Yasser Kashlak, a Syrian businessman of Palestinian descent who heads the “Free Palestine Organization” and is funding this boat, as well as another that is to carry journalists and parliamentarians, said over the weekend on Hizbullah’s al-Manar television station that he was more and more optimistic that one day these same boats would take “Europe’s refuse [the Jews] that came to my homeland back to their homelands.
“Gilad Schalit should go back to Paris and those murderers go back to Poland, and after that we will chase them until the ends of the earth to bring them to justice for their acts of slaughter from Deir Yassin until today.” Kashlak, a fervent Hizbullah supporter, called Israel a “rabid dog sent to the region to frighten the Arabs. He said he had a message for Israelis: ‘Get on the ships we are sending you and go back to your lands. Don’t let the moderate Arab leaders delude you, [you] cannot make peace with us. Our children will return to Palestine, you have no reason for coexistence. Even if our leaders will sign a peace agreement, we will not sign.’
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=178935
I've said this before, and will say again. This is the sort of thinking that makes compromise impossible. How can Israel ever make enough concessions for a man such as Kaslak? Does this not cast doubt on all of you who forever castigate Israel for not doing enough?
Yes I think you can find examples like this on either side. Just look at some of the crazies who post on this side claiming that Islam is evil or that "Israel" was promised to them by God. Watch AIPAC demonstrations where you'll see placards demanding "death to all arabs" or declaring "Kahane was right".
By trading such examples you are really doing the same thing. The sub-text here is:"You can't negotiate with such people, so we have to fight them until they are defeated". You can bet that the other side has a mirror imaget. The important thing for the rest of us on both sides is that such foolishness is ignored.
Mr. bigC - You will not find such extremism on the Israeli side, save for some of the messianic religious zionists. Even there, you need to go back over 15 years to find an incident of terrorism.
Equivalence and even-handedness are not appropriate and not true.
Wow, Tim, have you just noticed that war creates and needs hatred? You surprise me. What did you think it induced?
You can find some rants in the same spirit on several threads on this site, but of course usually the equivalent of the other side.
Most people find Helen Thomas’s suggestion that Jewish Israelis should return to the countries they (or rather their ancestors) came from offensive. So do I, but I wonder at the hypocrisy of the people who find rants like these acceptable:
“Arabs belong in Arabia, in Judea and Samaria Arabs are the occupiers. There is plenty of space in Arab countries for Arabs.” (Viiit 20 June 2010 – 2:56am)
A majority of citizens on both sides want peace and clings to leaders who preach war, dehumanise the enemy, and incite hatred. What else is war? Peace and compromise are still possible, the example of other wars shows that.
Your outrage about the attitudes of the Palestinians you quoted is not only hypocritical, Tim. It’s funny in it’s naivity. What attitude did you expect? I learnt that when I was a child of 11 years. The people who never learnt it become—militarists.
Momo - the Palestinians elected Hamas by a wide margin. They do not aspire to peaceful co-existence. You might be tempted to reply by equating Likud to Hamas. Again, the suggestion is offensive. Likud is not substantially different then Israel's far left wing of 20 years ago. Hamas is an extremist terrorist organization fervently opposed to any peace agreement.
Yitz,
“You might be tempted to reply by equating Likud to Hamas.”
Indeed. Likud isn’t the only Israeli party/organisation that favours terrorism and is fervently opposed to any peace agreement or peaceful co-existence in general. And the Israelis regularly elect these parties by a wide margin.
At the same time most Israelis favour a compromise and a peace agreement. So do most Palestinians.
How odd. I came to similar conclusions about you Momo. I could equally say...
"Your outrage about the attitudes of the Israelis you quoted is not only hypocritical, Momo. It’s funny in it’s naivity. What attitude did you expect? I learnt that when I was a child of 11 years. The people who never learnt it become—pacifists. "
Like Helen Thomas, you fail to see yourself in that mirror. Several generations of Israelis have been born in Israel and know no other home. Telling them to go back to Poland or some other ancestral home is insulting and means nothing to them. Despite your sanctimonious rebuke to Tim, I have yet to see you argue equity for these Israelis. I have yet to see you acknowledge these people fighting for freedom from terror attacks. It's time to deal with what is instead of what you wish it to be. It's time to acknowledge that both sides have a claim on the land.
