequities and injustices that exist within Israel in regard to both the Palestinians and it's Arab citizens compared to it's Jewish citizens.
I've frequently cited the fact that contrary to the claim that the Palestinians are autonomous, that is not true - they exist under two sets of law, the Palestinian law, and Israeli military law which has been shown to be brutal and unjust particularly in it's treatment of Palestinian children.

Now there are questions.
Is violence directed at civilians and children acceptable for any cause?
Does a nation have the right to defend it's citizens?
Do a people have a right to self determination and/or equality under the law?

What happens when any of the above come in conflict with each other?

For example, the right to defend vs attacking civilian populations?
The right to self determination when both parties are arguing for that on the same land?

Equality and dehumanization within a nation is comparable to our civil rights struggle. Demanding that Israel recognize and treat it's citizens with equality, not just on paper, but in action.

The situation with the Palestinians is more complex.
Do they deserve autonomy and is their struggle just? Yes, I firmly believe it is.
Should they be given the entire region that we now call Israel and the Occupied Territories?
If the answer is yes - what will happen to the Jewish minority? Or does that matter?
What's a just solution here?

I see only one: two states, with Israel withdrawing from most of the occupied territories and land swaps negotiated so that the security needs of each can be met. Seems fairest. And, quite frankly, when a nation under attack by rocket fire or other artillary they have the right to defend their citizens by what ever means necessary. That is the right of any nation. I'm not sure why you think it would mean any nation but Israel.
 
Is that why the UN had to invent a new rule for arab muslims to prove they were indigenous, otherwise 90% of them would be sent packing back to Syria and Iran.

Along with 90% of the Jews. What's your point?
 
If anything, 'Palestinians' are unique in the post-WWII scene, in being unabsorbed by their surrounding Arab Brothers. Denied citizenship, land ownership and jobs..
But Pampered in getting their own Refugee Agency/UNRWA that has devoured 80% of the World/UN refugee resource due to political (yes, I believe bias as well).
So that now there are 5 Million palestinian 'refugees', up from 700K in 1948.
3rd, 4th Gen and anyone intermarried with non-Palestinians.
Absurd.
While real refugees go hungry, UNRWA runs, summer camps, schools, Free Medical care and prescription drug benefits, etc!

Yes, a unique and Disastrous mistake/"Paradigm" in allowing Palestinians to get their own agency and Encourage/underwrite them to go Unabsorbed, UNLIKE all others post WW!! refugees.

http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2011/12/...vancing-peace/
Ending UNRWA and Advancing Peace
by Elliott Abrams
December 19, 2011

"Since the end of the Second World War, millions of refugees have left refugee camps, and refugee status, and moved to countries that accepted them–quickly or slowly–as citizens. Post-World War II Europe was an archipelago of displaced persons and refugee camps, housing 850,000 people in 1947–Czechs, Poles, Lithuanians, Germans, Latvians, Greeks, and many more nationalities. By 1952, all but one of the camps had closed. Hundred of thousands of Jewish refugees from Europe went to Israel after 1948, and then hundreds of thousands more arrived from Arab lands when they were forced to flee after 1956 and 1967. The children and grandchildren of these refugees, born after their arrival, were never refugees themselves; they were from birth citizens of the new land, as their parents had become immediately upon their own arrival. In this process many nations and agencies have played wonderful roles, not least the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

The exception to this refugee story is the Palestinians. In most of the Arab lands to which they fled or travelled after 1948 they were often treated badly, and refused citizenship (with Jordan the major exception) or even the right to work legally. And instead of coming under the protection of UNHCR, they had a special agency of their own, UNRWA, the UN Relief and Works Agency. In the decades of its existence, it has not solved or even diminished the Palesinian refugee problem; instead it has presided over a massive increase in its size, for all the descendants of Palestinian refugees are considered to be refugees as well. Once there were 750,000; now there are Five Million people considered by UNRWA to be “Palestinian refugees.”
And UNRWA is now the Largest UN agency, with a staff of 30,000.
UNHCR cares for the rest of the world with about 7,500 personnel.


