Compromising with apartheid [second try]

[James R]

SAM:

I'm sorry, which is the admirable motivation here? Are you claiming self preservation as a justification for ethnic cleansing?

What ethnic cleansing? Be specific. I think you're just using that as an emotive term to troll with (again).

There is also the underlying insidious intent to keep out the non-Jewish refugees that are covered by international law in their right of return, which is completely ignored in the narrow minded vision that demands the Palestinians recognise the apartheid rights of a "Jewish" state that does not recognise their indigenous rights under international law.

If this is true (and you have provided no evidence) then this is one of those issues on which Israel will most likely need to compromise to achieve a settlement.


CheskiChips:

No, I just think Muslims and Jews don't get along and should be kept separate.

Separation never works. All it does is create enclaves in which myths and lies about the "other" people can freely proliferate, to the detriment of both groups.

It's so easy to paint another group as "the enemy" when you never actually get to meet any one of them to find out what you have in common.


pjdude:

Your asking them than to make a specific moral judgement on what happened to them(their dispossession and Israel's refusal to allow them back to their homes(which is in fact a legal right under the fourth geneva convention i believe)) and that judgement is that it was ok.

It may well be necessary to accept that it is sometimes impossible to unscramble an egg.

Are you(singular you) willing to say that anyone has the right to dispossess you(collective humanity you) of things you have gained lawfully...

There's a problem with making sweeping statements like this and assuming they ought to apply to everyone everywhere. Besides, in this case we're not talking about some hypothetical future action. And dredging over what happened in the distant past is not the way to construct a solution for the present.


Gustav:

what do you do, james, when all things come to pass as you practically prophesize? give a speech like some of your fellow countrymen did when the jews were being slaughtered like vermin in germany? [snip]

I'm not sure what you think the relevance of quotes from (I assume) World War II are to the issue of Palestine/Israel today, or Australia's present stance on the matter (let alone my personal position). Australia is a very different country in 2009 than it was in 1939.

 

[S.A.M.]

SAM:

What ethnic cleansing? Be specific. I think you're just using that as an emotive term to troll with (again).

This ethnic cleansing:

[/quote]

If this is true (and you have provided no evidence) then this is one of those issues on which Israel will most likely need to compromise to achieve a settlement.

What kind of settlement do you envision following the Palestinian acceptance of Israels right to exist as a Jewish state? [which is the demand in every paper today]

Australia is a very different country in 2009 than it was in 1939.

Then why is your position more suited to 1939 than it is to 2009?

At what point did you decide that Palestinians should accept occupation and recognise the right of Israel to exist?

Would you demand that residence of aboriginals in Australia be based on their acceptance that they have been occupied by white settlers?

Whose job is it to recognise whose rights?

 

[Gustav]

I'm not sure what you think the relevance of quotes from (I assume) World War II are to the issue of Palestine/Israel today, or Australia's present stance on the matter (let alone my personal position). Australia is a very different country in 2009 than it was in 1939.

ok, so you will not be giving speeches like that.
what then do you do? (asking for the second time)

 

[CheskiChips]

what do you do, james, when all things come to pass as you practically prophesize? give a speech like some of your fellow countrymen did when the jews were being slaughtered like vermin in germany?

6,348 dead in 9 years out of the average Palestinian population of 10 million is almost 0 percent. And even smaller percent of deaths per year.

There were 17 million Jews in 1939 - 11 million in 1945.
That's 35% in 6 years.


I consider anyone who compares the two events to be a disgustingly dishonest human being.

Separation never works. All it does is create enclaves in which myths and lies about the "other" people can freely proliferate, to the detriment of both groups.

It's so easy to paint another group as "the enemy" when you never actually get to meet any one of them to find out what you have in common.

James R.
I've met numerous, their religion vows my destruction. If they get rid of their religion I have no problem with the people.

 

[James R]

SAM:

You map does not show ethnic cleansing.

What kind of settlement do you envision following the Palestinian acceptance of Israels right to exist as a Jewish state?

I'm no expert on Israel/Palestine. Nor would I presume, as a neutral observer, to dictate the details of the settlement that the parties ought to reach.

I would hope that the Palestinians and the Israelis can agree to coexist and mix relatively freely, without oppressive restrictions on freedom of movement and access to resources. I hope the people can live in peace in a climate of mutual understanding, recognition and respect.