Or it's time for you to quit your patronizing speeches and join Saida openly in her commitment to hatred of Israel.
It's time to deal with what is instead of what you wish it to be. It's time to acknowledge that both sides have a claim on the land.
That's what Momo, Brendan. I and others her have been saying all along Mike - except that we put the word "equal" in front of the word claim. There are those who advocate expelling all the colonists - as there were in South Africa.
The South Africans had the sense to deal with those who didn't take that view while they had the time to. Had they refused to do so then the expellists would have gained strength. That appears to be what Israelis are doing now. When Israelis are willing to accept equal citizenship based on who is there and who has recently been expelled there will be peace. While they base citizenship on race or confession there will not be.
And yet, I have yet to see any of you defend Israel's right to exist in the face of Palestinian terrorism. In fact, you pretty much stand shoulder to shoulder with Palestinian apologists who rationalize terrorism as somehow justified. That's certainly your right. But at least be honest in your criticism and level it at both, if you believe both have an equal claim.
At what point does this newly claimed egalitarian perspective of yours acknowledge the right of Israelis to defend themselves against terror attack? ...because I have yet to see it from you, Momo, or Brendan.
Or perhaps more in keeping with the theme of this thread, perhaps you would care to EQUALLY denounce those on the Mavi Marmara who deliberately attacked the paintball armed Israeli boarding party, provoking them to defend themselves with deadly force?
Exactly what do you mean by base citizenship on "confession?" Citizenship should be predicated on an oath of loyalty and fidelity to the constitution of the country for which one desires to be a member. If someone refuses to "confess" their fidelity, they should not be entitled citizenship, which for an immigrant is a privilege, not a right.
How many there dream of one multitudinal religiously secular informed State of, for and by the people's living there, who will each as mingling neighbours in diversity do as they wish to be done by, unharmed in service owing each other through just and so strong families, communities and societies?
Are there enough who can by talking with rather than at each other gradually isolate until extreme emnity wither away as its practitioners die off and of inflammatory torched hate?
Or can they only co-exist by walling each other in and out?
Keith, a secular single state would be the far better solution in my eyes. I don’t believe it can be achieved, at least not by the next few generations. If there will be a 2-states-solution, these states might morph into a federation in the very long run.
Momo @ 8:06pm
That's what i meant, and thought i'd said as you picked out :)
The "informed" meant all sources as well as religious too that were not polarised in being extreme, however justified falsely and so also provoked and/or stoked.
As to the morphed long run, keep not only federal incorporation as constituted in mind, but also the wider possibilities and flexibility opened-up by confederal non-incorporation as tail-treatied antidote to top-dog maltreatment.
But yes, binocular fortune at present, unless by virtue of own personal and plural will made - and thus serve by successful de-centralised example = for self-determined adoption elsewhere in their diverse mutual benefit of interdependent autonomies needs, as i advocate in OK for here in generic terms as skeleton to be fleshed out in individual, joint and several primarily consensual process.
Is the ethic of "doing as we would be done by" not common to all Abrahamic faiths, or did i mis-interpret something from the Koran?
edited out entry in error.
ditto :(
Since you got the facts wrong, it’s no wonder you come to the wrong conclusion.
I didn’t quote an Israeli, by the way. The vitriolic Viit is American. He can afford to hate and keep up the escalation. The people who suffer (Saida for instance) are more entitled to hatred, although this hatred won’t help.
You needn’t tell me. If your reading skills didn’t resemble your math skills, you would have seen that I mentioned the same thing. What’s more, I never said that Israelis didn’t have a claim to the land. The problem is that the Palestinians equally have a claim to the land—a fact that is denied by the apologists of Israeli expansion.
This Israeli expansionism is the main obstacle to peace between Israel and Palestine nowadays. On both sides a majority of citizens wants peace, and is prepared to pay the price in form of compromises. We all know along which lines this compromise must run. There is a minority on both sides who don’t want compromise, and the Israeli government definitely belong to this minority.
All of us have consistently done so. You are the one who condones terrorism—only terrorism from the Israeli side of course.
So far we have agreed on a bit of your definition of terrorism: it targets civilians. Now you say defending a ship against soldiers who board it is a terrorist act. What next?
