On June 10, there will be a big demonstration in Washington calling for an end to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.
The precise demands read as follows:
* An end to US military, economic, diplomatic, and corporate support for Israel’s illegal military occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem.
* A change in US policy to one that supports a just peace between Palestinians and Israelis based on equality, human rights and international law, and the full implementation of all relevant UN resolutions.
No part of this issue is free from confusion and argument. Some will contend, for instance, that Israel no longer occupies Gaza. This argument ignores the fact that Israel has always maintained control over Gaza’s border, which is encased in a wall and fence, as well as Gaza’s shore and airspace. Not to mention control over Gaza’s water supply and electricity as well as taxes collected from its residents.
There are other debates, on the borders of Greater Jerusalem, which have been greatly expanded, on the meaning of international law and how to apply human rights norms. But apparently, the most vexing debate is over the “full implementation of all relevant UN resolutions.”
This phrase frightens a great many people who consider themselves “pro-Israel, pro-peace.” The reason is obvious: the first UN resolution that is coming to mind is UNGA 194 which states that “… the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date…” This resolution is usually the first one cited in defense of the right of return, along with Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”
This is, of course, why people fear that mentioning “relevant UN resolutions” and insisting that they be followed would mean the destruction of Israel. But what is puzzling to me is why no one seems to give equal weight to another UN General Assembly resolution, one which is just a little older than 194. That would be Resolution 181, which partitioned the area called Palestine under the British Mandate.
UNGA 181 specifically created both a Jewish and Arab state. The relevant point here is that this resolution carries just as much weight as 194. Both do not have the enforcement mechanism that a Security Council resolution has; both were accepted by Israel (181 by the leadership of the Yishuv, as this obviously preceded the existence of Israel; 194 was accepted by Israel, but under duress, as it was a condition of her admittance into the UN); both were initially rejected by the Arab states at the time, though both were accepted, de facto or de jure, by those states many years later; in both cases, the Palestinians had no voice in the proceedings.
I’ve said many times in the talks I’ve given that there is no resolving this conflict without dealing with its most vexing core clash: the irresistible force of Palestinian nationalism meeting the immovable object of Zionism. This is not a pleasant fact for either Israelis or Palestinians. Both see the nationalism of the other as the ultimate threat to them. And both sides have pragmatists who try to find accommodation between and extremists who believe that there can be no safety for their people without utterly defeating the nationalist forces of the other. And a century of violence has proven that this cannot be resolved by force, despite the insistence of forces on both sides on the continued pursuit of a victory by arms.
Thus it is that the two UNGA resolutions, 181 and 194 encompass the core of the conflict. They are also inherently contradictory. Insofar as each of those resolutions embody the national aspirations of Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs respectively, it is clear that neither aspiration can be fully realized without denying the aspirations of the other.
Jewish tradition has a good deal of experience with inherent contradiction. The Talmud can be largely described as an extensive effort to resolve contradictions found in the Torah and Mishnah. It’s not always easy, and the answers that are arrived at are sometimes real stretches made in order to resolve the contradictions. In terms of this comparison, the compromises are not easy and are unlikely to leave anyone happy. But they can be resolved.
For this reason, above all others, the occupation must end, because the resolution of such difficult contradictions in a way that actually lasts cannot be achieved under these conditions.
But we also need to face these contradictions, not try to avoid them. The framework of UNGA resolutions contains a baffling contradiction, but with two legitimate governments (not one that is functioning and one that exists as a proxy under occupation) under international auspices this can be worked out. It must be.
Those who support Israel and also wish for a true peace for it must stop being afraid of UN resolutions and instead use the ones that favor them, not to pre-empt the other but to finally, resolve the core issues of the conflict. Those who call themselves “Pro-Israel and pro-Peace” have a UN resolution of their own, and the political, economic and military power to protect it. To be afraid of other UN resolutions that do not have those power advantages only prolongs the conflict.
and no call for action on the other side? israel DID unilaterally leave gaza, and how did the palestinians react? they destroyed working greenhouses and other businesses, thus forcing more economic chaos on themselves. they began again sending in rockets from gaza into israel. they started smuggling weapons in, so much so that even the egyptian police had to control the egyptian border. (of course no one criticizes egypt when they do that, only israel when they do the same.)
the whole reason that gaza was occupied in the first place was because of rocket fire and weapons smuggling. the first chance they get, the palestinians start up again.
sorry, but israel is sick of making unilateral moves that are unappreciated and unmatched.
a march for peace is one thing. calling on both sides to get their acts together is one thing. a one-sided march on the side of the terrorists is treason.
These guys who call for more and more Israeli consessions while holding the Arabs harmless, are delusional.
Perhaps one day (in the not so distant future) they will be forced to grow their beards to a manditory legnth — as to be in compliance with Taliban law, and they will still be critical of the Jews.
Remember “Shindler’s List”?
B’Tselem says Israel still controls Gaza:
“With the implementation of the Disengagement Plan in September 2005, Israeli military forces withdrew from the Gaza Strip. However, Israel still controls central areas of life for the residents of Gaza . In those areas that remain under Israeli control, Israel bears legal obligations for the welfare of the Gaza residents. These obligations stem both from International Humanitarian Law and from international human rights law.
Among other things, Israel controls all movement in and out of Gaza , including movement of all goods imported to Gaza and exported from Gaza . This control has far reaching implications, given that foreign trade, and particularly trade with Israel has decisive importance for the Gaza economy. Since the beginning of the second intifada in September 2000, aside from some rare exceptions, Israel has only allowed imports and exports through the Karni crossing. Movement of goods through this central artery takes place much more slowly than necessary to develop the struggling Gaza economy.”
http://www.btselem.org/english/Gaza_Strip/Karni_Crossing.asp
Real Voice for Peace
I’d suggest “Real Voice for Peace” read Ran HaCohen’s article “The Ideology of Occupation Revisited” – although I suspect it will make no difference on his thinking.
look, israel did leave, and the gazans responded by destroying their own economy and firing rockets into israel. they had the choice, and that’s the choice they made.
egypt and israel have stopped smuggling over the border and have both discovered tunnels also used for smuggling weapons. palestinian leaders have been stopped at the egyptian border carrying thousands in cash, stolen from the palestinian people, that were going to be used to buy weapons.
the palestinians took their opportunity and squandered it. yes of course it is their responsibility that their society is a mess.
when the gazans, and their elected leaders, give up their war against israel, they will find themselves in a much better position. until then, israel will defend herself.
i’ll read the article.
When I visited Israel in 1984, these so-called “occupied” areas were merely neighborhoods, not much different then a Puerto-Rican neighborhood next to a Polish neighborhood in the USA. For the most part, the children of both cultures were discouraged from intermarriage. But this is far from unique. You think that protestants in Northern Ireland are permitted (socially) to intermarry with Catholics? I have a friend from South Boston who’s parents were such a mix. To this day, both sides have disowned his family (to this day–they are married 40 years with 2 adult children). This is exactly what I mean when I say that Israel is being held to a stricter standard then the rest of the world. What country would sit around and be consumed by an ocean of militancy without taking some counter-measures? France? Not any more.
James Baker said it best: “The Israelis must concede [read: surrender] because they are surrounded”. And that’s the general attitude.
Had the Arabs remained neighbors, rather then militant adversaries, today, their only grievance would be that they are driving Volkswagens whilst the Jews drive Mercedes. Rest assured, this disparity would have been enough to ignite another “intafata”. Because they are conditioned from childhood to believe that they are the superior class. Their Holy scriptures also reinforce this concept, from the age of five, when the political and religious indoctrination begins.
There is only one viable solution. It is an intellectual and spiritual solution. Everything else has been tried and failed. However, as long as people encourage the Arab’s false understanding of history, kangaroo concepts of international justice and bent visions of equity, the true solution drifts further away.
As John and I argued above, Israel can’t really be said to have left Gaza when it still retains control over who can exit and enter Gaza and what comes in and out. As for the firing of the Qassams, they have usually been in response to the Israeli attacks, to “targeted assasinations” in Gaza or in the West Bank.
And on those greenhouses:
http://girlieman.blogspot.com/2007/02/debunking-lgf-defense.html
Having been drawn into a debate about the Gaza disengagement, I would like to return to a positive program for alleviating Gaza’s misery while addressing the security concerns of Israel. I propose the following program, which, if successful, could serve as a model for similar actions in the West Bank:
(1) All arms and armed groups in Gaza will come under the control of the security forces of the Palestinian Authority.
(2) The Palestinian Authority will take responsibility for preventing attacks from Gaza
(3) The Palestinian Authority will assume control over Gaza’s borders, airspace, and waters.
(4) Palestinians will have free passage into and out of Gaza, at least into Egypt & from and to to the West Bank.
(5) Israel will allow the free movement of goods into and out of Gaza. Israel will allow a substantial number of Gazans to enter Israel for work.
(6) An international commission will monitor both countries compliance with the above provisions
(7) An international peacekeeping force will be placed between Israel & Gaza (and perhaps between Gaza & Egypt).
(8) The international community will implement a reconstruction program to rebuild Gaza’s infrastructure & economy.
“Israel is being held to a stricter standard then the rest of the world.”
Isidore, it’s not not about poor neighborhoods, intermarriagë, and car-envy. It’s about Israel creating a humanitarian crisis in those already-impoverished neighborhoods. It’s about state-sponsored terrorism in the form of house demolitions and targeted assassinations from F-16’s that amount to collective punishments killing entire buildings full of men, women, and children “suspects” (often more in one hit than have been killed by Qassams since they started). There’s hardly a Palestinian family that does not have a relative being held in Israeli prisons, indefinitely and subject to torture, including women and young boys. Necessary counter-measures against militant ghetto uprisings? Perhaps, but it is the disproportionality of the reprisals that causes Israel to be censured.
“egypt and israel have stopped smuggling over the border and have both discovered tunnels also used for smuggling weapons. palestinian leaders have been stopped at the egyptian border carrying thousands in cash, stolen from the palestinian people, that were going to be used to buy weapons.”
Don’t be so sure the money wasn’t some of the $84 million “stolen” from American taxpayers and (at least planned by Bush to be) funneled through the CIA via Egypt and Jordan to aid Fatah (Palestinian Security Forces loyal to Abbas) in its struggle against Hamas.
John:
You skip over the critical portion of my statement:
Why, in 1984 was there an acute lack of any such “injustices” which you today reference? What occurred after 1984 and before today? Because we can argue forever about who is occupying who’s rightful homeland and never reach agreement. What your end of the political spectrum can’t as smoothly propose is why, in 1984 was there a normal existence for the Arabs and Israelis and no “humanitarian crisis” and no “state-sponsored terrorism” (and no Arab terrorism) and no “targeted assassinations” and no “collective punishments” and no “Palestinian family members . . being held in Israeli prisons” ???
