Thread: Palestine culture...

ZFBoxcar,

Thank you for answering my questions.

You confirmed that you reject the right of return for Palestinian refugees. Why do you reject the right of people who have been forced to flee from their homes to return to their property?

You said you do not reject the right to self-determination for the Palestinian people. I assume, therefore, as a corollary, that you recognize that right. I am glad we both agree on that matter.

I never called you a monster. You clearly implied that by not supporting a "Jewish state" I therefore must support "the destruction of Israel" (with the implicit corollary being that I am a "monster"). All I did was to put up a mirror to your own argument. You obviously didn't like that much, which is instructive.

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

What befuddles me is that quite a few Americans seem not to care that their government supports the oppression of the Paletinian people. A great many actually quite happily cheer on the US and Israel.

But only when its some Palestinians who are guilty of the same indecency is it condemnable.

That's completely irrelevant to my point. My point is that if they celebrate when Americans get attacked, they should not expect any help from us, and in fact we should return the favor and laugh at their misfortunes.

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

So, ZFBoxcar, assuming you do not support "the destruction of Israel", you must therefore, by your own equation, reject the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

Do you also reject the right to self-determination for the Palestininan people?

Let's get something straight here. The "refugees" are not returning. It is the responsibility of their Arab bretheren to whom the fled to help them. Do you see Iraq allowing the return of the Jews who fled from there in 1948, or giving them compensation? Iran? Syria? Egypt? Yemen? Morrocco? No, of course you don't.

Israel integrated hundreds of thousands of Jews from these countries, and from Europe. People had to live in tent cities until 1956, but they were integrated, entire paid for by Israel. Not a single dollar came from the
United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East for this purpose. Not a single one of those people ever got anything from the UN as far as compensation.

On the other hand you have a fairly similar number of Palestinian Arabs leaving the state that became Israel. Wikipedia says this: "The Palestinian exodus of between 420,000 and 910,000 during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, was subsequently followed by the Jewish exodus from Arab lands numbering betweem 758,000 and 866,000."

The Arab countries build refuge camps but never intergrate them. That is their fault, not Israel's. They feed them just enough to survive and keep them angry without actually integrating them into their own societies. This is the reponsibility of the Arab countries and the Arab League, and it is their fault for renegging on this responsibility.

UNRWA gives them tons of money and education, and God knows what kind of support base. They pay for everything. Remember, they did not do the same for the Jewish refugees. Furthermore, unlike the classification of refugees anywhere else in the world, UNRWA insists on classifying the children of the refugees as refugees TOO! That's why the Palestinian refugee population is the only one in the world that is GROWING, even though no more people have been displaced.

That is complete bullcrap. I came to the United States as a refugee from a war-torn country, so I have some "street cred" to talk about this. There is no way in hell that my children would ever be classified as refugees. That's because they were never displaced!

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

I am personally opposed to a Jewish state, in fact or concept, as much as I am opposed to an Islamic state, or a Christian state. I don't believe in state religion, apartheid, or second-class citizenry. I don't believe we should support any such things.

You seem to disagree.

It is not a Judaism state. It is a Jewish state. A state of the Jewish people, the distinct ethnic group, the distinct cultural group. The majority of Israeli Jews are not religious. It is in fact about as secular as most European countries.

There is no state religion in Israel, there is religious freedom. Can you say the same for Hamas? Are they very tolerant of the Christian Palestinian minority? Yeah, thought so.

So wait a minute, you don't support state religon, but you support Hamas as the representatives of the Palestinian people. The same Hamas that ultimately states its goals as wiping out Israel and establishing in its place an state rule by ISLAMIC law. That's almost as hypocritical and ironic as Arafat getting the Nobel Peace Prize.

As far as apartheid and second class citizens, Israeli Arabs have the highest health and education standards and lowest mortality rates out of any Arabs in the Middle East. I guess they're just getting screwed over, you'd want the Israelis to put them in camps and then barely give them any money just like the Jordanians and Syrians.

As our friend Boxcar learned fairly quickly, having an intelligent and fruitful discussion with you is about as possible as having an intelligent and fruitful discussion with a tree stump. In fact, the tree stump kind of outranks you, because it doesn't babble stupidly in return, and you do.

You confirmed that you reject the right of return for Palestinian refugees. Why do you reject the right of people who have been forced to flee from their homes to return to their property?