What do you envision?

Then why is your position more suited to 1939 than it is to 2009?

What's my position, as you understand it, and why do you think it is more suited to 1939? Please explain.

At what point did you decide that Palestinians should accept occupation and recognise the right of Israel to exist?

I never mentioned accepting occupation. You're putting words in my mouth again. I'll ask you just one more time to cease and desist. If you want my opinion, you may ask for it. Don't assume.

The point at which I decided the Palestinians should recognise the right of Israel to exist was when I first knew that Israel and Palestine existed, many years ago.

Would you demand that residence of aboriginals in Australia be based on their acceptance that they have been occupied by white settlers?

That occupation is the de facto state of affairs. To deny it would be to live in a fantasy land. Unscrambling that particular 200 year old egg is impossible, too. However, I would not deny the right of Australian indigenous peoples to live in Australia. I don't know where you dreamed up the idea that I would ever deny them that right. Besides, where do you suggest they would go if they were denied the right to live in Australia? Also, they are legally citizens of Australia, and the Australian government has an obligation to them under international law, quite apart from their own moral rights as a people.

Whose job is it to recognise whose rights?

Which rights?

 

[James R]

Gustav:

You'll have to be far more specific.

Your question was, you will recall:

what do you do, james, when all things come to pass as you practically prophesize?

Now, I don't remember prophesizing anything in particular, so you'll have to fill me in on what I'm supposed to be predicting. Then I might be able to answer your question.

 

[S.A.M.]

SAM:

You map does not show ethnic cleansing.

How do you define ethnic cleansing?

According to the UN "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous."

Are you seriously arguing that in the map above, Palestinians have not been evicted and replaced with foreign Jewish settlers? That there is not an ongoing movement since the last 60 years where Jews from foreign lands make olia and are given automatic citizenship while native non-Jews are denied the right of return?

However, ethnic cleansing in the broad sense - the forcible deportation of a population - is defined as a crime against humanity under the statutes of both International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY).[24] The gross human-rights violations integral to stricter definitions of ethnic cleansing are treated as separate crimes falling under the definitions for genocide or crimes against humanity of the statutes.[25]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing#Ethnic_cleansing_as_a_crime_under_international_law

Do you deny that Palestinian identity is being erased throughout their own lands?

link

I'm no expert on Israel/Palestine. Nor would I presume, as a neutral observer, to dictate the details of the settlement that the parties ought to reach.

I would hope that the Palestinians and the Israelis can agree to coexist and mix relatively freely, without oppressive restrictions on freedom of movement and access to resources. I hope the people can live in peace in a climate of mutual understanding, recognition and respect.

But its your stated opinion that Palestinians should recognise the right of Israel to exist. i.e. they should recognise their ethnic cleansing, a crime under international law, as "a de facto state of affairs".

Would you ask Jews to recognise the right of the Nazi state to exist? To recognise the right of the Nazis to an Aryan, Judenrein state?

Or would it be an abhorrent, unethical demand to you?

Do you have the same opinion of all occupied peoples? That they should recognise their occupation by a foreign group?

What do you envision?

The elimination of a "Jewish" state in favour of one where indigenous peoples are no longer a "Demographic Bomb"

What's my position, as you understand it, and why do you think it is more suited to 1939? Please explain.

Would you have advised the Jews in 1939 to recognise the right of the Nazi state to exist? As a de facto state of affairs that it would be foolish to deny?

The point at which I decided the Palestinians should recognise the right of Israel to exist was when I first knew that Israel and Palestine existed, many years ago.

Why do you believe that Palestinians should recognise the right of Israel to exist?

That occupation is the de facto state of affairs. To deny it would be to live in a fantasy land. Unscrambling that particular 200 year old egg is impossible, too.

So was apartheid in Australia. Is it your position that a de facto state of affairs should be accepted by the victims of that state? Would you have demanded that Aboriginals not try to unscramble that egg?

Which rights?

Human rights.