A couple of weeks back I watched a TV news story about a pedophile, who devoted his 15 minutes of fame towards rationalizing how and why his so called “lifestyle” (of being attracted to girls between the ages of 3 and 11) was somehow normal and harmless and how he used Orwellian linguistics to purport that it was actually he (and his pedophile compatriots) who were being “oppressed” by the nasty and unjust status-quo. Frankly, he made his case sound as reasonable as it possibly could, given that it was still a twisted and perverted view of reality. But someone who was inclined to agree with him (or at least empathized with him) to begin with, would have taken solace in his silver-tongued renditions. And that’s basically the way I feel about you and your stated cause. The Palestinian-Arabs do suffer. However, the primary source of their suffering is NOT the Israelis. Therefore, you can boycott and protest to your heart’s content but at the day’s end, it will solve NOTHING. Because you are spraying for termites when you should be hunting for polar bear. Its as simple as that. The proverbial “polar bear” in this case is:
a. The Arab and Muslim collective vision of superiority and in smaller doses, regional (ultimately worldwide) conquest (“Fatah = conquest by way of holy-war”) and their willingness to sacrifice their own, in order to perpetuate a battle with some (and sundry) adversary, in this case Israel. (The Kurds face the same problem and they are even Muslims–so do the Christian Lebanese).
b. The tendency for some world powers to promote and thrive on the suffering (of at least perpetual handicap) of the Jews.
c. OIL, OIL, OIL (the underlying cause of most of the misery since 1907).
and other disgraces too voluminous to itemize herein.
The Hebrews just want to be left alone to live in peace and that has always been their goal since 600-BC, when the king of Babylon (Iraq) occupied Judah and carted off 40,000 of its priests and royalty into captivity. Your body of politic seems to miss the fact that the Jews have been denied a peaceful existence (by others) since 600-BC, while the Arabs have never been victims of any such oppression, except by the hands of their own leaders. And it is no different today. The Arabs have done their utmost to set the fallacious stage for this illusion but it only fools those who are willingly inclined to be fooled, like yourself. Which is why I repeat that your position can be characterized as to the ‘left’ of most American-born Arabs. They often know better.
PS> Mitchell is quite correct when he states that only the U.N. Security Counsel has the authority to create, implement and/or enforce international law. These other U.N. (General Assembly) resolutions are merely popularity contests. Since Jews have never been especially popular, it should come as no surprize to anyone that (for example) the war-lords of 75+ African nations have formed a perpetual voting block against them. This alone is almost 1/2 the votes in the entire United Nations. So anyone who points to General Assembly resolutions as a reason to boss Israel around is not in tune with any sort of equity. They are merely joining a chorus of thugs.
“Why, in 1984 was there an acute lack of any such “injustices” which you today reference? What occurred after 1984 and before today?”
What’s with 1984? Is that some kind of Orwellian reference? I don’t know. Are you trying to tell us that the Palestinians were happy as clams in 1984? Or just that the whole thing is just semantics? Or that it’s all John’s overactive imagination?
Your three proposed “motivations,” namely oil, persecution of Jews by major world powers, and an alleged Arab/Muslim drive toward self-destruction and martyrdom, are inane, insufficient, and absurdly far-fetched.
There’s a very simple answer as to why all the commotion. When you say “the Hebrews just want to be left alone and live in peace” this is not exactly the whole truth, Isidore. They also want to drive the Palestinians into the sea and take all of the land for themselves. They took major steps toward that goal in 1948 and in 1967 and they’ve been doing it ever since.
“the Arabs have never been victims of any such oppression, except by the hands of their own leaders.”
OK, let’s talk about oppression. An article in Haaretz reported in 2002 that,
“a senior officer can say,unhesitatingly, that the IDF should study how the SS put down the Warsaw Ghetto revolt, to learn about ways to fight inside Palestinian cities.” (Uzi
Benziman, “Corridors of Power, Immoral Imperative,” Haaretz, 1 February 2002)
As Finkelstein said about this,
“Judging by Israeli carnage in the West Bank culminating in Operation Defensive Shield – the targeting of Palestinian ambulances and medical personnel, the targeting of journalists, the killing of Palestinian children “for sport” (Chris Hedges, New York Times former Cairo bureau chief), the rounding up, handcuffing and blindfolding of all Palestinian males between the ages of 15 and 50, and affixing of numbers on their wrists, the indiscriminate torture of Palestinian detainees, the denial of food, water, electricity, and medical assistance to the Palestinian civilian population, the indiscriminate air assaults on Palestinian neighborhoods, the use of Palestinian civilians as human shields, the bulldozing of Palestinian homes with the occupants huddled inside – it appears that the Israeli army followed the officer’s advice. When the operation, supported by fully 90 percent of Israelis, was finally over, 500 Palestinians were dead and 1500 wounded.” (Image and Reality, p. xxiii)
It’s not about oil, Isidore. It’s about oppression.
“What’s with 1984? Is that some kind of Orwellian reference?”
Just coincidental, though somewhat ironic all the same.
“Are you trying to tell us that the Palestinians were happy as clams in 1984?”
Yes, relative to overall circumstances and based on a practical frame-of-reference.
I was there. I had the Imam of the Al Askah mosque come outside and plead with me to come inside and visit. I had a Palestinian-Arab jitney driver invite himself to be my house guest in the USA. I walked through the Arab quarters at night unmolested, not even by dirty looks.
The answer is YES. Emphatically. They were as happy as clams can be. Maybe not as happy as oysters but happy as clams are capable of.
And this is the unraveling of your entire facade. Yes, today there is a state of siege and a trench war, that is hurting the Arabs more so then the Hebrews. That does not make the Jews guilty of anything except defending themselves. And yes, the Israelis have been heavy-handed but no more so then most other modern countries would and FAR less so then the Arab nations would handle similar armed terrorist insurrections.
“They {the Israelis} also want to drive the Palestinians into the sea and take all of the land for themselves. They took major steps toward that goal in 1948 and in 1967 and they’ve been doing it ever since. ”
First of all, the true authentic Palestinians are the Jews. Most of the so called Palestinian-Arabs were scavengers and Bedouins who attempted to avail themselves of the incessant beating that the Jews were in the habit of receiving. The much smaller qty of longstanding Arabs who inhabited the traditionally Jewish zones of Palestine were themselves wanna-be Jews. Uncle-Toms (if you will) in a good sense. However, the bulk of the Arabs who are now disputing national borders with Israel were strategically placed there in concert between the British Crown and the Arab Nationalist militants (such as the Grand Mufti).
You sound like a little school-girl, simply taking the truth and reversing the roles.
The Jews did not wish to push anyone into any sea. They wanted to exploit the Arabs as common day laborers. As such, the Arabs were a significant asset to the Hebrews. Maybe nothing to brag about but far from “Ethnic Cleansing”.
You quoted Finkelstein:
“Judging by Israeli carnage in the West Bank culminating in Operation Defensive Shield – the targeting of Palestinian ambulances and medical personnel, the targeting of journalists, the killing of Palestinian children “for sport” (Chris Hedges, New York Times former Cairo bureau chief), the rounding up, handcuffing and blindfolding of all Palestinian males between the ages of 15 and 50, and affixing of numbers on their wrists, the indiscriminate torture of Palestinian detainees, the denial of food, water, electricity, and medical assistance to the Palestinian civilian population, the indiscriminate air assaults on Palestinian neighborhoods, the use of Palestinian civilians as human shields, the bulldozing of Palestinian homes with the occupants huddled inside – it appears that the Israeli army followed the officer’s advice. When the operation, supported by fully 90 percent of Israelis, was finally over, 500 Palestinians were dead and 1500 wounded.” (Image and Reality, p. xxiii)”
I think the above is libelous BULLSH*T. I have little more to add, as there can be no intelligent discussion as to the relative quality of bullsh*t.
Abuses have occurred, as they always do in protracted war. And they are not to be excused or rationalized. However, Finkelstein goes a major step too far when he grossly exaggerates the abuses, excuses the causation of the abuses and asserts that the abuses were either planned or sanctioned by the IDF.
“affixing of numbers on their wrists” this was inserted because it sounds enough like Nazi tattoos to paint an incriminating picture. However, as in any riot setting, the detainees must be cataloged. This is exactly also true when the New York or the DC police break up civil violence, in which demonstrators have been arrested. Magic markers are used to begin the process of booking.
“targeting of Palestinian ambulances and medical personnel,”
If this was done, it was done because the Arabs were using such vehicles as military convoys or to hide ranking war-lords.
“killing of Palestinian children “for sport””
Political bullsh*t of the foremost magnitude.
“indiscriminate torture of Palestinian detainees”
Political bullsh*t.
If all this were true (even if much of it were true) their Arab neighbors would not hesitate to militarily intervene. Heck, if I believed that the Finkelstein slanders were nearly accurate, I too might support that contingency. But they are bullsh*t and that is why the Arabs have mostly divested themselves in the “Palestinian Cause”, including many Palestinian Arabs living in the USA. Unlike yourself, they understand the forces at work behind the scenes and what their goals ultimately are. They understand because many of these people [read: pawns] have sat through vitriolic sermons and heard first hand (in Arabic) what the intensions of this militancy are. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are living in the land of make-believe. My observation on that is . . . if one is going to live in a dream world, one might as well make those dreams pleasant ones. In your case (and your compatriots) your chosen dream state is one of self inflicted horror. Enjoy (if that is what pleases you). However, (much to your anticipated shagrin), I will not be bothered by your bullsh*t.
Every one of those points of “libelous bullsh*t” as you call it, is documented in articles that have appeared on the pages of Haaretz. Many times, actually. What you are reacting to is seeing all those examples of Israeli oppression in one place at the same time.
“affixing of numbers on their wrists” this was inserted because it sounds enough like Nazi tattoos to paint an incriminating picture. However, as in any riot setting, the detainees must be cataloged.”
No, Isidore. You are minimizing. It was “the rounding up, handcuffing and blindfolding of all Palestinian males between the ages of 15 and 50, and affixing of numbers on their wrists.” Operation Defensive Shield was not conducted in response to a riot. It was in response to the Passover Massacre in 2002 in which 135 innocent Israeli citizens were killed. The IDF went into Palestinian cities and refugee camps to root out terrorists and bomb-makers and to seize weapons. When the report said “all Palestinian males between the ages of 15 and 50” it is referring to all the male residents of the Jenin refugee camp; not to men arrested at the scene of a riot. This was indeed a technique used by the Waffen-SS in the Warsaw Ghetto after sealing off all means of exit, just as at Jenin.
I do not question for an instant that a substantial response to the massacre was necessary. What we are talking about again is disproportionality. Be that as it may, I will ask that you at least admit to the basic facts of what the IDF did, as these are well-documented and have been reported even in Haaretz.
““targeting of Palestinian ambulances and medical personnel,” If this was done, it was done because the Arabs were using such vehicles as military convoys or to hide ranking war-lords.”
Sadly, what you say is not true. B’Tselem’s report on firing at ambulances and medical personnel, even after coordination with IDF:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:OmUwaNktodIJ:www.btselem.org/Download/200203_Medical_Treatment_Eng.rtf+ambulances&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&lr=lang_en&inlang=en
You can look up for yourself on B’Tselem’s website their reports and analysis of the other atrocities connected with Operation Defensive Shield in Jenin and elsewhere.
Amnesty International made a shocking report about the killing of children being now engrained on both sides. The “for sport” incident was one which Hedges reported as an eyewitness in which IDF soldiers enticed children to come in the open and then shot them.
The phrase “for sport” was from a 2001 NPR interview with Chris Hedges about his experiences in Khan Yunis refugee camp in Gaza:
BOGAEV: You describe [in an article in Harper’s] daily encounters between Israeli soldiers and Palestinians there. And most of those killed are young Palestinian boys. What did you see of this fighting while you were there? How did this shooting go down?