The Political background to this story is simple: Only in the case of Israel was there a determined Refusal to accept what had happened during and after World War II,"..."
[.......]
Utterly ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Except there is no dehumanization of the Palestinian people...

Many Zionists promote the idea that Palestinian people do not exist.
Is that not de-humanisation?

And of course the media does not make a lot of fuss, when hundred of Palestinian children are killed in a "retaliation" attack.

The prominent Zionist rabbi Ovadia Yosef openly declared that non-Jews were created to serve their Jewish masters, like a donkey was created to serve its master.

Did any western leader condemn the hate speeches of this Rabbi, who de-humanized non-Jews and called for the annihilation of whole groups of people?

No, of course not!

And this rabbi got the biggest funeral in the history of Israel, and was called by Israeli leadership "our great Jewish scholar".
 
Last edited:
Except there is no dehumanization of the Palestinian people...

Many Zionists promote the idea, that Palestinian people do not exist.
Is that not de-humanisation?

And of course the media does not make a lot of fuss, when hundred of Palestinian children are killed in a "retaliation" attack.

The prominent Zionist rabbi Ovadia Yosef openly declared that non-Jews were created to serve their Jewish masters, like a donkey was created to serve its master.

Did any western leader condemn the hate speeches of this Rabbi, who de-humanized non-Jews and called for the annihilation of whole groups of people?

No, of course not!

And This rabbi got the biggest funeral in the history of Israel, and was called by Israeli leadership "our great Jewish scholar".
Fo schizzle, dood!
 
Except there is no dehumanization of the Palestinian people, but do go on. In fact, don't you find it rather odd that there is no mention on these boards of the factories that Palestinians and Israelis work at. Can you tell me why that is?

There is dehumanization of Palestinians on the Israeli side. It's even more pronounced now that there is a policy of near total seperation. Many Jews never encounter Palestinians and many Palestinians never encounter Jews - it makes it easy for each to think the worst of the other. In addition, increased violence has hardened attitudes and made it harder for each to see the other as human beings. Why Israel s racist violence problem is getting worse - Vox
 
Originally posted by Disir
Oh, I see, we are going to play to the Mods in an effort to lay a specific line of bullshit out. Got it.

I used Coyote's thread to exemplify the mindset of hundreds of millions of people around the world.

I could have used JakeStarkey, rightwinger, High_Gravity or any other poster who displays this same kind of double standards.

Don't take it personally. : )

A few things.

On the dehumanization of the Palestinians. I've often brought that up and agree with it.
I've also posted about the inequities and injustices that exist within Israel in regard to both the Palestinians and it's Arab citizens compared to it's Jewish citizens.
I've frequently cited the fact that contrary to the claim that the Palestinians are autonomous, that is not true - they exist under two sets of law, the Palestinian law, and Israeli military law which has been shown to be brutal and unjust particularly in it's treatment of Palestinian children.

Now there are questions.
Is violence directed at civilians and children acceptable for any cause?
Does a nation have the right to defend it's citizens?
Do a people have a right to self determination and/or equality under the law?

What happens when any of the above come in conflict with each other?

For example, the right to defend vs attacking civilian populations?
The right to self determination when both parties are arguing for that on the same land?

Equality and dehumanization within a nation is comparable to our civil rights struggle. Demanding that Israel recognize and treat it's citizens with equality, not just on paper, but in action.

The situation with the Palestinians is more complex.
Do they deserve autonomy and is their struggle just? Yes, I firmly believe it is.
Should they be given the entire region that we now call Israel and the Occupied Territories?
If the answer is yes - what will happen to the Jewish minority? Or does that matter?
What's a just solution here?

I see only one: two states, with Israel withdrawing from most of the occupied territories and land swaps negotiated so that the security needs of each can be met. Seems fairest. And, quite frankly, when a nation under attack by rocket fire or other artillary they have the right to defend their citizens by what ever means necessary. That is the right of any nation. I'm not sure why you think it would mean any nation but Israel.
For example, the right to defend vs attacking civilian populations?

We hear this a lot (constantly) but who are the civilians?

The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.
In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.

Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

Halevi went back to Israel, but Sharon rejected the proposal.