I would support the right for the people who actually lost their property to be able to move to Israel. Not the decedents of people who no longer exist. I do not mean to say that all Palestinians who had property in Israel are dead, I mean that the "right of return" is meant to apply to basically all Palestinians, or at the very least all decedents of any Palestinian who has ever set foot in Israel.

You said you do not reject the right to self-determination for the Palestinian people. I assume, therefore, as a corollary, that you recognize that right. I am glad we both agree on that matter.

Yes I do recognize that right.

I never called you a monster.

You said I support theocracy and apartheid.

You clearly implied that by not supporting a "Jewish state" I therefore must support "the destruction of Israel" (with the implicit corollary being that I am a "monster").

First of all, I do not think supporting the destruction of Israel as a state makes you a monster, I just think it is intellectually dishonest to pretend not to support it while supporting the right of return.

All I did was to put up a mirror to your own argument. You obviously didn't like that much, which is instructive.

No. I stated a fact. Israel=Jewish homeland. If you turn it into a state that has a Palestinian majority it becomes Palestine, not Israel. I was being tautological, you were being insulting.

The point is that you are adopting precisely the same indecent and immoral attitude as any Palestinians who cheered or laughed at the attacks of 9/11.

You are an outrageous hypocrite, that's the entirely relevant point.

Let's get something straight here. The "refugees" are not returning. It is the responsibility of their Arab bretheren to whom the fled to help them. Do you see Iraq allowing the return of the Jews who fled from there in 1948, or giving them compensation? Iran? Syria? Egypt? Yemen? Morrocco? No, of course you don't.

You are wrong. It is the responsibility of those who commited the injustice. In the case of Israel, they have a legal and moral obligation to allow refugees to return to their homes and property from which they were expelled.

Why you presume I don't equally support the right of return for Jews similarly expelled from their homes or property after 1948, I know not. I can only say that you are incorrect in your presumption. If Jews choose to "pick up the pieces and move on" as another put it, that's their choice. But if they choose to confront the injustice that was done against them, I fully support them in their right to do so.

I would caution the old adage our mothers taught us as children that "two wrongs don't make a right". That should be fairly elementary. It certainly applies in the case of the Arab nations' response to the declaration of the state of Israel after the expulsion of Arabs from their homes.

As for Israel, I am aware that it is a secular state. Regardless, I am still opposed to the concept of a "Jewish" state, just as I am opposed to an "Islamic state" or a "Christian state" or an "Arab state" or a "White state". I don't believe in apartheid or second-class citizenry any more than I believe in state religion.

You said I "support Hamas as the representatives of the Palestinian people". I don't know where you got the notion that I "support" Hamas. I am strongly critical of Hamas. I do, however, recognize the Hamas politicans that were democratically elected as the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people, just as I recognize Likud or Labor politicians as the legitimate representatives of Israelis.

Sharon was a war criminal. I certainly did not support him. That doesn't mean he wasn't the legitimate representative of the Israeli people. You seem to have confused the two notions.

Finally, I think you would find that refraining from engaging in ad hominum arguments (in fact, I give more credit than is due by even calling them that) would be far less unproductive.

yirmeyahu,

I highly doubt any member of Hamas seeks the "destruction" of Israel. Why not? Because the reason they refuse to recognize Israel is because they don't recognize any legitimacy in the violent process that led to its creation, and they recognize the right of return for the hundreds of thousands who were made refugees as a result. Refusing to recognize the legitimacy of a thing is not in the least bit parallel to wanting to "destroy" a thing

that is where you are wrong. they simultaneously refuse to recognize the legitimacy of israel, AND they wish for its destruction, using the term "zionist entity" to substitute for the illegitimate state in question.

The PLO has accepted a two-state solution, the notion of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, since at least the early 70s. Hamas was actually very near to agreeing to a referendum this summer which would have implicitly recognized the state of Israel confined to the pre-67 "green line" borders. Israel put an end to that, however, by escalating the level of violence in Gaza and destroying southern Lebanon.

and for most of that time, a precondition for the two-state solution was the right of return, which would mean the destruction of the israeli state, as zfboxcar has pointed out. also, the way hamas has tried to phrase any agreements with the "zionist entity" is via that of a "long-term truce", NOT peace. that includes the "near agreement" you stated above, which was then followed by hamas kidnapping an israeli soldier (and hezbollah doing the same). try to get the order of action right...because the last statement was disingenuous.