Mr. HEDGES: Well, every afternoon–you know, you could almost time it–around 3 or 4, the Palestinian kids, who have nowhere to play, would play–would go out on the dunes and they’d have kites or rag balls and this kind of stuff. And I remember–I heard it the first day. And I speak Arabic, so I’m listening over the loudspeaker to the worst curse words in Arabic, and phrases like, you know, ‘All the Palestinians who live in Khan Yunis are dogs,’ which is calling an Arab a dog is particularly insulting. And I couldn’t–I just couldn’t believe what I heard.
And I walked out towards the dunes and they were–the–over the loudspeaker from an Israeli army Jeep on the other side of the electric fence they were taunting these kids. And these kids started to throw rocks. And most of these kids were 10, 11, 12 years old. And, first of all, the rocks were the size of a fist. They were being hurled towards a Jeep that was armor-plated. I doubt they could even hit the Jeep. And then I watched the soldiers open fire. And it was–I mean, I’ve seen kids shot in Sarajevo. I mean, snipers would shoot kids in Sarajevo. I’ve seen death squads kill families in Algeria or El Salvador. But I’d never seen soldiers bait or taunt kids like this and then shoot them for sport. It was–I just–even now, I find it almost inconceivable. And I went back every day, and every day it was the same.
http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/manager/features/display_message.asp?mid=487
John:
There are but a few (alleged) eye witnesses. No videos? Today, video cameras are on cell phones and if you visit the You-Tube, you will find about 50,000 posts of candid (surreptitious) videos showing almost every embarrassment or atrocity imaginable, from LA and New Orleans police beating unarmed civilians to Britney Spears crotch shots and everything else in between. Can you find any videos of Israeli official military engaged in these claimed atrocities? With reference to the Lebanon war, the only videos broadcast were loops of the same 12 seconds, played over and over and over (as many as 300 times in a row on CNN). Even then, it was not certain when the video was taken and in that instance the time line was critical to the meaning of the event. And then we saw doctored photos by the Associated Press, falsely showing Israeli jets shooting a dozen air missiles when in fact they were actually 4 heat flares. Face it Mr. Baker, the only thing the world likes better then killing Jews is disgracing them. At the moment, exterminating them is proving overly difficult. So the opposition has placed all its available resources in the process of defamation.
The Israelis are smart enough to realize this and do their utmost to steer clear of actual culpability.
“they were taunting these kids.”
This is so obviously overkill. I have been opposed to the use of deadly force to put down rock throwers for years. However, the author realized that the world has (mostly) already accepted this practice, so he had to add some ‘hot fudge’, namely the likely contrived allegation that the Israelis enjoyed this and also that they started the trouble with intollerable insults.
When CNN looped the 12 second clip nearly continuously for 4 hours, that tells far more then the clip itself. The world has yet to see that many replays of the Zebruder footage.
Shakespeare: “The woman protestist too loudly”.
Just exactly like the missing news print about 1948. Its absence looms conspicuous.
“Refugee Camps” in the middle of Palestinian-Arab Territories, filled with Palestinian Arabs – for 60 years. This is one of those concepts that is so ridiculous, it would take calculus to quantify. It requires no explanation as such. Its like me telling you that my car is half mermaid. If you buy into it, you are sorryer then myself.
You wrote:
“What we are talking about again is disproportionality. Be that as it may, I will ask that you at least admit to the basic facts of what the IDF did, as these are well-documented”
You are asking me to admit that a temporal round up of male Arabs took place and that these people were detained with wrist restraints and that numbers were written on their hands?? OK. And your point is?
Are you asking me to admit that the Israeli response has often been excessive?? I have already stated that but I have also stated that most other countries (especially Arab nations) would have done at least the same if not worse.
The rest of the claims I consider to be bullsh*t. And those which are accurate are unfairly critical of Israel because they are only acting the same as most other countries would, given similar perpetually untenible conditions.
Palestinians “were as happy as clams can be?” in 1984? I am sure many people said the same thing about African-Americans in Birmingham, Alabama in 1950! I know of no case where a population has happily accepted being deprived of their political rights, as 2 million Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, & East Jerusalem were in 1984. Just because Isidor didn’t see the repression doesn’t mean it was non-existent (e.g. closing of universities, deportations, press censorship, curfews, & demolitions of homes, all of which were frequent in the mid-1980’s). Indeed, 3 years after your first 1984 visit, the first Palestinian intifida was born.
However, it is true that repression intensifed during & after the first Intifada. The most egregious aspects of the Occupation -checkpoints, internal & external closure, the cantonization of the territories – were institutionalized in 1991 (and only became worse during the Oslo era, by the way).
I think it’s fair to summarize the cycle in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as something like this: Depriviation of political rights leads to Palestinian resistance (both violent & non-violent), which results in infringements of Palestinian human rights, which leads to more violent Palestinian resistance, which results in further deprivation of Palestinian human rights, which leads to even greater Palestinian violence, etc. etc.
As Friedrich Schiller said, this is the curse of the evil deed: it inevitably gives birth to ever more evil.
“There are but a few (alleged) eye witnesses.”
Your argument is basically that it is not true because it could not be true. Here’s a first person testimony by an 11 year-old girl, Jihan D’adush, used as a human shield (from the B’Tselem website). Read it if you have the heart and stomach for it and tell us if it is not better than video:
http://www.btselem.org/english/Testimonies/20070228_Human_Shields_in_Nablus_witness_Jihan_Daadush.asp
Further details about the case, legal background, outcome:
http://www.btselem.org/english/Human_Shields/20070225_Human_Shields_in_Nablus.asp
“It was only following a High Court petition against this practice, which was filed by human rights organizations in May 2002, that the IDF issued a general order prohibiting the use of Palestinians as “a means of ‘human shield’ against gunfire or attacks by the Palestinian side.” Following the order, the use of human shields dropped sharply.
However, the army did not construe as a human shield the use of Palestinians, provided they consented, “to deliver a warning” to a wanted person entrenched in a certain location. The army continued the widespread use of this practice, which they referred to as “the neighbor procedure.” Following another petition filed by human rights organizations, the High Court of Justice [and you know what a bunch of anti-Semites they are] ruled that this practice, too, violated international humanitarian law and that it was thus illegal.”
Peter H.
Were you there? Because I was. The Palestinian-Arabs were happy not to be living in even worse conditions, which were prevalent in most other Arab countries.
No one who was not there is about to tell me what the conditions were or what the attitude of the people was either. And I can tell you this FOR CERTAIN: FAR more animosity existed between disparate ethnic groups in the USA and in other places, such as Northern Ireland, then manifested itself between the Arabs and the Israelis in 1984. And I saw PLENTY to see. Our tour was ALL OVER that area, including Egypt, West Bank, Gaza and everywhere in between. The Arabs and Israelis did not love each other but one could easily tell that they wanted to love each other.
What happened after was that the Soviets began to allow their Jews to escape. This provided an opening for Yasser Afafat to leverage, since this could be exploited as a “land grab” and attempt to displace Arabs from their jobs and land. I clearly remember a time when the ONLY complaint the Arabs had was they wanted better jobs and higher wages, following a wave of Russian Jewish immigration.
John:
You wrote:
“Your argument is basically that it is not true because it could not be true.”
No . . . . My argument is that most of the claims of Israeli atrocities are either exaggerations, outright lies or over-blown claims, such as the fact that a roundup from a particular neighborhood, which involved temporal detention and cataloging of adult male suspects constituted any sort of “atrocity” or “war crime”. Of for that matter that other countries in the region or the world would handle the same situation any differently.
Was I unclear as to my argument?
Since there are no photos or videos (in the 21st century), I consider a few eye witness accounts unreliable. Period. As for the Israeli high court, apparently they did the right thing. Instead of giving this system credit (where credit was due), you characterize their rulings as proof of something that is isn’t. The fact that a particular type of military conduct was ruled illegal did not make it widespread in the first place. Yasser Arafat used to shoot fellow Arabs in the head for being suspected of collaboration with the IDF. Why no shame on him and his practices, which, I am relatively sure is still engaged in, as it has been since 1920.
Isidor,
No, I wasn’t in the West Bank in 1984; I’ve only been through it once, in 1990, and that was very briefly. That being said, I don’t see why I required to defer to your personal experience. I do know quite a bit about the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and I have read accounts of life in the West Bank by both Israelis and Palestinians in the 1980’s. Again, just because you didn’t notice any signs of repression in your trip to the West Bank doesn’t mean it was non-existent: for one thing, the very occupation of 2 million Palestinians against their will is itself an act of massive repression.
However, I agree with you that life was far easier for Palestinian in the 1980’s than it is now. There was no matrix of checkpoints; Palestinians were (generally) free to move around the West Bank Gaza, & East Jerusalem, and even travel into Israel; Palestinians could work in Israel; the West Bank had not yet been cantonized by bypass roads for settlers. As I said above, most of the current mechanisms for controlling Palestinians (checkpoints, internal closure, requiring special permits for moving around between Gaza & the West Bank, etc.) were put in place in 1991, at a time when international attention was focused on the Gulf War. This was during the first intifada, an uprising that resulted in the deaths of very few Israeli civilians, most of whom were settlers. So to claim that the current repression is simply a defensive response to Palestinian terrorism is not true. It’s about maintaining control of Palestinians.
“My argument is that most of the claims of Israeli atrocities are either exaggerations, outright lies or over-blown claims.”
You are flogging a dead horse, Isidor. The IDF and the Israeli Supreme Court have already accepted the fact that these things happened, happened with some regularity, and are still happening. And it is widespread because the IDF insists they have the right and intention to continue doing these things!
“…a roundup from a particular neighborhood…”
No, not a “particular neighborhood.” It was the entire town of Jenin. The IDF rounded up all the Palestinian males between the ages of 16 and 50, tagged them, interrogated them, held them. That a violation of international humanitarian law. I pointed that out to you in post #16. You’re still trying to minimize.
“that other countries in the region or the world would handle the same situation any differently”
Yes, for example the Germans in Poland, 1940. Same techniques. Isidor, do you have any idea why mass roundups, home demolitions, torture, denial of medical attention, use of human shields, etc. are considered “war crimes” or “crimes against humanity”? It’s because these things happened to the Jews. After WW II the nations of the world decided what happened to the Jews must never happen again. The laws were written in the first instance for your protection, for the protection of the Jews. These things are the very things the SS did in the Warsaw Ghetto. They are called “collective punishments.” Depending on the circumstances, what we have here are “grave breaches” of international humanitarian law. Now they are a description of Israeli oppression of Palestinian Arabs.
“Since there are no photos or videos (in the 21st century), I consider a few eye witness accounts unreliable.”
How convenient for you. You’re just one (alleged) eye witness yourself. Are we supposed to believe your description of the situation in 1984? Where’s your video?
I’ve been out of town and returned to find all this talk of 1984, Palestinian clams, and claims of who was or was not here (in Israel) 23 years ago. Well I was. between 1978 and 1990 I spent a total of about four years here, much of it with my mother, a fluent Arabic speaker having grown up in Jaffa in the early 20th Century.