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org
 
Except there is no dehumanization of the Palestinian people, but do go on. In fact, don't you find it rather odd that there is no mention on these boards of the factories that Palestinians and Israelis work at. Can you tell me why that is?

There is dehumanization of Palestinians on the Israeli side. It's even more pronounced now that there is a policy of near total seperation. Many Jews never encounter Palestinians and many Palestinians never encounter Jews - it makes it easy for each to think the worst of the other. In addition, increased violence has hardened attitudes and made it harder for each to see the other as human beings. Why Israel s racist violence problem is getting worse - Vox

Where? Where in Israel is that?
 
Except there is no dehumanization of the Palestinian people...

Many Zionists promote the idea that Palestinian people do not exist.
Is that not de-humanisation?

And of course the media does not make a lot of fuss, when hundred of Palestinian children are killed in a "retaliation" attack.

The prominent Zionist rabbi Ovadia Yosef openly declared that non-Jews were created to serve their Jewish masters, like a donkey was created to serve its master.

Did any western leader condemn the hate speeches of this Rabbi, who de-humanized non-Jews and called for the annihilation of whole groups of people?

No, of course not!

And this rabbi got the biggest funeral in the history of Israel, and was called by Israeli leadership "our great Jewish scholar".

Actually the head of the NIF is a self proclaimed Zionist. It is your NGOs that put children on the front line.
 
Except there is no dehumanization of the Palestinian people, but do go on. In fact, don't you find it rather odd that there is no mention on these boards of the factories that Palestinians and Israelis work at. Can you tell me why that is?

There is dehumanization of Palestinians on the Israeli side. It's even more pronounced now that there is a policy of near total seperation. Many Jews never encounter Palestinians and many Palestinians never encounter Jews - it makes it easy for each to think the worst of the other. In addition, increased violence has hardened attitudes and made it harder for each to see the other as human beings. Why Israel s racist violence problem is getting worse - Vox

Where? Where in Israel is that?

It's discussed in the the link I posted.
 
Originally posted by Disir
Oh, I see, we are going to play to the Mods in an effort to lay a specific line of bullshit out. Got it.

I used Coyote's thread to exemplify the mindset of hundreds of millions of people around the world.

I could have used JakeStarkey, rightwinger, High_Gravity or any other poster who displays this same kind of double standards.

Don't take it personally. : )

A few things.

On the dehumanization of the Palestinians. I've often brought that up and agree with it.
I've also posted about the inequities and injustices that exist within Israel in regard to both the Palestinians and it's Arab citizens compared to it's Jewish citizens.
I've frequently cited the fact that contrary to the claim that the Palestinians are autonomous, that is not true - they exist under two sets of law, the Palestinian law, and Israeli military law which has been shown to be brutal and unjust particularly in it's treatment of Palestinian children.

Now there are questions.
Is violence directed at civilians and children acceptable for any cause?
Does a nation have the right to defend it's citizens?
Do a people have a right to self determination and/or equality under the law?

What happens when any of the above come in conflict with each other?

For example, the right to defend vs attacking civilian populations?
The right to self determination when both parties are arguing for that on the same land?

Equality and dehumanization within a nation is comparable to our civil rights struggle. Demanding that Israel recognize and treat it's citizens with equality, not just on paper, but in action.

The situation with the Palestinians is more complex.
Do they deserve autonomy and is their struggle just? Yes, I firmly believe it is.
Should they be given the entire region that we now call Israel and the Occupied Territories?
If the answer is yes - what will happen to the Jewish minority? Or does that matter?
What's a just solution here?

I see only one: two states, with Israel withdrawing from most of the occupied territories and land swaps negotiated so that the security needs of each can be met. Seems fairest. And, quite frankly, when a nation under attack by rocket fire or other artillary they have the right to defend their citizens by what ever means necessary. That is the right of any nation. I'm not sure why you think it would mean any nation but Israel.
For example, the right to defend vs attacking civilian populations?

We hear this a lot (constantly) but who are the civilians?

The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.
In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.

Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

Halevi went back to Israel, but Sharon rejected the proposal.

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org

The settlers are not civilians? How can a child NOT be a civilian?
 