. I also don't preclude the possibility that other goals, besides wanting to be free from occupation, are at work. Revenge is undoubtedly another, which may even trump the faulty notion that Israel may be intimidated into ending its occupation because of acts of terrorism by Palestinians.

these other goals vary from the destruction of the israeli state, the idea of taking as many israelis as the bombers can with them, and merely a form of political coercion. notice the uptick in suicide bombings following the failure of the camp david accords (the failure of which, according to almost every member there- including the palestinians afterwards- was the fault of arafat).

was it because the occupation became noticeably harsher? no. it was because palestinian political leaders view the suicide bomber as a political tool to get what they want.

Incidentally, I agree with you also that there is no moral equivolence between Israeli terrorism and Palestinian terrorism. Israeli terrorism is on a far greater scale, and, contrary to your belief, targeted at the entire Palestinian population.

It's the pirate and the emperor. The pirate, brought before the throne, is asked how he can be so insolent to plunder ships at sea. The pirate replies that he only does on a very small scale, to ships, what the emperor does on a massive scale, to entire nations.

the only even remotely "terrorist" method of coercion that israel uses that would influence the entire palestinian population would be closing off the checkpoints to israeli-palestinian trade, as well as freezing the aid that israel gives to the palestinians. ham-handed as it is, in both cases, neither the trade nor the aid were the palestinians' natural "rights" to begin with. it also demonstrates just how much the palestinians depend on the israelis for their very survival. comparing this with a suicide bomber strapping their chest full of explosives, nails, and ball-bearings...again, disingenuous.

israeli terror, at the very worst, had two goals: it aimed at deterring the palestinians from conducting their own acts of terror, and- much less a factor now than it was in the early years of sharon- keeping the stupid settler lands.

palestinian terror, however, had for its goals not so much deterrence against the israelis (as mentioned before, the first suicide bombing came in 1993, well after the worst abuses of the israelis), but instead in aggressively coercing the israelis for their political goals (fatah, especially post camp-david) and religious duty/nihilism (hamas and hezbollah).

in any case, what aid the israelis have given the palestinians- if it had been used wisely- would have made up for the primary instrument of "terror" which israel uses, which is economic.

can't really say the same for the palestinians, and their choice of terror weapon.

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

The point is that you are adopting precisely the same indecent and immoral attitude as any Palestinians who cheered or laughed at the attacks of 9/11.

You are an outrageous hypocrite, that's the entirely relevant point.



You are wrong. It is the responsibility of those who commited the injustice. In the case of Israel, they have a legal and moral obligation to allow refugees to return to their homes and property from which they were expelled.

Why you presume I don't equally support the right of return for Jews similarly expelled from their homes or property after 1948, I know not. I can only say that you are incorrect in your presumption. If Jews choose to "pick up the pieces and move on" as another put it, that's their choice. But if they choose to confront the injustice that was done against them, I fully support them in their right to do so.

What do you suggest they do, write petetion to the governments that pushed them out and absorbed all their property and cash? The only kind of compensation Saddam ever offered was $25,000 dollars to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

So you think all people should write petitions then? Because at some point or another, chances are every people's land has been taken. Perhaps Germans should get some land back from Poland, or better yet be allowed to return to the homes of their ancestors? Perhaps the decendants of the American Indians who sold New York unwittingly for some sets of beads should get New York back?

Look up the definition of "viable solution", because you obviously haven't shown that you know it.

astralis

that is where you are wrong. they simultaneously refuse to recognize the legitimacy of israel, AND they wish for its destruction, using the term "zionist entity" to substitute for the illegitimate state in question.

Define "destruction" as you are using it. Do you mean they wish to see the land scorched and burnt? Or do you mean they wish to see the land where the state of "Israel" now is become some other state? What do you mean?

and for most of that time, a precondition for the two-state solution was the right of return, which would mean the destruction of the israeli state, as zfboxcar has pointed out.

By "destruction" you mean a dramatic alteration of its demographics? Why do you reject the right of people forcibly expelled from their homeland to return to it? If someone kicked you out of your house, would you have no right to ever return to it and reclaim what is yours?

also, the way hamas has tried to phrase any agreements with the "zionist entity" is via that of a "long-term truce", NOT peace. that includes the "near agreement" you stated above, which was then followed by hamas kidnapping an israeli soldier (and hezbollah doing the same). try to get the order of action right...because the last statement was disingenuous.