Like Isador, I travelled far and wide in Israel and the Occupied Territories, not with a carefully orchestrated tour, but either by myself, or with my mum whose language skills enabled us to be invited to Palestinian homes and have serious in-depth conversations. I generally spent 2-4 months a year here, with a sojourn of 2 years in the mid-eighties. One of my first articles to be published was a piece in 1985, predicting serious unrest in the Palestinian Territories. It was based on one-on-one conversatons with dozens of people from Gaza City to Jenin, who told of the ever encroaching Jewish settlements, home demolitions, land confiscations, lack of political liberty, and general depression regarding their future. Ever since the first Lebanon war it was obvious the pressure was building on the street, as a new Palestinian generation was raised without hope for their future. This was the generation that emerged during the first Intifada as the new leadership.
To be sure, Israeli Jews went to villages, ate Palestinian humas and felafel, and went home feeling superior because they actually talked to an Arab. The villagers were also happy taking their money, working in the settlements, and travelling to Israel to work on the bottom rung of the laboring ladder. They needed to eat.
But the anger was building, and to anyone with real knowledge on the ground in the early eighties, it was obvious that an eruption was inevitable. At the time, all this had little to do with Islamic radicalism but was a direct reaction from a people who had endured wars and endless occupations, from the Ottomans, the British, the Jordanians, then the Israelis. By the first intifada they had had enough, and it continues.
I just did a quick google search and came up with this snippet from an interview with them Prime Minister Shamir from the Israeli Government website:
“They (Palestinians) won’t be satisfied with less than that, and for this reason there is no possibility of reconciliation, or following a path of reconciliation, with the terrorist organizations. There’s no choice but to destroy them.
Full text at
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1982-1984/162%20Interview%20with%20Prime%20Minister%20Shamir%20in%20Davar-
ALSO
A report: “Patterns of Global Terrorism” was issued by the US State Department which reports that in 1984 there was an increase of terrorism by Jewish extremists against Palestinians in the West Bank and a corresponding increase in attacks by Palestinians. the report can be found at:
http://www.mipt.org
So Isador’s rosy picture of 1984 doesn’t quite jell with the facts.
Very interesting, Fred. As I mentioned above, I’ve heard comments from Palestinians that as difficult things were in the West Bank/Gaza the 1980’s, it was in some ways more free during that period than during the Oslo period.
Peter – It was more free in a pragmatic sense. In the early 1980s Palestinians could enter Israel and work. Their standard of living was rising and life was less dangerous. However in the political realm there was no hope. Palestinians in the eighties were titular citizens of Jordan ( withdrawn in the late eighties), a legacy of the Jordanian Occupation. However their lives were, (and still are in Areas ‘B’ and ‘C’) controlled by the Military Occupation, euphemistically called the ‘Civil Administration’.
All during the eighties the settlements kept growing, some to huge proportions such as Maale Adumim in the middle of the West Bank which now has over 40,000 residents. Palestinians were not blind to their plight and even as their living standard were improving, and they had more freedom to travel, the 1948 refugees were still largely confined to their camps, often within spitting distance of their former homes and lands across the Green Line which now sported new middle class Jewish homes.
I remember one Palestinian I met in 1985 who had somehow obtained a map of the ‘Allon Plan’, drawn up by Israel in the early 1970s, which showed the planned north/south and east/west settlement blocks designed to break up areas of Palestinian contiguity. By the eighties the plan was well underway and the Palestinian gentleman who showed me the map had recently has had land confiscated to make way for the expansion of a settlement.
Make no mistake, the seeds of the first Intifada were being sown by Israel even during the years of apparent tranquility. After Oslo of course, The Israeli government began its program of restricting Palestinian travel, and began proceeded with the cantonization of the West Bank, now almost complete.
John:
If the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that certain practices stop, then, stop they will. I have never heard of a situation wherein the Israeli military disobeys the courts. That might happen in the USA where the President is in a separate branch of government from the courts.
“happened with some regularity . . ”
Subjective.
Of course to you, one time could be too many But given your proclivity for ‘flights-of-fancy’, I take your subjective comments with an ocean of salt.
“No, not a “particular neighborhood.” It was the entire town of Jenin.”
So, how many thousands of people were involved? Of course you would have no idea because you have fixated on hyped up 12 second video clips.
“That a violation of international humanitarian law. I pointed that out to you in post #16. You’re still trying to minimize.”
It may have been a technical violation. So I defer you to my next point, how many countries (in 2007, not 1939) would act with more restraint on that specific count?
France? (Chirac threatened the use of nukes in retaliation for acts of Terror on French soil).
Egypt?
China?
Saudi Arabia?
Maybe New Zealand, the first time it happened. By the 2nd time, they too would be jack-booted and ready for action.
““collective punishments.””
While Israel does engage in some such acts, it is hardly to be compared with the Nazis, who would wipe out entire towns if a single German officer were sniped. What you describe is mass interrogations. Not mass punishments. Hardly a word comes off your keyboard that is not loaded with venomous and rhetorical word-smithing.
Fred wrote:
” . . But the anger was building, and to anyone with real knowledge on the ground in the early eighties, it was obvious that an eruption was inevitable. At the time, all this had little to do with Islamic radicalism but was a direct reaction from a people who had endured wars and endless occupations, from the Ottomans, the British, the Jordanians, then the Israelis. By the first intifada they had had enough, and it continues. ”
Little to do with Islamic radicalism ? Only because the Palestinian-Arabs saw what was occurring between Iran and Iraq (2-million dead) and knew that Sharia law was not going to help their condition.
Yet, the Palestinian-Arab forces from before WW2 were aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood and therefore with radical Islam. Where did they go?
” . . . endless occupations, from the Ottomans, the British, the Jordanians, then the Israelis.”
Or, many of them were virtual squatters living on disputed land.
During the 400 years of Turkish-Ottoman rule, there was no such thing as an “occupation”. This notion was invented in the late 1800s. Before then, nations controlled however much land their armies could hold and this fact hurt the Jews far more so then the Arabs. After WW1, the land was not occupied either. It became DISPUTED. It remains DISPUTED. Why can’t you peaceniks say the word D-I-S-P-U-T-E-D ???
When you try to say this simple word, does like exorcist Latin-
babble come out of your mouths???
‘A fine day for a dissSSppPPPpppUuuUUuuuutTTTtttttteeEEe isn’t it father?’
{head twists 360 degrees}
I have never heard of a situation wherein the Israeli military disobeys the courts
Go back and re-read #21 then because you missed it, the two paragraphs quoted from B’Tselem. Or this link:
http://www.btselem.org/english/Human_Shields/20070225_Human_Shields_in_Nablus.asp
You have a tendency to say my claims are untrue (“flights of fancy”) because they could not be true in your opinion while ignoring what is right before your eyes.
As to “collective punishments,” this is not a venomous phrase that emanates purely from my keyboard. B’Tselem made a comprehensive report on Collective Punishments in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip nearly twenty years ago. It explains what the term means and why these qualify as examples thereof.
http://www.btselem.org/Download/199011_Collective_Punishment_Eng.pdf
(I realize that you won’t read that and will simply dismiss it and say it couldn’t be true, but I have provided the link in case someone with a more open mind might care to read it)
So, how many thousands of people were involved?
About 7,000 men, roughly half the population of the Jenin refugee camp.
http://www.btselem.org/Download/200207_Defensive_Shield_Eng.pdf
(A 12 second video clip? Wrong again. You assume that what I say is not true because it could not be true. This you believe entitles you to keep saying “down is up” and to not look at the evidence in front of your eyes.)
“Why can’t you peaceniks say the word D-I-S-P-U-T-E-D ???
“
Can you say “Orwellian”? Yes, it’s “disputed” all right. It became so after Israel occupied it and refused to leave. It’s still “disputed” forty years on, because Israel is still “disputing” it with troops and bulldozers and pushing illegal (acc. to ICJ ruling 2004) “settlements” (colonies) into it to “dispute” even more of it. Apart from that, it’s not “disputed” at all; just occupied. Israel is in a “dispute” with itself about where its borders are located, the only state in the world that refuses to define its borders. Orwellian. War is Peace.
Isador wrote: “After WW1, the land was not occupied either. It became DISPUTED.”
Actually my history books tell me that it was occupied by the allied forced who won the war. There the European powers proceeded to carve up the Middle East into “countries” that bore little relationship to historic alliances, geography, and common sense. However keep in mind that Israel accepted the UN partition of 1948 then retained 22% more land at the end of the 1948 war. What you call DISPUTED, is land (West Bank & Gaza)that they had already agreed in 1948 would not be part of the state of Israel. Even Ariel Sharon has called it an Occupation. The vast majority of Israelis, except our more fanatic settlers, use the Hebrew term ‘Kibbush’ which means Occupation. Hebrew-Israelis have a consensus to end the Kibbush. You might want to consider joining us with support. It’s not really a matter of peacenics vs. the Right. Anyone with common sense can see that the end to the Occupation will be the beginning of peace, just the beginning.
“I think it’s fair to summarize the cycle in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as something like this: Depriviation of political rights leads to Palestinian resistance (both violent & non-violent),”
except that when the territories were NOT occupied by israel, they were still used as staging grounds for terrorism by arabs against israelis.
the idea that the intifada is a response to occupation is a myth. it’s the other way around. the occupation was a last resort response to arab terrorism.
“What you call DISPUTED, is land (West Bank & Gaza)that they had already agreed in 1948 would not be part of the state of Israel.”
yes, and if the arab nations would have accepted the agreement in 1948, it would have been so, even though it was much less land for israel than any original partition agreement.
(the original plan was for an arab state in palestine east of the jordan, which was created, it’s the state of Jordan, with a jewish state in palestine west of the jordan. the 48 agreement gave israel much less land than that,
CONTINUED
the 48 agreement gave israel much less land than that, BUT ISRAEL WAS WILLING TO COMPROMISE, and accept less territory.)
unfortunately, however, the arab nations refused to agree with the 48 plan, and started the first of many wars against israel. they lost the war, which sucks for them, but it was their choice to refuse the 48 plan.
and do you really want israel to pull out? with the infighting going on in gaza after they pulled out there? are you HOPING for a civil war in the west bank? because that is what you would get if israel left.
John:
“About 7,000 men, roughly half the population of the Jenin refugee camp.”
The town of Jenin is much larger then the so called “refugee camp”. You earlier said:
“No, not a “particular neighborhood.” It was the entire town of Jenin.”
That is therefore not only incorrect but a gross exaggeration as the entire town of Jenin is MUCH larger then 14,000 residents.
More hype — just like the before hype.
John:
PS>
Don’t whoop Orwell on me young man.
Orwell is MY boy and I have quoted Orwell before justices in court.
Fred:
After WW1, the Supreme Allied Powers received treaties from Turkey which officially ended the war and therefore, ended the “occupation” of Palestine. These were settlement documents and placed England as the temporal caretaker on behalf of the future Jewish National Home. That parcel of land was 45,000 sq. miles. While most (37,000 sq-miles) of that parcel went to Jordan and is no longer “disputed”, the balance can be fairly characterized as in dispute, not “occupied”. I don’t care what Sharon had to say. He was not right in the head. Besides, what would your friends say if they found out you were quoting that sage of wisdom and truth, Ariel Sharon??
You wrote:
“Israel accepted the UN partition of 1948”
Except that this document calls for borders to be drawn around defensible and traditional neighborhoods, something which (to this day) has never occured. So the Israelis accepted an agreement that has never been implemented.