Originally posted by Disir
Oh, I see, we are going to play to the Mods in an effort to lay a specific line of bullshit out. Got it.

I used Coyote's thread to exemplify the mindset of hundreds of millions of people around the world.

I could have used JakeStarkey, rightwinger, High_Gravity or any other poster who displays this same kind of double standards.

Don't take it personally. : )

A few things.

On the dehumanization of the Palestinians. I've often brought that up and agree with it.
I've also posted about the inequities and injustices that exist within Israel in regard to both the Palestinians and it's Arab citizens compared to it's Jewish citizens.
I've frequently cited the fact that contrary to the claim that the Palestinians are autonomous, that is not true - they exist under two sets of law, the Palestinian law, and Israeli military law which has been shown to be brutal and unjust particularly in it's treatment of Palestinian children.

Now there are questions.
Is violence directed at civilians and children acceptable for any cause?
Does a nation have the right to defend it's citizens?
Do a people have a right to self determination and/or equality under the law?

What happens when any of the above come in conflict with each other?

For example, the right to defend vs attacking civilian populations?
The right to self determination when both parties are arguing for that on the same land?

Equality and dehumanization within a nation is comparable to our civil rights struggle. Demanding that Israel recognize and treat it's citizens with equality, not just on paper, but in action.

The situation with the Palestinians is more complex.
Do they deserve autonomy and is their struggle just? Yes, I firmly believe it is.
Should they be given the entire region that we now call Israel and the Occupied Territories?
If the answer is yes - what will happen to the Jewish minority? Or does that matter?
What's a just solution here?

I see only one: two states, with Israel withdrawing from most of the occupied territories and land swaps negotiated so that the security needs of each can be met. Seems fairest. And, quite frankly, when a nation under attack by rocket fire or other artillary they have the right to defend their citizens by what ever means necessary. That is the right of any nation. I'm not sure why you think it would mean any nation but Israel.
For example, the right to defend vs attacking civilian populations?

We hear this a lot (constantly) but who are the civilians?

The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.
In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.

Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

Halevi went back to Israel, but Sharon rejected the proposal.

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org

The settlers are not civilians? How can a child NOT be a civilian?
They are not mentioned in the Geneva Accord. I would assume that their safety is the responsibility of their parents.
 
Is that why the UN had to invent a new rule for arab muslims to prove they were indigenous, otherwise 90% of them would be sent packing back to Syria and Iran.

Along with 90% of the Jews. What's your point?



Considering that 60% of the Jews in Israel are Sephardic, meaning they came from the surrounding area then you would have a devil of a job to find your 90%. Then when the DNA results are in and show that 95% of all the Jews are related to the Sephardic Jews then you might understand that they ALL have a right to live in Israel.
But apart from that CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW says that you are wrong and just being racist towards the Jews.
 
Originally posted by Disir
Oh, I see, we are going to play to the Mods in an effort to lay a specific line of bullshit out. Got it.

I used Coyote's thread to exemplify the mindset of hundreds of millions of people around the world.

I could have used JakeStarkey, rightwinger, High_Gravity or any other poster who displays this same kind of double standards.

Don't take it personally. : )

A few things.

On the dehumanization of the Palestinians. I've often brought that up and agree with it.
I've also posted about the inequities and injustices that exist within Israel in regard to both the Palestinians and it's Arab citizens compared to it's Jewish citizens.
I've frequently cited the fact that contrary to the claim that the Palestinians are autonomous, that is not true - they exist under two sets of law, the Palestinian law, and Israeli military law which has been shown to be brutal and unjust particularly in it's treatment of Palestinian children.

Now there are questions.
Is violence directed at civilians and children acceptable for any cause?
Does a nation have the right to defend it's citizens?
Do a people have a right to self determination and/or equality under the law?

What happens when any of the above come in conflict with each other?

For example, the right to defend vs attacking civilian populations?
The right to self determination when both parties are arguing for that on the same land?

Equality and dehumanization within a nation is comparable to our civil rights struggle. Demanding that Israel recognize and treat it's citizens with equality, not just on paper, but in action.