That can only apply if someone wants to be naturalised, but not for citizens by birth, can’t it? Do you really think a nation has the right to ban free speech of their citizens who want to achieve fundamental changes in their country by democratic means? Are native Americans allowed to deplore the conquering of their country or not? If the US amended their constitution and inserted a clause saying that native Americans must swear an oath welcoming the conquering of their country, would you find that just?
"And yet, I have yet to see any of you defend Israel's right to exist in the face of Palestinian terrorism. "
I disagree with Momo here. I do not think the two state solution is viable. What has the "right" of the state of Israel to exist got to do with equal claims to the land? In fact it negates equal claims.
"Exactly what do you mean by base citizenship on "confession?"
Are you unaware that any Jew, anywhere in the world has the unassailable right to settle in Israel? Palestinians who were born or whose parents or grandparents were born there on the other hand only have the rights to live there as granted by the Israeli Parliament!
"Citizenship should be predicated on an oath of loyalty and fidelity to the constitution of the country for which one desires to be a member. If someone refuses to "confess" their fidelity, they should not be entitled citizenship, which for an immigrant is a privilege, not a right"
You are suggesting that the Palestinians are immigrants and the foreign colonists indigineous? I'm having a Tom Lehrer moment here!
“Or perhaps more in keeping with the theme of this thread, perhaps you would care to EQUALLY denounce those on the Mavi Marmara who deliberately attacked the paintball armed Israeli boarding party, provoking them to defend themselves with deadly force?”
I don’t know why it should be in keeping with the theme of this thread, but here goes: firstly, you are still muddled about who the attackers were. Secondly, you still seem to believe in the Israeli fairy tale of the soldiers boarding the Marmara being armed only with paintball guns and expecting no violence. I told you on the thread where it was in keeping with the theme: you are falling into every Israeli propaganda trap.
The Israeli attackers of the Marmara shot with live ammunition from the very beginning. They were heavily armed, and the passengers of the ship only reacted to the Israeli navy’s lethal violence.
Is the following consistent with your and the IDF’s claim that they were surprised by the violence?
Leave religion out of this, it’s got nothing to do with this conflict. There are nationalist causes on both sides. The religious stuff just adds to the nastiness, and makes compromise less likely. There can’t be compromise in matters of faith, that’s why religious wars tend to be bloodier and more prolonged than other wars. The Islamophobes and Anti-semites want to prevent every chance of an understanding with the other side.
And you can use every faith, Abrahamic or not, for everything, good or evil.
The flaw of the one-state-solution is that it doesn’t take into account the accumulated hatred and fear. With the Apartheid Wall there is a young generation who has never talked to someone of the other side. The Palestinians live under Israeli occupation and with the constant terror of the settlers, but this sort of contact isn’t exactly a basis for cooperation. Israelis on the other hand have no occasion to even think about Palestinians.
The only basis for cooperation I see is the economic interdependence between the two states that is inevitable. It forces them to develop means of cooperation.
And that's the flaw in your argument. You may wish to leave Religion out of it, but neither of the involved parties is capable of doing so. The Koran and hatred of the Jews is embedded in the Hamas constitution. The Israeli constitution is emphatic that Israel is and will always be a "Jewish State."
Religion has everything to do with this conflict and demanding we ignore it will not make it go away. Nevertheless, I do contend that while religion may have much to do with the conflict, it has little to do with the solution which must transcend religious differences.
Indeed. That is why a secular state where citizenship is not decided by religion is the only solution which is sustainable.
We have no such agreement since terrorism does not exclusively target civilians. The Ft Hood shooting targeted both. The shooter was exclaiming, "Allah Akbar" just as the hijackers on 9-11. What they have in common is indescriminate violence against innocents, intending to create a climate of fear to achieve a political-religious agenda.
Obviously the Israelis were not armed ONLY with paint-ball guns, but you have absolutely no evidence beyond suspect testimony to support your assertion the Israelis used live ammo from the start. The video is clear and the crowd would have scattered once live rounds started coming down range. Instead they were ambushed by fanatics weilding improvised weapons and forced to defend themselves. That's what I believe because that's what the evidence shows so far.
Is the following consistent with your and the IDF’s claim that they were surprised by the violence?
It's not inconsistent with IDF claims and does not affect credibility of the Israeli account because control of the media at the hospital is a separate issue from what happened on the ship. Putting out information release guidance in advance to a military operation is not only NOT unusual, it is standard operating policy for most armed forces. Obviously you still need to learn the difference between "speculation" and "evidence." I compliment your maths skills; but your reading comprehension and logic skills still need work.