‘Soviets engineered Six Day War’
By DAVID HOROVITZ:
JerusalemPost.com:
“In a new book that “totally contradicts everything that has been accepted to this day” about the Six Day War, two Israeli authors claim that the conflict was deliberately engineered by the Soviet Union to create the conditions in which Israel’s nuclear program could be destroyed.
Having received information about Israel’s progress towards nuclear arms, the Soviets aimed to draw Israel into a confrontation in which their counterstrike would include a joint Egyptian-Soviet bombing of the reactor at Dimona. They had also geared up for a naval landing on Israel’s beaches.
“The conventional view is that the Soviet Union triggered the conflict via disinformation on Israeli troop movements, but that it didn’t intend for a full-scale war to break out and that it then did its best to defuse the war in cooperation with the United States,” Gideon Remez, who co-wrote Foxbats over Dimona, told The Jerusalem Post Tuesday. Essentially, the Soviet Union at the time was regarded as having evolved “a cautious and responsible foreign policy,” the book elaborates. “But we propose a completely new outlook on all this,” said Remez.
Did Israel want the Six Day War?
American writer’s account of a miracle victory
Coinciding with the 40th anniversary of the war, Foxbats over Dimona: The Soviets’ Nuclear Gamble in the Six-Day War, by Remez and Isabella Ginor, is to be published by Yale University Press early next month. The title refers to the Soviets’ most advanced fighter plane, the MiG-25 Foxbat, which the authors say flew sorties over Dimona shortly before the Six Day War, both to help bolster the Soviet effort to encourage Israel to launch a war, and to ensure the nuclear target could be effectively destroyed once Israel, branded an aggressor for its preemption, came under joint Arab-Soviet counterattack.
Soviet nuclear-missile submarines were also said to have been poised off Israel’s shore, ready to strike back in case Israel already had a nuclear device and sought to use it.
The Soviets’ intended central intervention in the war was thwarted, however, by the overwhelming nature of the initial Israeli success, the authors write, as Israel’s preemption, far from weakening its international legitimacy and exposing it to devastating counterattack, proved decisive in determining the conflict.
And because the Soviet Union’s plan thus proved unworkable, the authors go on, its role in stoking the crisis, and its plans to subsequently remake the Middle East to its advantage, have remained overlooked, undervalued or simply unknown to historians assessing the war over the past 40 years.
Remez said the work was based on “some documentary evidence, in combination with testimonies of rank-and-file and high-ranking participants.”
Among these are quotations from the commander of the Soviets’ strategic-bomber pilots, Gen. Vasily Reshetnikov, indicating that he and his colleagues were given maps for a planned mission to target Dimona, and from Soviet Foreign Ministry official Oleg Grinevsky to the effect that the outcome of the war “saved Dimona from annihilation.”
The book also quotes Soviet naval officer Yuri Khripunkov detailing the orders his ship’s captain gave him on June 5, 1967, to raise a 30-strong “volunteer” detachment for a landing mission in Israel. “The mission for Khripunkov’s platoon was to penetrate Haifa Port – the Israeli navy’s main base and command headquarters,” the book states. Khripunkov was told that “similar landing parties were being assembled on board 30-odd Soviet surface vessels in the Mediterranean, for a total of some 1,000 men.” (continued)
{I can’t post the link because I am the only one on this blog who goes to the spam filter when i try to post links}
a gross exaggeration
Not really. Seven thousand is seven thousand. You asked how many thousands. Seven. All the males between 15 and 50 in the entire refugee camp. It was a mass roundup, mass arrest, mass tagging, mass interrogation, and therefore collective punishment; not the arrest of some rioters from ‘a particular neighborhood.’ That’s why it respresented a grave breach of international humanitarian law. It is a tactic the Waffen-SS used when they put down the rioting in Warsaw (not the whole town, of course, just in the so-called Warsaw Ghetto). So, this was a technique that the senior Israeli officer probably had in mind when he said the IDF should study the techniques the SS used to put down the uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto as they prepared to put down rioting in Palestinian towns.
Orwell
You don’t have exclusive rights to Orwell. Calling the Occupied Territories the “disputed territories” is an Orwellian euphemism of the first magnitude, a turn of phrase which conceals far more than it reveals. It’s like a car thief complaining that the DA keeps referring to it as “a stolen car” instead of describing it to the court as “a Mercedes-Benz 550SL.” You can call it “disputed” if you like, but it’s like putting lipstick on a pig. If the car hadn’t been stolen no one would be worrying what to call it in court. And if Israel had not occupied the land, we would not be talking about what to call it.
John:
Now you really show that you can’t admit a mistake, or, that such things don’t exist in your world.
Again, from the top:
You wrote:
““No, not a “particular neighborhood.” It was the entire town of Jenin.”
You wrote these words. There can be no denial. You stated that every male adult above the age of 15 was detained and interrogated and in your book, this constituted an “atrocity”. Aside from our disagreement on the severity of this event, or, which other countries could act the same way, if faced with the same no-win propositions, you statement was FACTUALLY INNACURATE.
in 1998, the census of Janin reported 34,000 residents.
Knowing the multiplication habits of the PA Arabs (average 5-6 children per family), by 2002, this number had to be over 40,000. 7,000 is therefore not all the males, ages 15 and up in Janin.
John:
You wrote:
“You don’t have exclusive rights to Orwell.”
You are correct. However, hearing YOU thumping that bible is like, well . . . its like Fred quoting Ariel Sharon as an ‘oracle of authoritative wisdom’.
The land is disputed. It has been disputed for 2000 years. This dispute has never been adjudicated.
“7,000 is therefore not all the males, ages 15 and up in Janin.”
It’s all the males 15 and up in the Jenin refugee camp. I won’t quibble with you about what to call it. I called it a town. I misspoke. I should have said refugee camp. Big deal. If I had called it a refugee camp to begin with would you have accepted the statement? I don’t think so. You refer to it as a “so-called refugee camp” which sounds like you don’t accept that designation either. Whatever. The point is that all the male residents of it, about 7,000 men and boys between the ages of 15 and 50 were rounded up. Now 7,000 men and boys is a hell of a lot more than “a particular neighborhood.” It was all the males they could round up, roughly half the population, and it constituted collective punishment. If you care about Israel, you should be trying to figure out how to stop these collective punishments of Palestinians happening again instead of arguing with me about whether Jenin is a town, a village, a refugee camp, or whatever.
“The land is disputed. It has been disputed for 2000 years.”
OK, if that’s how you want to frame it, that would include all of Eretz Israel, Judea, Samaria, all of Syria-Palestine, in other words, and not simply the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Yes, everything from Dan to Beer-Sheba has been disputed (and occupied) for a lot longer than 2,000 years. So are you including now the entire state of Israel in the term “disputed territories”?
John:
Lets review:
You contradicted my first statement, which started the disagreement. I said “neighborhood”, you rejected this characterization and insisted:
“No, not a “particular neighborhood.” It was the entire town of Jenin.”
So don’t now say that I am the one “quibbling” about semantics.
Re: “Refugee” status:
The internationally accepted definition of a “refugee” is (among other things) ‘a person who is outside the country of their nationality’. While I have asked numerous times in numerous venues, no one has bothered to answer: What “Nationality: is being claimed by these so-called “refugees” from inside the PA zones? They have never claimed Israeli nationality for good reason: Their aim was not to join but to replace Israel — with the nation of “Ishmael”.
Secondly, I do not believe that “refugee” status was invented with the intent to survive perpetually. This point would therefore also cover the so-called “refugee” camps found in other nations, clearly outside the PA zones. As a moral and equitable question, I believe these populations have lost whatever “refugee” status they might otherwise be entitled to, because the UNHCH has been actively prevented from resettling these populations for 50+ years. Lastly, it has never been adjudicated as to whether the circumstances of their departure qualified them as “refugees” to begin with (all other arguments aside). As these populations age and die, such a finding of fact may have already become impossible and all that is left are their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren to repeat whatever they might have been told 2nd or 3rd hand. These people should rightly be referred to as “Pawns”. Therefore, the Jenin camp you referenced should have been called “The Jenin human-Pawn encampment”.
Regarding: “Disputed Territories”.
Apparently, the Israelis (formerly “Zionists”) have stopped disputing large parts of Palestine that were legally titled to them after WW1. Again, no adjudication. Amazing what a Nazi genocide will do to soften up a population. Nonetheless, those areas which are still disputed are still disputed. These are not differential equations we are discussing.
Apparently, the Hammas and Fatah factions are shooting at each other again. Why am I not surprised?? Of course, certain folks on this blog will blame their shooting war on Israel.
And, just exactly like the first Gulf War — when Saddam targeted Israel with missiles as a distraction, Hammas has started shooting missiles into Israel. Why does this not surprise me either? This is also the exact same scenario when Iran, being confronted by the United Nations Security Counsel last Summer, had their proxy army (Hezbollah) begin shooting missiles into Haifa. Lastly, I lack any surprise to find that the web media is only covering the Israeli retaliation and playing down the PA civil war and their offensive strikes into Israeli civilian neighborhoods.
“No, not a “particular neighborhood.” It was the entire town of Jenin.”
Corr: the entire refugee camp of Jenin. See #32, 42, 46. 7,000 men. That’s why this was collective punishment, a grave breach of international humanitarian law .
“What “Nationality: is being claimed by these so-called “refugees” from inside the PA zones?”
Who says they have to claim a nationality?
The whole world knows who they are, knows that they are refugees (not “so-called refugees”) and knows they became refugees by being driven from their homes by the IDF/Haganah and prevented from returning by having their land confiscated and resettled. If you really want to know where they came from, the IDF can tell you exactly the names of their villages.
“Nonetheless, those areas which are still disputed are still disputed.”
Tautologous gobbledygook. You have reduced the term to sheer meaninglessness. I’ll stick with “occupied.”
John:
I knew you would “stick with occupied”. All of this work is NOT any attempt to convince you of anything and I have long ago surmised that you are way too far gone.
It is in hope that some and sundry other readers may glean some needed insight, otherwise unavaiable in the land of ‘la-la’ (“ooh-ba-doo” in Aramaic).
You wrote:
“Who says they have to claim a nationality?”
If they wish to be considered legitimate “refugees” (by anyone other then themselves — and a rag-tag crew of hyper rationalizers such as you), they must:
a. Claim a nationality
b. That nationality must also be OUTSIDE the borders of where they now reside. Otherwise, these persons are technically considered: “IDPs”. “Internally Displaced Persons” NOT “refugees”.
An IDP does not enjoy rights of a refugee under international treaty law. Such persons are generally victoms of civil wars and therefore, the international community has traditionally taken a neutral position on their status.
Your other statements are likewise full of baloooooooonnnnneeey. Nothing out of the ordinary.
Isidore, you seem to have this fantasy that you can make the Palestinian refugee problem go away by defining the refugees out of existence.
The UNRWA (the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) has been doing its work directly helping Palestinian refugees on behalf of the nations of the world for over fifty years now. The agency was established by United Nations General Assembly resolution 302 (IV) on 8 December 1949. If the Palestine refugees could be “disappeared” simply by re-defining them, the UN would have done so a long time ago. It’s a fantasy. Just drop it, Isidor. Nobody is buying what you are selling.