Actually, it's you who need to get your order of events straight. Israel had invaded Gaza early in the summer. On June 24th, they kidnapped a doctor, Dr. Osama Muantar, and his brother, Mustafa, and, presumably, placed them with the thousands of other Palestinians languishing without charge in Israeli jails. The next day, Hamas militants captured Corporal Gilad Shalit.

Israeli violence escalated. Israel bombed Gaza, including the only power plant (a war crime), and blocked humanitarian assistance. They also kidnapped elected members of the Palestinian government to hold as "bargaining chips", thus, as I said, putting an end to the agreement between Hamas and Fatah to hold a referendum implicitly recognizing the state of Israel confined to the green line.

these other goals vary from the destruction of the israeli state...

You mean the insistence on the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

the only even remotely "terrorist" method of coercion that israel uses ...

Checkpoints are not the "only" method of coercion. There is the daily violence, the shootings, the bombings, the destruction of homes, the destruction of orchards, the daily humiliations, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, the kidnappings, etc.

Again, it's the pirate and the emperor. Suicide bombings are horrendous crimes, but they pale in comparison with the crimes commited by Israel. A simple look at the number of Palestinians murdered compared with the number of Israelis murdered is enough to demonstrate that point. Take the violence this summer, from the end of June through September. 43 Israeli civilians had been killed. The number of Lebanese civilians killed (not including Palestinians) was over 1000. That's around 23 murdered Lebanese for every murdered Israeli.

It's the pirate and the emperor. The pirates crimes a real, and they are horrible. But they pale in comparison with the emperor's.

Stan187

What do you suggest they do, write petetion to the governments that pushed them out and absorbed all their property and cash?

The question is tangential to the point, which is that we should recognize the grievances of and support the rights of people who have had injustices commited against them, be they Jew or Arab or otherwise, rather than denying their rights and supporting the injustices against them.

That's a rather elementary moral truism. It should hardly require an explanation.

yirmeyahu,

Define "destruction" as you are using it. Do you mean they wish to see the land scorched and burnt? Or do you mean they wish to see the land where the state of "Israel" now is become some other state? What do you mean?

again, being disingenuous. destruction means the destruction of the israeli state. among this would include the unraveling of the current israeli demographics.

By "destruction" you mean a dramatic alteration of its demographics? Why do you reject the right of people forcibly expelled from their homeland to return to it? If someone kicked you out of your house, would you have no right to ever return to it and reclaim what is yours?

and this is where we end the debate. you are being intellectually dishonest here. in any scenario where the right of return is part of this "two-state solution", you are in effect destroying the israeli state in return for a larger palestinian state. there IS no two-state solution in this scenario, in other words. you can talk as long as you want about forcible expulsion, and trading one forcible expulsion for another; however, if you want to be honest, just say that you support the destruction of israel and the creation of a palestinian state in its turn.

finally,

Again, it's the pirate and the emperor. Suicide bombings are horrendous crimes, but they pale in comparison with the crimes commited by Israel. A simple look at the number of Palestinians murdered compared with the number of Israelis murdered is enough to demonstrate that point. Take the violence this summer, from the end of June through September. 43 Israeli civilians had been killed. The number of Lebanese civilians killed (not including Palestinians) was over 1000. That's around 23 murdered Lebanese for every murdered Israeli.

It's the pirate and the emperor. The pirates crimes a real, and they are horrible. But they pale in comparison with the emperor's.

your simple look is indeed just that. the US firebombed hundreds of thousands of japanese civilians, murdered them if you will, during WWII; japan, perhaps in the hundreds (pearl harbor, american expats). hell, that's not 23:1, that's probably on the order of 500:1, if not more.

but you would be amoral idiot, at best, if you used that as a basis for comparison between right and wrong.

one looks at the goals; israeli deterrence (for the most part) vs palestinian coercion (for the most part). the palestinians use terror, and not much else, to achieve their goals. rest assured that if israel was on the same moral plane, and did the same, the palestinians would be far, far worse off than they are today.

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

Take the violence this summer, from the end of June through September. 43 Israeli civilians had been killed. The number of Lebanese civilians killed (not including Palestinians) was over 1000. That's around 23 murdered Lebanese for every murdered Israeli.

Right, so everyone should make sure to kill an even amount of people, because laws of morality include kill ratios as we all know.