Hamas isn’t Palestine. By Hamas’s constitution you probably mean the beastly charter which is too controversial to be ratified even for that ghastly organisation.
You shouldn’t try to interpret Israel’s constitution: they don’t have one. They have a declaration of independence which prudently uses the same wording the UN decision of partition used. This declaration of independence states that Israel will adopt a constitution, but they haven’t done so. There are two reasons: they would have to define their territory there and they would have to grant human rights. Both issues are highly contentious in Israel.
Right, we never agreed on the definition of terrorism you provided, but you claimed the US Army couldn’t commit an act of terrorism, because you can’t imagine they target civilians. (In case your memory resembles your civics skills (knowledge of constitutions): 23 December 2009 - 5:28pm). Stick to it then.
Do you claim that everybody who shouts "Allah Akbar" is a terrorist? Do you know what it means? By the way, the Ft Hood shooting was in my opinion indeed no act of terrorism. Must every crime with a political background be terrorism?
Your reading skills weren’t up to get the significance of the Haaretz quote: the IDF knew that there would be injured people before they boarded the Marmara. Later they claimed they hadn’t reckoned with violence. Not my fault if with your logic skills you see nothing contradictory there.
Which of the several videos are you talking about just now? I’ve noticed all right what you believe, but it’s not corroborated by the evidence. “believe” is the right word.
It's not about what I do or do not imagine. I claim the US army wouldn't (not couldn't) commit an act or terrorism as part of a plan to achieve a strategic objective. It's not part of our national security strategy. Your reading skills continue to be as skewed as your thinking.
No. But the Ft. Hood shooter was not acting as an Army officer and his connections to radical Islam are well documented. Clearly that was his agenda when he committed his crime. Motive matters.
Not at all. But I do claim the far majority of terrorists shout "Allah Akbar," especially when they commit their acts of terror, making the religious connection unmistakable...except perhaps to you.
“No. But the Ft. Hood shooter was not acting as an Army officer and his connections to radical Islam are well documented. Clearly that was his agenda when he committed his crime. Motive matters.”
A crime with a political background (or motive) I said. But why is it an act of terrorism? Because he wasn’t “acting as an Army officer” you say. Do you mean to say that if he had “acted as an Army officer”, it would have been an ordinary crime, but since he didn’t, it was terrorism? Do explain.
"But I do claim the far majority of terrorists shout "Allah Akbar," especially when they commit their acts of terror, making the religious connection unmistakable."
In other words, you claim this crime was a terrorist one because of the Muslim background. Not very convincing. It just means that you are blind to other sorts of terrorism.
I've seen several videos, as obviously have you. All the ones I've seen show Israelis rappelling down lines and then being set upon like rabid dogs by "peace activists" armed with improvised weapons. None of the Israelis are firing while rappelling. None of the people on deck are scattering under gunfire. In the real world, we call video like that "exculpatory evidence." Not sure what you call it in Momoland.
I have seen no videos that support your rash claim the boarding party used deadly force from the start. If you have some, please share with the rest of the class. I can't wait to see them.
The eye witness accounts and the nature of the injuries inflicted on the murdered passengers support Momo's opinion. The fact that the Israelis then (unsuccessfully) attempted to confiscate all visual and audio recording equipment so that their doctored video account would go unchallenged reinforces the contention that they were not being honest.
Interesting that the smuggled video shows the "lynch mob" caring for two wounded Israeli soldiers.
“I have seen no videos that support your rash claim the boarding party used deadly force from the start. If you have some, please share with the rest of the class. I can't wait to see them.”
And I have seen no video that supports your rash claim. The Israelis have only published short sequences. Most videos and pictures have been stolen and (at least part of them) deleted by the IDF. Unlikely that this evidence supported their story then. That leaves the testimonies of the passengers and crews, and the results of the autopsies.
Except that's not what the quote says, it's what you interpret it to mean. I read it at face value. Here it is again....
As the highlighted text clearly points out, the IDF provided guidance for release of information "in the event" of wounded. Military planners always plan for contingencies just as they weigh probabilities. No, the boarding party did not expect violence (based on experience of the 5 other ships in the flotilla), but they were prepared with public affairs guidance in the event violence took place. Standard prudent planning, nothing more. Your conclusion is mere speculation and ignorance of military planning.