The UNWRA operational definition follows. Note that the first point is that the refugees are persons and that “nationality” is not a consideration:
“Under UNRWA’s operational definition, Palestine refugees are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. UNRWA’s services are available to all those living in its area of operations who meet this definition, who are registered with the Agency and who need assistance. UNRWA’s definition of a refugee also covers the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948. The number of registered Palestine refugees has subsequently grown from 914,000 in 1950 to more than 4.4 million in 2005, and continues to rise due to natural population growth.”
Some 14-15,000 of those refugees were living in the Jenin refugee camp when the IDF sealed it off and set upon the inhabitants in Operation Defensive Shield, modelled apparently on the SS
attack on the Warsaw Ghetto, replete with mass roundups, tagging, interrogation, and detention, of all male inhabitants between 15 and 50, roughly 7,000 men and boys.
John:
You quoted UN language from resolution 302 (IV) on 8 December 1949: However, the ‘Convention relating to the Status of Refugees adopted on 28 July 1951’ states (superseding your older authority):
“Article 1. Definition of the term “refugee” . . .
(2) As a result of events occurring before I January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”
End of quote-
Therefore, if these Arabs are Palestinians then they are refugees from Palestine. No matter, the world should stop flapping its mouth and settle this population of nearly homeless people. That is the solution. It should have been implemented many years ago. The solution is to help educate this population.
Quoting further pertinent references from the resolution 429 (V) of 14 December 1950:
“ . . . . Considering that it is desirable to revise and consolidate previous international agreements relating to the status of refugees and to extend the scope of and the protection accorded by such instruments by means of a new agreement, . . . “
End of quote-
The language speaks for itself.
I was not quoting from the UN resolution. The language was from the UNRWA website:
http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/whois.html
“It should have been implemented many years ago. The solution is to help educate this population.”
I recognize there is a difference between refugees and IDF’s, but in terms of ethics it is a technicality. The UN has not allowed itself to be hamstrung by its own definition in rendering aid to these people. Many, many years ago instruction was given on how to treat “the sojourner in your midst.” That, I daresay, is the solution.
John:
You wrote:
“I was not quoting from the UN resolution. The language was from the UNRWA website:”
And that is exactly the problem. The language I quoted in the seminal language that governs these events in the international forum.
You wrote
“The UN has not allowed itself to be hamstrung by its own definition. . . . ”
And maybe thats the problem as well. If the United Nations wants to have rules that are binding on its members, it needs to follow its own rules. There should be no exceptions.
“There should be no exceptions.”
Do tell. Well, sorry about that. The UN decided to make an exception of the Palestine refugees and also their descendents.
In the discussion of exceptionalism, weren’t you the one who was telling us that there are always exceptions to any rule?
Anyway, what you have done is to make a definition more important than helping people. You’ve got it backwards: rules were made to fit people; people were not made to fit the rules.
Bottom line: Jenin is a real refugee camp with real (not “so-called”) refugees, and what the IDF did there was collective punishment, grave breaches of international law.
John:
Actually, the ‘exception’ has not been limited to the Arabs. Such (unofficial) exceptions have been made for places such as Somalia and elsewhere. And I am not opposed (in princible) to aiding suffering civilian populations. However, I am opposed to doing it by busting the rules and basically ignoring the rules and Charter provisions of the United Nations. And you should be too. But where you leave me in confusiion is: Are you claiming an “official” exception has taken place for the Palestinian-Arabs or do you agree that the exception has been in practice and not in policy?
If you believe an official exception has been made, please explain. Just because the UNRWA may be treating these populations as defacto “refugees” would not make them official (legitimate) “refugees”. Are you claiming they have special (official) dispensation? Because if they have such an official exception then the same exception might qualify them as official refugees. If not, then, giving them aid (under the table — so to speak) would be one thing, whereas demanding that third party nations accept their unofficial “refugee” status is entirely another matter. One is charity and the other is demanding that charity be donated from an unrelated third party. Do you understand what I am saying? If you don’t want to answer then don’t answer and if you want to get Orwellian, then do that but please tell me you exactly understand the nature of this difference.
John:
You also wrote:
“In the discussion of exceptionalism, weren’t you the one who was telling us that there are always exceptions to any rule?”
I didn’t exactly say that but lets assume that I agree that exceptions can be made to most rules, given the proper ethical considerations.
So in this example, the ethical exception could reasonably be viewed as the granting of food and medicine — in contravention of the general rules. But that could just as easily be done by passing a new resolution, granting food and medicinal aid to any given (specific) populations irrespective of their legal status and nationality (or lack thereof). Basically every Western nation has sent such aid into the PA zones over the last decade. So, where’s the beef? Again, where this line is crossed is when a group claims legal status — that brings rights and whereas those rights tend to compete with the rights of other populations. That is no longer a question of offering humanitarian aid to suffering civilians.
The other example of when such humanitarian aid being objectionable, is when feuding war-lords take possession of the incoming aid and this helps decide the outcome of a civil war. Such was the case in Somalia and elsewhere in Africa.
You wrote:
“Anyway, what you have done is to make a definition more important than helping people. You’ve got it backwards: rules were made to fit people; people were not made to fit the rules.”
Come off your high horse. What you are riding in reality is a big dog.
“So, where’s the beef?”
I don’t know. You’re the one who calls them “so-called refugees.” The UN created the UNRWA for Palestine refugees in 1949. The Convention and Protocol for refugees were drafted in 1951 and 1967, respectively. Language was changed to fit new situations. It doesn’t mean the definitions of 1951 and 1967 superceded or made null and void the language of 1949 or that being outside of the definitions is a crime or has a penalty attached to it. The UNRWA has been doing its work for nearly 60 years now as chartered. Who says all the definitions have to be all matchy-poo and with no exceptions? You’re the one on the high horse and looking down on “so-called Palestinian refugees.”
John:
Do you have an occaisional original thought?
Because almost eveything I have asserted is wrong with your position, you have verbatum asserted back.
There should be no Palestinian-Arab so called refugees. Refugeeism should have a 10 year time limit. By under stating their own involvement in their present ill fortune, this perpetuates their station as nationless people.
While you devote your attention to complaining and casting blame, I work for their normalization as citizens.
Do you think for one second that the Hebrews would allow a wayward population of other Hebrews to languish in nationless squaller?
The Jews flew dangerous rescue trips through Africa while the Arabs and the rest of the world allw this Arab population to remain pawns and suffer entire lives of dispare.
Isidor, my position is that the IDF enacted illegal collective punishments on the refugee camp at Jenin in Operation Defensive Shield through the mass roundup, tagging, detention, and interrogation of all 7,000 males in the camp between the ages of 15 and 50, and that the IDF also demolished homes and employed civilians as human shields and targeted ambulances and medical and humanitarian relief workers in violation of international law, the very international law which was written because of the Holocaust. Having no real argument to make on those points, you have chosen to niggle over what constitutes a refugee.
John:
My argument is simple and has already been (mostly) clearly delineated:
The temporal detention and cataloging of adult males may not be a form of collective punishment and my guess is that it was done specifically because the international legal team (that the IDF relies on) may have identified this point as being clear of the borderline. Since no adjudication has occurred (and probably none is even possible), your argument is (at best) a moral one and not a legal one.
Demolishing homes is nothing new and was not confined to Janin. If the Israelis believed they were in violation of a treaty they signed or a Security Council resolution, they would NOT do it.
“employed civilians as human shields”
Nebulous by nature and also warped because the so called “shields” were at all times collaborators, of which BTW; there have been tens of thousands throughout the years, a portion of whom (in the thousands) have met summary execution by fellow Arab in a militant role. This practice has now been halted by order of the Israeli courts. And you have never stated a number. Is this an issue over a few dozen events? Was any (so called) “human-shield” injured during any of these events ?? Circumstances ?? You don’t say . . .
“Targeted Ambulances:”
> End quote
Who can be confirmed to have died? Any terror leaders or wets? Don’t tell me this is past the pale for traditional (mainly Arafat-esque) patented media strategies or Hammas/Hezbollah death squads.
You make the Israelis out not only to be evil but also stupid.
On a really bad day, I might seriously consider an ‘evil streak’ on the part of the Israelis but your inferring their stupidity is itself lacking even a quorum of two coherent brain cells to be rubbed together.
Few modern nations could tolerate a 90 year old cluster of continuous wars and militancy. Fewer would show any desire to fully protect opposing civilians a second time around and most such nations would hit back far harder–including an array of Arab and Muslim nations.
Its only because the Jews are under a perpetual microscope that the wars last more then the standard few years.
Wake up. All the real problems could be solved and numerous chances for this have been offered by Israel and rejected by the various groups of Arabs.
In an Arab League summit in 2002, Mr. Arafat stated that his aim was nothing short of the total satisfaction of all the grievances of all the Arab nations.
Who could he have meant? Syria? For sure. Lebanon? It may depend if one considers Lebanon an Arab/ Muslim nation. Who else? Al Qaeda?
Why was this proclamation in the best interest of the Palestinian-Arabs? It wasn’t.
What Mr. Arafat likely meant was the clearing of the “refugees” from the other nations soil.
I repeat, this IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF EITHER THE ARAB ISRAELI CITIZENS OR THE P.A. PEOPLES. It may (in a unknown concentration) be better for the Palestinian-Arabs who are now nationless. But it is unknown (and unknowable) as to how many of these same people would have readily accepted settlement in Paris, Amsterdam, Patterson NJ, Zurich Switzerland or literally hundreds of other places where tens of millions of Arabs and Muslims have been warmly welcomed as full citizens. Except that this population was kept in tact to facilitate more wars.
This point ethically supersedes pretty much everything else on the subject.
I submit that the Palestinian-Arabs who claim to be refugees must first assert what nation they are refugees from. Only one answer can become official. Next, they should all be issued passports with that nationality referenced and their host country noted, wherein all hosts countries must be compelled to allow these populations to move freely and be granted full human rights, perhaps as administrative districts of the host countries — similar status to Hong Kong. Anything short of that equals an ongoing systemic violation of their human rights and the circumstances of there arrival (in their present host nations) should rightfully and morally be among the least relevant of all questions.
Any solution short of that has been tried, failed miserably and now only perpetuates and propagates the suffering of the displaced.
One person’s ‘niggle’ is anothers core contention.
“…your argument is (at best) a moral one…”
Uh…yeah. What’s not to like about that? I assumed we were talking about moral / ethical considerations. Ajudication? More like cover-up. But here are some reports, one from B’Tselem:
UN Report. Be sure to read the Red Cross worker’s account of IDF firing on ambulances on page 37.
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/499/57/IMG/N0249957.pdf?OpenElement
Be sure to read the IDF soldiers’ testimonies corroborating the Palestinians’testimonies here:
http://www.btselem.org/Download/200207_Defensive_Shield_Eng.pdf
“Demolishing homes is nothing new and was not confined to Janin.”
Hello?
“If the Israelis believed they were in violation of a treaty they signed or a Security Council resolution, they would NOT do it.”
Your trust in the Israelis is touching, Isidor. I’m sorry, but this is another one of your it-isn’t-true-because-it-can’t-be-true arguments.
“Is this an issue over a few dozen events? Was any (so called) “human-shield” injured during any of these events ?? Circumstances ?? You don’t say . . .”