 

[Gustav]

Now, I don't remember prophesizing anything in particular, so you'll have to fill me in on what I'm supposed to be predicting. Then I might be able to answer your question.

very tedious, james.
i shall repost your quote from post # 20

The only way that the Israel/Palestine situation will ever be resolved is by compromise (leaving out the possibility of genocide of the Palestinian people)............................The barriers to such a compromise are almost insurmountable. There is so much history, so much hatred, that rising above it all is all but impossible. In a sense, the people most intimately affected by any "solution" may be the worst people to expect to negotiate such a solution. Many of them do not really want any solution in which they have to give ground.

you present two options, a miraculous compromise which by the way is inferred from...."almost impossible"/"almost insurmountable") and the genocide of the palestinians

since none here believe in miracles. what does that leave you with? genocide?
what do you do in that eventuality? (asking for the third time)

 

[S.A.M.]

Hebron, 2009 [don't miss the stars of David on the Arab stores]

Mississippi, 1963

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

 

[Bells]

SAM:

You map does not show ethnic cleansing.

If we are going to look at any broad definition of ethnic cleansing when it comes to human rights, yes it does. In every single sense of the word.

I would hope that the Palestinians and the Israelis can agree to coexist and mix relatively freely, without oppressive restrictions on freedom of movement and access to resources. I hope the people can live in peace in a climate of mutual understanding, recognition and respect.

Which cannot and will never happen. The reason is simple. When you evict a people from their home and land and force them to live in refugee camps, deny them any rights within the confined spaces they are allowed to currently live in, the hope for living in peace and mutual understanding goes out the window.

Just as Jews are quite rightly opposed to any rise of Nazism in the world or anti-semitism, Palestinians would also react just as strongly to Israel. To expect Palestinians to simply suck it up, join hands around the camp fire and sing Kumbaya.. well.. it will not happen. Too much has happened in the past and still happening today.

The point at which I decided the Palestinians should recognise the right of Israel to exist was when I first knew that Israel and Palestine existed, many years ago.

Are you aware that every single year, on Australia day, there are Aboriginals who protest what they deem the 'invasion day'?

At this point in time, the Palestinians have no real say in the matter. Whether they recoginise Israel or not will not determine the end of their current fate. They will still be denied access to their land, they will continue to lose their land and their basic human rights will not be restored to them.

Human rights should not be used as a tool for blackmail.

Also, they are legally citizens of Australia, and the Australian government has an obligation to them under international law, quite apart from their own moral rights as a people.

In historical terms, Aboriginals only became citizens quite recently. And they are still denied equal rights. We can prance around and say 'sorry', have token days of recognition, etc, but Aboriginals are still treated like second class citizens and denied the very basic things we take for granted, they being clean running water, housing, health care.. I could go on..

If you are going to inject morality into the argument, what do you think Israel's moral rights should be towards the Palestinians? Should the landgrab continue? Should Palestinians still be denied the right to travel within and to their own territories? Should they be granted the same rights as Israelis? Most importantly, why are Palestinians still denied statehood to this day? Why are they denied recognition?

Wouldn't it be moral for the international community to grant them the above?

 

[pjdude1219]

6,348 dead in 9 years out of the average Palestinian population of 10 million is almost 0 percent. And even smaller percent of deaths per year.

There were 17 million Jews in 1939 - 11 million in 1945.
That's 35% in 6 years.


I consider anyone who compares the two events to be a disgustingly dishonest human being.

the comparison is not one of scale but of objective

 

[pjdude1219]

their are legal and natural rights involved on both sides that are protected by law. but from listening to some people on the pro-Israel side(ok lets be honest almost all of them) here seem to view the palestinians rights in this regard as negotiable need to be ignored rather than the amoral request of recognizing Israel's "right" to exist(note i don't have a problem with recognizing it exist or once a palestinian state comes about recognizing it) being the first step I think Israel recognizing the legal and natural rights under international law should be the first step. I have yet to see any one claim that Israel should negoiate for its peoples rights why should the palestinians?

 

[CheskiChips]

Hebron, 2009 [don't miss the stars of David on the Arab stores]

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

It's impossible to tell what that kid is doing. He could be offering tezedekah, there's also no way to tell whether or not the woman is Palestinian or Jewish. The only indication she's Muslim is she's fat.

And there's graffiti all over the old city shops, Arabic and Hebrew alike. I can't read the Arabic ones, but the Hebrew ones are mostly just Jewish stars and this...