“Military planners always plan for contingencies just as they weigh probabilities.”
Do they? But you claim they had no plan for the case that some of the passengers would defend themselves.
“No, the boarding party did not expect violence (based on experience of the 5 other ships in the flotilla),…”
The experience of the other 5 ships shows that there the Israelis were extremely brutal too (or do you claim that it is normal procedure to throw a woman on the ground and then kick her head? In that case explain why you would do it.). Shots with live ammunition were only used against members of one organisation, though. The Israelis knew who was on which ship.
You are mixing and matching "theys" here. The "they" in the quote refers to those responsible for planning and managing information, not those executing direct operations. The fact the boarding party was armed with both non-lethal and lethal force options clearly proves they were "prepared" to defend themselves. But "expecting" to defend themselves is a degree of probablity and clearly they thought the probablity of a peaceful encounter was more likely than a violent one. Thus, "not expecting violence" means they considered the probability low, but were prepared with side-arms for that contingency.
Had deadly force been the primary objective, the IDF has a wide range of heavier force options and would have likely cleared the deck with grenades and rappelled down with assault rifles blazing. The IDF video shows nothing of the sort. Your witness accounts are not unreliable or supported by any third party video. Complaining the video was confiscated is not proof that it shows what you claim it shows.
Since these "members of one organization" were not all wearing matching T-shirts emblazoned with their logo, it's pretty clear it was these same members who were engaged in violence and got the same in return. Must have been members of a Darwin club because that sure was stupid.
“You are mixing and matching "theys" here.”
Skills again. Yes, your English is better than mine! I used “themselves” to make “defend” reflexive, and it doesn’t refer to “they”, the subject of the subordinate clause, which denotes the IDF guys in charge of this massacre. But I gather from your reply that you understood me.
“Your witness accounts are not unreliable or supported by any third party video.”
Right. These witness accounts are not unreliable . Good to know that you agree :-). Especially since there are so many testimonies from passengers, press, crews, etc. They give a good picture of what happened.
We don’t know how many videos support them, because the IDF are sitting on the videos. But there is the nature of the injuries as more evidence.
Very likely the IDF is sitting on the videos. But it is unfounded speculation they are evidence to support your position. I have just as valid a claim they support my position and they are supressed for national security reasons. Your speculation is no better than my speculation...which is why we both should stick to the forensic evidence.
The nature of the injuries is evidence that deadly force was used to cause the manner of death. It says nothing about when they occurred or why. The only thing I see relevant is the fact the injuries were pistol caliber, which indicates a defensive weapon, not an assault rifle which would be expected if the IDF came in guns blazing as you irresponsibly (ie, without evidence) claim.
Four shots to the head and one to the chest. Defensive?! You must be out of your senses.
No. I am simply schooled in tactics and you are not. Once the decision to use deadly force is made, the force is applied until the threat is neutralized. With modern semi-automatic firearms, likely all rounds were very rapidly expended at extreme close quarters before the body even hit the deck.
Wow, Tim, have you just noticed that war creates and needs hatred? You surprise me. What did you think it induced?
...
Your outrage about the attitudes of the Palestinians you quoted is not only hypocritical, Tim. It’s funny in it’s naivity. What attitude did you expect? I learnt that when I was a child of 11 years. The people who never learnt it become—militarists.
Momo,
I wish you would stop reading your own outrage into my posts. Of course war, and the effects of war, create emnity. Look at the way Germans thought of Soviet-era Russians in 1945. But still, look at the way Germans think of Russians now, a bit differently, yes?
Does that not offer a lesson in humility (in the case of Germany) and pig-headedness (in the case of Palestine)? If Germany can forgive the loss of East Prussia, why cannot Palestine forgive the creation of Israel? There are countless examples of such compromises -- all of which were ultimately decided by war, by force of arms (and thus in your eyes illegal I'm sure) -- so why is Palestine different? Why does it persist?
If it persists because compromise is anathema, that should be something we should take note of, yes? It means it is one of the few times on the 20th century that a change in ownership of a territory remains a festering sore. Why do you think that is the case?
[as an aside, please do not make a case for justice -- countless millions in other places around the world make the same plea but have been ignored by the powerful, so please, make a different argument - why is Palestine different from say eastern Poland, Finnish Karelia, Japanese northern Paramashiro's, Istria, etc.]