This is one of your it-never-happened-and-the-Israeli-courts-have-put-a-stop-to-it-so-it-still-isn’t-happening arguments.
IDF soldiers’ testimonies at Shovrim Shtika:
http://www.shovrimshtika.org/eduiot_e.asp?id=19
“You make the Israelis out not only to be evil but also stupid.”
Why stupid? I don’t know what you are talking about. I do think the Israelis are not immune to doing stupid things, particularly where the military is concerned. This sounds suspiciously like yet another example of an it-isn’t-true-because-it-can’t-be-true argument. Isidor, I accept the fact that you don’t believe the Israelis are capable of such evil things, but your belief in that regard does not count for evidence. I have presented a ton of evidence about atrocities and prima facie war crimes by the IDF in Operation Defensive Shield which you have blithely ignored while insisting on seeing more evidence. Go back and read what I’ve already given you and then we can discuss it.
Apologies for the defective link on the UN Sec-Gen Report on Events at Jenin. Try this:
http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/ES-10/186&Lang=E
OK. I give up. Go to this page and download the pdf of the report, if you like. Sorry:
http://www.un.org/peace/jenin/
John:
I know when I am being bullsh*ted. I don’t always know how but I usually know when.
The Israelis are doing their best under the conditions imposed onto them. Most of the alligations made against them are either gross exaggerations, total fabrications, mis-applications of frame-of-reference, such as calling a mass detention and questioning (of even 7,000 men) an “atrocity”. The few times that the accusations are point-on accurate, Israel has been expected to react somehow more compassionately then other (equivilant) nations would, including the USA and most Arab countries.
PS>
“Lebanese troops tighten siege; death toll at 47
Group holed up in camp; slain man said to be suspect in German terror plot . . ”
MSNBC
There is no settlement to be had with these people.
Where’s the outrage about the “atrocities” being committed by the Lebanese? Of course, there is none.
BTW:
If the “terrorist” referenced above was involved with attacks on Israeli civilian targets, he would have been referenced as a “Suspected Militant”.
Grow up.
Most of the alligations made against them …
What, for example? Name one. You are, as usual, light years away from looking at evidence. And so you speak in generalities and talk about what you believe to be the case instead. Everyone is either lying or picking on Israel, right? The perfect defense, I guess. Sorry, no sale. Unfair expectations of Israel? Israel is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, is it not? What is expected of Israel is only what Israel obligated itself to do in 1949, namely to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention, among others. Is that unfair? Israel has for years trampled the GC with impunity and claimed that they don’t apply. (Never mind that they were written largely to benefit Israel.) If you care about Israel, you should be working to help Israel regain the high moral ground it lost a long time ago. Israel’s record of atrocities, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and grave breaches of international law in the Occupied Territories is despicable. And the cheap, flimsy lies they have been telling for years to justify these atrocities and crimes are nauseating. How can you actually defend these shameful policies? I guess you can’t and that’s why you speak in generalities and refuse to look at any specific evidence.
“…collaborators, of which BTW; there have been tens of thousands throughout the years, a portion of whom (in the thousands) have met summary execution by fellow Arab in a militant role. This practice has now been halted by order of the Israeli courts.”
B’Tselem made a comprehensive report on Collaborators in the Occupied Territories which fell sharply on the toes of Palestinian organizations and the IDF in terms of recruitment practices in violation of international law. Yes, the practice has been ruled in violation of Israeli law, but only because the authorities finally believed the reports of what had been going on for decades. The human shields are neighbors – I gave you reports of a little girl – used to go through houses suspected of being booby-trapped in advance of IDF soldiers going into the rooms. They don’t look for collaborators. They use the person next door. If a child used in this manner to search houses for bombs was not so much as scratched, it is nonetheless an atrocity and a violation of the Fourth Geneva Conventions. I gave you one example. Unfortunately, there have been many more than just one or isolated incidents. It is referred to by the IDF as “the neighbor policy.” Yes, “policy.” They refused to stop until the court had been repeatedly petitioned. Meanwhile, they put out cheap BS excusing the policy.
http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summaries/199401_Collaboration_Suspects.asp
John:
As I have said before, thank God that only a few percentage of the people believe as you do. I don’t just mean ethically but factually.
What you call “evidence” I generally call “propaganda”.
The human mind has evolved to the state where reality is merely an inconvenience to many. Words can be crafted to overwhelm thoughts. Perception has become more real then reality. For example, I believe the lack of injury to these so called “human shields” perhaps makes that characterization itself false or at least misleading. You start from the premise that they had to have been “human shields” and therefore there is no possible mitigating conditions. I start from the premise that if none met injury, then, how serious of a “shield” could they have possibly been in the first place. Maybe they simply decided to help the IDF and later, when confronted by fellow Arabs — had to claim they were being forced.
Every military action in history has “friendlies” among the locals.
And I have made a string of very good arguments and continue to make them. Your so called “evidence” sucks and I have a limited amount of time to bicker with incorrigibles like youly. So I will quote from an ancient source:
From: Beyond Belief by noted religious historian Elaine Pagels:
Referencing one the early Christian Scriptures that was later banned as heresy by the Holy Roman Empire (in or about 334-CE). It is known today only as the “Secret Gospels”:
….according to the Secret Book it is, above all, the “luminous epinoia” that conveys genuine insight….. …as the Secret Book envisions it, epinoia (and related modes of awareness) remains an ambiguous, limited—but indispensable—gift. When John asks whether everyone receives the luminous epinoia, the savior answers yes—”The power will descend upon every person, for without it, no one can stand” and adds that epinoia strengthens those who love her by enabling them to discriminate between good and evil, so that moral insight and ethical power are inseparable from spiritual understanding: “When the spirit of life increases, and the power comes and strengthens that soul, no one can any longer deceive it with works of evil.”
Ep-i-noia:
Epi: (meaning “ultimate” or “core”, as in Epitome or epi-center)
Noia: (meaning knowledge).
PS: you never answered my very simple question:
Why is there no out-cry of human rights violations towards the hosts of the various Palestinian-Arab refugee populations??
Don’t these groups have human rights, no matter which soil they now have resided on for 60 years?
How can there possibly be such malice by their fellow Palestinian-Arabs that even in the PA zones, these populations are kept as 2nd class citizens?
If the Israeli position turns out to be factually accurate, namely that the Arabs who left Palestine in 1948 did so at the urging of the host governments, then, you have been accusing the wrong people of human rights atrocities. The host countries should rightfully be responcible for the past 60 years of their misery. Since there has never been an adjudication as to the circumstances of their departure, you have no authority to impose your judgements of factual assertions above the claims of the Israelis. Therefore, it is the host nations who (at a minimum temporally) hold responcibility and you will say anything other then whet needs to be said.
“Why is there no out-cry of human rights violations towards the hosts of the various Palestinian-Arab refugee populations?? Don’t these groups have human rights, no matter which soil they now have resided on for 60 years?”
And Israel isn’t the host of a Palestinian-Arab refugee population? Israel avoids granting them rights by classifying them as IDP’s. Refugees? What refugees?
“You start from the premise that…”
That’s where you are wrong. I start from no premise at all. I start from the testimony. Not a hypothesis; an eleven year old girl. One among many such stories.
How serious a shield was she in the first place? Serious enough for the IDF to use an eleven year old girl like a bomb-sniffing dog because some cowards in uniforms were scared spitless to go into a house by themselves. She decided to help the IDF and later had to claim she was forced? Can you possibly believe that nonsense? I am embarrassed for you. How would you feel about having your child used to check out a house for booby-traps? Do you think he/she would like to help the IDF with that?
“Last Wednesday [28 February], at around 8:00 A.M. , about twenty Israeli soldiers came to our house and gathered us in one room. One of the soldiers spoke Arabic. He asked us how we were and if we knew anything about the young men who were firing from the roofs of houses nearby. The soldier said it would be to their advantage and ours if we told them. My father said we didn’t know anything because the men shoot at night, while we are asleep. After 15-20 minutes, the soldiers left the house. We heard explosions, banging on the doors, and shots being fired outside.
Around 4:00 in the afternoon, soldiers came back to our house. This time, there were more than thirty soldiers. They gathered us in one room and closed the door. They let us go to the bathroom and bring food and drinks. About an hour later, one of the soldiers opened the door and motioned my father to go to him. My father went to him, and the soldier closed the door. My father returned about ten minutes later. Over the next half hour, the soldier called to my father three more times, every ten minutes or so. My father told us that they asked him about nearby houses and about an abandoned house.
Around eight o’clock, a soldier came into the room and motioned to me and my sister, Hanan, who is fifteen, to come to him. We went over to him, and the soldier told Hanan to stay in the living room. He took my hand and told me to come out. He directed me to the yard outside. I stayed in the yard alone, except for a soldier, who was eating there. Later, Hanan told me that the soldier asked her about the young men who were doing the shooting. She told him that she didn’t know anything, and he took her back into the room where the rest of the family were.
When I was in the yard by myself, my mother was in the kitchen preparing food. She saw me and told me to go over to her. I went to her. The soldier came back, and when he didn’t see me, he called out my name. I wanted to go to him, but my mother shouted at me and came over to pull me to her. The soldier came over and didn’t let my mother come to me. He told her to move back. He ordered me to go out to the yard.
The soldier told me, in Arabic, “”Are you familiar with the houses?” I told him I don’t know anything. I stay at home and send my little brother, Hamzeh, who is four, to buy me sweets.” The soldier said, “How do you send him? He is small.” I told him the store is close by. He said, “Your sister Hanan told me that you know everything.” I said, “What things? My sister doesn’t know what she is talking about.” He said, “You know the houses belonging to the guys who are shooting at us, and you know which tunnels they are hiding in.” I told him I didn’t know. He said, “You are lying, and I’ll take you to jail. Put out your hands!” I put my hands by my chest. I was really scared he would arrest me and that I wouldn’t see my father again. I told him, “I know that nobody lives in the house next to Judallah’s house.” The soldier asked where it was, and I tried to explain. But I don’t think he understood. He spoke in a violent way, with a rough voice. He was short and had dark-brown skin.
In the meantime, about twenty soldiers had come into the yard. The soldier said, “We don’t know the house, come and show it to us.” I told him, “What do you want from me. I told you about the house.” He said, “Don’t be scared, we’re with you.” He motioned me to come outside. I went down the steps leading to the neighborhood. The soldiers walked behind me. The soldier had his weapon aimed in front of him. He said to me, “Slowly, slowly, don’t be scared, we’re with you.”
After walking about fifty meters, we got to steps at the entrance to the abandoned house. The soldier asked me, “What is this?” I told him that I don’t know. “This is the house,” I said, “I don’t know any other house. Let me go back home.” Three soldiers took me home. This time, the soldiers walked in front and I was behind them. The soldier did not take me back to the room where my family was. We stopped in a room where twelve soldiers were eating. One of the soldiers gave me a piece of a biscuit.
A few minutes later, the soldier who spoke Arabic returned. He motioned me to come to him. He was standing next to the door of the room. I went over to him and said, “What do you want. I told you about the house. What do you want?” “Don’t be scared, we’re with you,” he said. He ordered me to walk toward the house. Three soldiers walked behind me. At the house, there were lots of soldiers. The soldier ordered me to go inside. The soldiers followed me into the house. The house was dark, and the soldiers lit it up with their flashlights. There were locked rooms and a kitchen. The soldier asked me what room we were in, and I told him it was a kitchen. He asked me about the stairs leading to the roof. I showed them to him, and the soldiers went onto the roof and then came back. After that, he said, “Thank you, but don’t tell anybody.”