The Arabic ones are usually Arabic word art. I'd say they're probably equal in distribution total....though you won't find many on Jewish stores. Why? Because Jews don't have many stores in the Old City.

 

[CheskiChips]

the comparison is not one of scale but of objective

How is it an identical objective?

Jews want Palestinians to abide by laws. Germans wanted Jews dead.

Jews declared war on a government the Palestinians elected. Germans rounded up Jews and slaughtered them.

There's nothing similar...

 

[pjdude1219]

How is it an identical objective?

the german's wanted to remove the jews from their lands and lands they wanted. Israel wants to remove the palestinians from both the parts of palestine they have and those they want.

Jews want Palestinians to abide by laws.

and for the most part they do while thew Israeli jews don't.

Germans wanted Jews dead.

not at first and not just the jews.

Jews declared war on a government the Palestinians elected.

for no other reason than they didn't like who they elected.

Germans rounded up Jews and slaughtered them.

not at first and not solely jews.

There's nothing similar...

your talking means not objective. the 2 aren't the same.

 

[James R]

SAM:

How do you define ethnic cleansing?

According to the UN "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous."

Seems like a reasonable definition to me.

Are you seriously arguing that in the map above, Palestinians have not been evicted and replaced with foreign Jewish settlers? That there is not an ongoing movement since the last 60 years where Jews from foreign lands make olia and are given automatic citizenship while native non-Jews are denied the right of return?

Now we're starting to get to some real discussion (finally). Could you please link me to the laws that deny native non-Jews a "right of return"? I'm interested in seeing how this is actually formulated in Israeli law.

Do you deny that Palestinian identity is being erased throughout their own lands?

Of course. They seem to be asserting their identity in their own lands quite stridently.

Where are all these Palestinians who are evicted from their lands going, SAM? How many evictions have their been, and where did the people go?

But its your stated opinion that Palestinians should recognise the right of Israel to exist. i.e. they should recognise their ethnic cleansing, a crime under international law, as "a de facto state of affairs".

There are two issues there, not one.

Would you ask Jews to recognise the right of the Nazi state to exist? To recognise the right of the Nazis to an Aryan, Judenrein state?

Put it this way: I would not require that all non-German Jews pack up and leave Germany.

Do you have the same opinion of all occupied peoples? That they should recognise their occupation by a foreign group?

They mostly have little choice. To do otherwise is to live some kind of unrealistic fantasy.

The elimination of a "Jewish" state in favour of one where indigenous peoples are no longer a "Demographic Bomb"

What's a demographic bomb?

Would you have advised the Jews in 1939 to recognise the right of the Nazi state to exist? As a de facto state of affairs that it would be foolish to deny?

Yes. At the same time, though, I would be advising the remainder of the German people in strong terms to change their government to one that is more inclusive.

Israel is a democracy, by the way. Nazi Germany wasn't.

Why do you believe that Palestinians should recognise the right of Israel to exist?

For the same reason you believe that Israel should recognise the right of the Palestinians to exist, I'd guess.

So was apartheid in Australia. Is it your position that a de facto state of affairs should be accepted by the victims of that state? Would you have demanded that Aboriginals not try to unscramble that egg?

I think you're mangling my use of the word "accept". Acknowledging that a state of affairs exists is not equivalent to endorsing it or giving up on working towards a better alternative.

 

[James R]

Bells:

I hope the people can live in peace in a climate of mutual understanding, recognition and respect.

Which cannot and will never happen. The reason is simple. When you evict a people from their home and land and force them to live in refugee camps, deny them any rights within the confined spaces they are allowed to currently live in, the hope for living in peace and mutual understanding goes out the window.

This is exactly the point I made in a different thread. Certainly, business-as-usual isn't working too well in Israel/Palestine. Attitudes on both sides need to change.

To expect Palestinians to simply suck it up, join hands around the camp fire and sing Kumbaya.. well.. it will not happen. Too much has happened in the past and still happening today.

Exactly the point I made over a week ago. Gustav, for one, apparently has a problem with this simple point.

Are you aware that every single year, on Australia day, there are Aboriginals who protest what they deem the 'invasion day'?

Sure. I don't think it's particularly helpful to do so. For the same reason, I don't think that Israelis claiming they have lived in Israel since biblical times is a useful argument in terms of determining modern land rights there.