This is just part of why you're an imbecile.

astralis,

It's a legitimate question. It's you whose being disinegenuous by refusing to answer it. So again: Define "destruction" as you are using it. Do you mean they wish to see the land scorched and burnt? Or do you mean they wish to see the land where the state of "Israel" now is become some other state? What do you mean?

I can't agree with you unless I understand more precisely what you mean.

and this is where we end the debate. you are being intellectually dishonest here. in any scenario where the right of return is part of this "two-state solution", you are in effect destroying the israeli state in return for a larger palestinian state. there IS no two-state solution in this scenario, in other words. you can talk as long as you want about forcible expulsion, and trading one forcible expulsion for another; however, if you want to be honest, just say that you support the destruction of israel and the creation of a palestinian state in its turn.

You're right, the debate does end here, since you're demanding I accept your terms without definition, demanding that I accept the words you put in my mouth.

Well, I reject them. What I support is the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. I also support the right of return for Palestinians forcibly expelled from their homes.

To deny them that right is immoral.

your simple look is indeed just that. the US firebombed hundreds of thousands of japanese civilians, murdered them if you will, during WWII; japan, perhaps in the hundreds (pearl harbor, american expats). hell, that's not 23:1, that's probably on the order of 500:1, if not more. but you would be amoral idiot, at best, if you used that as a basis for comparison between right and wrong.

Those were unspeakable war crimes. I don't know what you mean by "comparison between right and wrong". I've not made any comparison between "right and wrong". I've observed that: Again, it's the pirate and the emperor. Suicide bombings are horrendous crimes, but they pale in comparison with the crimes commited by Israel. A simple look at the number of Palestinians murdered compared with the number of Israelis murdered is enough to demonstrate that point. Take the violence this summer, from the end of June through September. 43 Israeli civilians had been killed. The number of Lebanese civilians killed (not including Palestinians) was over 1000. That's around 23 murdered Lebanese for every murdered Israeli.

Stan187

Right, so everyone should make sure to kill an even amount of people, because laws of morality include kill ratios as we all know.

This is just part of why you're an imbecile.

Right. And it requires the construction of a ridiculous strawman on your part to demonstrate that point.

Well, I agree with you. That strawman is an imbecile.

I, however, of course, have never said or suggested any such thing.

It's a factual observation. The crimes of Israel were far greater than the crimes of Hezbollah. Hezbollah killed innocent civilians. That's a crime. Israel killed far, far greater numbers of innocent civilians. That's a greater crime. Or, perhaps it should be put another way: far greater occurances of equal crimes. You choose whichever terms you think are more precise. The fact remains, and no amount of either ad hominums or strawmen can change that.

Yirmey,

Non-combatants that are killed during a military operation is not a crime unless the non-combatants are deliberately targeted or if excessive force was used in targeting a military target that resulted in non-combatant deaths due to excess force.

Thus, unless you can demonstrate that all Lebanese deaths were due to deliberately targeting non-combatants, or that excessive force was used in the targeting of a military target, then you cannot claim all Lebanese casualties to be crimes/murder.

shek,

Non-combatants killed during a military operation as a result of indiscriminate warfare is a war crime.

Under international law, "The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character".

Furthermore, "The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited."

"Indiscriminate attacks" are also prohibited, defined as "those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinciton."

This includes "An attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated."

The deliberate bombing of civilian infrastructure, the bombing of populated civilian areas, the use of indiscriminate weapons such as cluster munitions... These are all war crimes.

You confirmed that you reject the right of return for Palestinian refugees. Why do you reject the right of people who have been forced to flee from their homes to return to their property?

Why do you hate freedom?

When did you stop beating your wife?

Why do you hate puppies?

Do you still burn flags?

Why do people like you hate America?

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

shek,

Non-combatants killed during a military operation as a result of indiscriminate warfare is a war crime.

Under international law, "The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character".

Furthermore, "The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited."

"Indiscriminate attacks" are also prohibited, defined as "those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinciton."

This includes "An attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated."

The deliberate bombing of civilian infrastructure, the bombing of populated civilian areas, the use of indiscriminate weapons such as cluster munitions... These are all war crimes.

Once again, you were the one who included all Lebanese civilians killed in your numbers, and yet again you fail to provide proof that all of them were the result of excessive force or deliberate targeting. The burden is not on me, but you, the person making the assertion.