The situation with the Palestinians is more complex.
Do they deserve autonomy and is their struggle just? Yes, I firmly believe it is.
Should they be given the entire region that we now call Israel and the Occupied Territories?
If the answer is yes - what will happen to the Jewish minority? Or does that matter?
What's a just solution here?

I see only one: two states, with Israel withdrawing from most of the occupied territories and land swaps negotiated so that the security needs of each can be met. Seems fairest. And, quite frankly, when a nation under attack by rocket fire or other artillary they have the right to defend their citizens by what ever means necessary. That is the right of any nation. I'm not sure why you think it would mean any nation but Israel.
For example, the right to defend vs attacking civilian populations?

We hear this a lot (constantly) but who are the civilians?

The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.
In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.

Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

Halevi went back to Israel, but Sharon rejected the proposal.

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org

The settlers are not civilians? How can a child NOT be a civilian?
They are not mentioned in the Geneva Accord. I would assume that their safety is the responsibility of their parents.




They are mentioned in the Geneva conventions as protected persons, much as you would like them not to be.

And there is no such thing as Geneva accords.
 
You know what they say about "Garbage in/Garbage out", don't you?

During the time of WW2, there was no group that called itself "Palestinian".
 
I used Coyote's thread to exemplify the mindset of hundreds of millions of people around the world.

I could have used JakeStarkey, rightwinger, High_Gravity or any other poster who displays this same kind of double standards.

Don't take it personally. : )

A few things.

On the dehumanization of the Palestinians. I've often brought that up and agree with it.
I've also posted about the inequities and injustices that exist within Israel in regard to both the Palestinians and it's Arab citizens compared to it's Jewish citizens.
I've frequently cited the fact that contrary to the claim that the Palestinians are autonomous, that is not true - they exist under two sets of law, the Palestinian law, and Israeli military law which has been shown to be brutal and unjust particularly in it's treatment of Palestinian children.

Now there are questions.
Is violence directed at civilians and children acceptable for any cause?
Does a nation have the right to defend it's citizens?
Do a people have a right to self determination and/or equality under the law?

What happens when any of the above come in conflict with each other?

For example, the right to defend vs attacking civilian populations?
The right to self determination when both parties are arguing for that on the same land?

Equality and dehumanization within a nation is comparable to our civil rights struggle. Demanding that Israel recognize and treat it's citizens with equality, not just on paper, but in action.

The situation with the Palestinians is more complex.
Do they deserve autonomy and is their struggle just? Yes, I firmly believe it is.
Should they be given the entire region that we now call Israel and the Occupied Territories?
If the answer is yes - what will happen to the Jewish minority? Or does that matter?
What's a just solution here?

I see only one: two states, with Israel withdrawing from most of the occupied territories and land swaps negotiated so that the security needs of each can be met. Seems fairest. And, quite frankly, when a nation under attack by rocket fire or other artillary they have the right to defend their citizens by what ever means necessary. That is the right of any nation. I'm not sure why you think it would mean any nation but Israel.
For example, the right to defend vs attacking civilian populations?

We hear this a lot (constantly) but who are the civilians?

The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.
In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.

Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

Halevi went back to Israel, but Sharon rejected the proposal.

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org

The settlers are not civilians? How can a child NOT be a civilian?
They are not mentioned in the Geneva Accord. I would assume that their safety is the responsibility of their parents.




They are mentioned in the Geneva conventions as protected persons, much as you would like them not to be.

And there is no such thing as Geneva accords.

For indochina in the 1950's....
 
et al,

There is a difference between a "protected person" and a "civilian." Don't confuse the two.

They are mentioned in the Geneva conventions as protected persons, much as you would like them not to be.

And there is no such thing as Geneva accords.
(COMMENT)

Civilians are:

Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians. SOURCE: ICRC IHL Customary Law Rule 5

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
Definition of civilians and civilian population: SOURCE: Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions
Article 50 --- Definition of civilians and civilian population
1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.

2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.​
Protected Persons are:


  • ARTICLE 4

    Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

  • Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

  • The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.
    Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.

Some Palestinians think that Israeli Civilians have no protection against Palestinian attacks. They would be wrong.

Most Respectfully,
R
 

Forum List

Back
Top