At this point in time, the Palestinians have no real say in the matter. Whether they recoginise Israel or not will not determine the end of their current fate. They will still be denied access to their land, they will continue to lose their land and their basic human rights will not be restored to them.

You're making a prediction here, based on maintenance of the status quo. Starting off with an assumption that things never change means you'll never make any progress towards actual helpful change. Another thing I said in a previous thread.

In historical terms, Aboriginals only became citizens quite recently. And they are still denied equal rights. We can prance around and say 'sorry', have token days of recognition, etc, but Aboriginals are still treated like second class citizens and denied the very basic things we take for granted, they being clean running water, housing, health care.. I could go on..

I don't remember ever saying that indigenous Australias live pampered lives etc. I'm not sure what your point is.

If you are going to inject morality into the argument, what do you think Israel's moral rights should be towards the Palestinians? Should the landgrab continue? Should Palestinians still be denied the right to travel within and to their own territories? Should they be granted the same rights as Israelis? Most importantly, why are Palestinians still denied statehood to this day? Why are they denied recognition?

Wouldn't it be moral for the international community to grant them the above?

Ah! Finally some easy questions that are straightforward to answer.

Taking them in order:
Should the land grab continue? No.
Should Palestinians be denied freedom of movement within and to their own territories? No.
Should Palestinians be granted the same rights as Israelis? Maybe not "the same". "equivalent" or "equal" might be better words.
Why are Palestinians still denied statehood and recognition? That's a can of worms. I'm sure you have some ideas yourself about this, and I don't really want to go into all the factors here and now.
Wouldn't it be moral for the international community to grant them the above? I'm not sure just how you think the "international community" can solve this problem, especially in the absence of agreement and cooperation by Israel. please explain.

 

[S.A.M.]

Could you please link me to the laws that deny native non-Jews a "right of return"?

No I couldn't [didn't even check].

Now what? Are we to pretend that if Israel does not make that law, there are no Palestinian refugees? Or that they all choose to stay as refugees for some reason?

Is this what you mean by an honest discussion? One in good faith?

 

[pjdude1219]

For the same reason you believe that Israel should recognise the right of the Palestinians to exist, I'd guess.

the two aren't the same. Israeli/Jew= Palestinian Israel=Palestine. Your comparing a state's right to exist(something that i have yet seen proven needs to be recoginzed) with that of a peoples right to exist(something that is legal right under international law). I hope that is merely a grammitical fuck up.

 

[S.A.M.]

And just FYI, a personal and completely off topic comment:

I hear often from some people that I don't know who my friends are and how much certain parties agree with me on my political stances. That it is the way I present my stance which makes me a problem on this forum.

And then there are posts like this:

Could you please link me to the laws that deny native non-Jews a "right of return"?

which make me realise how deep the abyss between us really is.

If you had asked a Jew:

Could you please link me to the laws that show there was intent to kill the Jews in Germany?

it would be called holocaust denial.

You would not go to a concentration camp and tell a holocaust survivor that he should make peace with the Nazis [at least, I hope not]

You would not go to a Bantustan and insist that blacks recognise the white state of Pretoria [again, I hope not]

You would not go to an Aboriginal and tell him he needs to recognise that Occupied Australia is now a white, European colonial state and he is a second class citizen who needs to make peace with the fact that his backward and to you, immoral existence needs an update into the 21st century [but then, maybe you might have supported, in principle, the Stolen Generation as one of those upright moral men who are anguished by the backwardness of the ignorant, I could not say]

But as soon as you heard of the Israel-Palestinian problem, you were quite sure that the Palestinians must accept this as the Aboriginals did because you cannot "unscramble" that egg.

As someone coming from a country where we did hold on for one thousand years, [with no national identity whatsoever, mind you, which is why the whole "there was no Palestine" argument holds no water for me whatsoever] unscramble all the eggs to make them our omelet and did it without any lingering antipathy to those who enslaved and diminished us, let me tell you, that whatever else you may be in your own mind, you are not one who shares my political stance on any of these issues.

I would never go to a rape victim and tell her to recognise the authority of her rapist over her. You would never think of occupation in those terms.

Its as different as day and night. So lets not pretend we even see things the same way, let alone share the same outlook.