Two soldiers accompanied me to my house. Around 10:00 o’clock, they took me back to the room where my family was. I was shaking from fear. I was afraid they were going to kill me or put me in jail. The only thing I wanted was to sleep. I asked my mother to let me go to sleep. I woke up frightened a few times during the night… The soldiers left the house around 3:00 in the morning. I am still scared they’ll come again and take me.”
Jihan Nimer Shahir D’adush, 11, is a student, and a resident of the Old City in Nablus. Her testimony was taken by Salma Deba’i at the witness’s house on 5 March 2007.
link provided to B’Tselem at post #21 (still unread by Isidor evidently!) – the outcome can be seen there too.
The soldier said “Don’t tell anybody” because what Jihan described was a grave breach of international humanitarian law, the protection of children in areas of military conflict. This is NOT treaty law; but customary humanitarian law, of which the ICRC recognizes about 160 specifically. CHL is binding on ALL nations; not just to signatories to a treaty.
“If the Israeli position turns out to be factually accurate, namely that the Arabs who left Palestine in 1948 did so at the urging of the host governments, then, you have been accusing the wrong people of human rights atrocities. “
That would be so, except that the Israeli position has already turned out to be factually inaccurate. The IDF/Haganah archives, remember? There were no “Arab radio broadcasts,” for example. Researchers have listened to thousands of hours of Arab radio broadcasts from that period. The notorious invitations by Arab countries were non-existent. It was a massive Israeli libel, blaming 700,000 refugees for their own misery through foolishly following the instructions of Arab leaders.
“Since there has never been an adjudication as to the circumstances of their departure, you have no authority to impose your judgements of factual assertions above the claims of the Israelis.”
The facts in the IDF archives have “adjudicated” the circumstances. The truth carries its own authority. The claims of the Israelis have been shown to be lies. The facts speak for themselves without any help from me.
“And I have made a string of very good arguments and continue to make them.”
You have continued to make claims for your own set of facts unrecognized by the rest of us, our reality apparently being “an inconvenience” to you. I guess taking creative license with reality is what you intend by luminous epinoia?
“What you call “evidence” I generally call “propaganda”.”
That’s the problem. You can’t really get away with that, you see. Get in the habit of dismissing facts as propaganda because they threaten your belief-system, and next thing you know reality will jump up and bite you in the butt.
John:
I really make it a habit not to engage debate with people who speak for other (nameless) people. You wrote:
“You have continued to make claims for your own set of facts unrecognized by the rest of us”
Rest of WHO us? This is far from the first time you have taken the role of judge, juror, executioner and audience all for your own. Recently you made a comment that “no one buys my arguments”.
You must have no idea what impression such statements leave in the minds of the other readers, even those who would otherwise tend to agree with you.
You also wrote:
“The facts in the IDF archives have “adjudicated” the circumstances.”
So say you, yourself and thy.
In the absence of a REAL adjudication, you are running still another in a long, (2,000 year ongoing) string of popularity contests.
But rather then argue with a delusional, I repeat my earlier point:
There are approximately 4.5 million Arabs who call themselves “refugees”. None of these people lives in Israel. Israel has granted citizenship and voting rights to all the Arabs within its borders. However, these 4.5-M others have been denied basic human rights for 60 years by a litany of OTHER mid-east countries EXCEPT Israel.
The true and egregious human rights abuses are on the part of the ‘hosts’ of these so called “refugees”. The Israelis are merely defending their homeland. They have not been angels but neither is anyone else. Right now, at this moment, May 23, 2007, the nation less people living in filthy concentration-camps are in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the PA zones and everywhere ELSE but Israel. Assuming that your side can ultimately either legally prove (or negotiate) a “return” of most (or all) of these people to citizens within Israel, why should they be without human rights in the interim? Of course, they should not. Most people living in these “refugee” conditions where born in the nation they now reside in. If it were U.S. immigration law being debated, these populations would already have legal status as voting U.S. citizens, because they would have been born on our soil. (Oh I almost forgot . . we’re too “evil” to be any kind of an example for any other country).
WHAT I REALLY LOVE ABOUT YOU FOLK ( . . . NOT) IS THAT $100.00 SAYS THAT YOU ARE ALSO IN FAVOR OF AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS IN THE USA. Which is also why you decline to comment about the equity of the 4.5M “refugees” having the right to stay where they are AS CITIZENS with FULL HUMAN RIGHTS. Simply, your one position reveals the other as bogus or at least grossly hypocritical).
A while ago during a conversation about international treaty laws governing a “refugee’s” “right of return” it was stated that everyone wanting to “return” has the right to do so. NO MENTION OF THOSE “REFUGEES” WHO DO NOT WANT TO MOVE TO ISRAEL. What legally becomes of them? Of course this population is being kept in abject poverty in anticipation of the day when such a choice might be offered. The “Hosts” don’t want any remnants getting too comfortable. And you’re “embarrassed for me”? Do me a favor and don’t be.
Be ashamed of yourself and quit speaking for the rest of creation and especially stop speaking on my behalf.
“Israel has granted citizenship and voting rights to all the Arabs within its borders.”
Palestinian-Arab Internally Displaced Persons Living In Israel:
http://www.badil.org/Publications/Monographs/Palestinian.IDPs.pdf
Are these “IDPs” being reffered in the linked article citizens of Israel? If so, your point is what? That they have land claims that are yet unresolved?
My point is, if you will read the document, that “citizenship and voting rights” covers a multitude of sins and does not come close to respresenting the situation Israel keeps these people in.
Of all nations, Israel is the last which should speak to the treatment of the refugees by the Arab host countries. The refugees wouldn’t be there if Israel had not put them there in the first place. They would not be there if Israel had not let them return to their homes but prevented their return through the “Absentee Property Laws.” I have no disagreement about how poorly the refugees have been treated by the Arab powers. But Israel should shut up. Israel is wrapped in guilt and shame because these people would not be refugees in the first place were it not for Israel. The poor treatment of the refugees by the Arab powers puts Israel on the moral high ground. This is like an abusive husband who shakes his finger at the shelter where his wife and child are staying because it is over-crowded. Maybe the shelter is lousy, but the SOB is still an abuser which is why his wife is in that place. Where does Israel get the effrontery to cluck its tongue and wag its finger at anyone about how they are treating the refugees? Give me a break.
The poor treatment of the refugees by the Arab powers puts Israel on the moral high ground.
corr: DOES NOT put Israel on the moral high ground.
You wrote:
” .. . these people would not be refugees in the first place were it not for Israel.. .”
The movement of displaced persons on both sides is a natural outcome of war and especially so, after a genocide. There is no other example in modern history where people are kept in a perpetual state of unending war.
Israel is 2% of the regional land and includes over a million Arab citizens.
Jordan has about six Jewish citizens. But they are well treated!
“includes over a million Arab citizens.”
There are about 1.7 million Palestinian-Arab refugees living in the Occupied Territories. They are under the control, not to say domination, of Israel. Heaven knows, no one living in the Occupied Territories – whether refugee or “ordinary” – is really under the control of the PA. Take Nablus, for example. That’s where Jihan lives. Go back and look at her statement and tell me where in that you find any evidence that the Palestinians are in control of anything affecting her. That mother and that father and those little girls and their little brother are completely in the tender mercies of the IDF. So any way you look at it, Israel has close to two million refugees under its control in the OT er pardon me “disputed territories” (talk about putting a gold ring in the snout of a pig!). Which brings us back to the Occupation / Kibbush.
The permanent solution is extremely, extraordinarily simple:
Gaza becomes a special administrative district of Egypt and the PA areas of Jerusalem (you call them “occupied ” — I call them unclaimed) become a special administrative district of Jordan. The Palestinian-Arabs have no need for a specific and separate “homeland” and have proven their sheer incapability of governing themselves within same for 90 years. The balance of the so called “refugee” populations are also granted a nationality, namely, they share their nationality with the West Bank and Gaza Arabs. They can call themselves whatever they like, providing they can agree on one nationality (don’t count on it). They can call themselves French for all I care. These populations should (must) be granted human rights without further delay. Their areas would also become “special administrative” zones within their host countries, which means they are similar in legal status to modern American Indians. They would not vote in their host countries (as if such things occur in Arab nations anyway). However, they could vote in their own parliamentary system.
Not one more drop of blood need be spilled. This could all be arranged in a few weeks. Not one extra day need go by wherein these human pawns (you call them “refugees”) live nation-less in concentration camps.
Except for one giant problem: Such a solution would end the endless war against the Jews.
PS> Until a solution is both devised and accepted, wherein so called “refugees” have an option to REMAIN WHERE THEY ARE as called for in the international covenants relating to refugee rights of return, then there is nothing further to be discussed. Granting them the “right of return” would only be a 50% implementation of their stated rights. Of course, (as always) its the Jews who are expected to provide such advantages with the other host countries having no responsibilities whatsoever. This double standard has actually gone on for so long that certain people see this dichotomy as natural and customary.
This is EXACTLY the reason why Mr. Arafat acted so grossly insulted when offered $30 billion in compensation to settle the remaining land claims. That was THE LAST thing he wanted. He was still busy trying to scuttle money being donated to help the Palestinian-Arabs. He could not get rid of the aid monies fast enough and here silly Clinton was, offering him MORE money.
Wake up and smell the falafel.
re: Post #62
Last update – 00:17 06/06/2007
IDF probes soldiers’ use of Palestinian human shields
By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent
“Israel Defense Forces’ criminal investigation division is probing soldiers’ use of Palestinians as human shields during raids in the West Bank town of Nablus. The investigation will include the questioning of senior officers, and could have repercussions in the next round of general staff appointments.
The affair began over three months ago, when foreign television crews filmed IDF soldiers forcing Palestinians to search their neighbors’ homes for militants, in case the wanted gunmen should open fire. Some two years ago, upon completing a long and drawn out legal debate, the High Court of Justice decided to outlaw the use of Palestinians as human shields, as it endangers their lives and violates their basic human rights. The IDF has since pledged to refrain from doing this, though from time to time there have been recorded incidents of such behavior.
After the last incident was released in the media, the Military Advocate General ordered the military police’s criminal investigation division to launch a probe into the incident. The investigation has so far revealed that some of the IDF units operating in the West Bank have continued to use Palestinian human shields despite the IDF’s explicit policy against it. Senior officers are to be questioned on suspicions that they knew of these violations and allowed them to continue.”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/867486.html
To go back to the problem of seemingly conflicting UN resolutions: Resolutions 181, creating two states, and 194, giving refugees the right of return, would not be in conflict if Israel had stuck to the borders deliniated in 181, for Jews were a (bare) majority within those borders. But on May 12, 1948, just before declaring statehood and after the Jews had secured the territory assigned to them, they eschewed offers to establish a ceasefire and decided to continue fighting to see if they couldn’t enlarge their borders. With the acquisition of more land, there was no way they could allow the refugees to return and still maintain a Jewish majority.
Hello may I reference some of the information found in this blog if I link back to you?