Nor am I expressing "outrage" over Kashlak per se, like Mike I was looking for a discussion -- partially successful -- where we could talk about the failure of compromise as a failure of both sides, not just Israel. you have to willfully ignore Palestinian decisions over the last 50 years to argue this is all Israel's fault.
"...you have to willfully ignore Palestinian decisions over the last 50 years to argue this is all Israel's fault."
That's like saying that the victim of a mugging should accept that he is partly to blame for injuries incurred while refusing to hand over his wallet.
No. That's like saying 50 years of terrorism are somehow justified, despite the fact there has never been a state of Palestine or a people uniquely Palestinian.
I'd say latter bit of hyperbole is of the same order of magnitude as yours and just as pointless. Neither facilitates a way forward, does it? ...which is largely the point I interpret from this thread.
Tim,
“I wish you would stop reading your own outrage into my posts.”
I am not outraged. I am just showing in a friendly manner that I find your views on militarism provoking, and your views on this conflict biased.
“Nor am I expressing "outrage" over Kashlak per se, like Mike I was looking for a discussion -- partially successful -- where we could talk about the failure of compromise as a failure of both sides, not just Israel. you have to willfully ignore Palestinian decisions over the last 50 years to argue this is all Israel's fault.”
I am not arguing that. I am arguing that now the main obstacle to an agreement is Israel’s expansionism. I see more will for compromise on the Palestinian side than on the Israeli side (although it exists among citizens of both sides.)
"If Germany can forgive the loss of East Prussia, why cannot Palestine forgive the creation of Israel? There are countless examples of such compromises -- all of which were ultimately decided by war, by force of arms (and thus in your eyes illegal I'm sure) -- so why is Palestine different? Why does it persist?"
Palestine didn’t start two world wars. Palestine lost their territory by a decision of the UN. It was founded to guarantee peace and the first memorable thing they did was to partition Palestine. Now you find it far-fetched that the world public takes a special interest and sees a need for international pressure to move both parties to an agreement.
It was the only moment where this was possible: immediately after the Holocaust, but before colonialism was completely discredited. A few years later, and the rights of the Palestinian people would have been recognised, but in 1948 the concept was still “bringing some civilisation to the natives”.
"That's like saying 50 years of terrorism are somehow justified,"
Terrorism is never justified. Fighting back against a colonial invasion is. Ask a native American.
"despite the fact there has never been a state of Palestine or a people uniquely Palestinian. "
Nor is there such a thing as a "Jewish People", nor had there ever been Jewish nation state before the shenanagans of 1947.
It's not hyperbole. It's the statement of historical fact.
The way forward is the one you half admitted in a previous post where you stated that religion (and by implication, religious identity) cannot be a part of the solution. My position is that both Palestinians (Muslim and Christian) and Jews must accept this. Your position is that only Palestinians must accept it. That is why compromise is impossible.
And nor had there been a 'Palestinian Nation State', or a 'Palestinian People' before the shenanagans of 1947.
Palestine had been a geographic area within the Ottoman Empire before it became a LofN Mandate under British control.
There hasn’t been an Indian, Congolese, or Algerian nation state or people either. Are you suggesting that they have no right to their own states either, or are you singling out the Palestinians?
“Nation state” is very young invention, by the way (and fortunately rapidly becoming obsolete), but we have at least an idea what that is. Can you tell me what a people is?
Yes. That is an inconvenient historical fact that Palestinian apologists ignore.
"And nor had there been a 'Palestinian Nation State', or a 'Palestinian People' before the shenanagans of 1947"
Yes. That's where we started from. It was implied that Palestine never existed and I pointed out that Israel (as populated by North African and European colonists) did not either.
"Palestine had been a geographic area within the Ottoman Empire before it became a LofN Mandate under British control. "
Just like Syria, Jordan and lebanon in fact. What relevance has that to anything?
Neither Syria nor Lebanon were part of the British Mandate. they were under French control. It is a point of historical fact, but you are only interested in histroical facts when it suits you.
No, both must accept it...and neither seems inclined to do so. That's why a 2-state solution is the only viable course.
Nope. Their terrorism was not justified either. But it does ultimately point to the successful implementation of a 2-state solution. Indian tribes are recognized as "nations" within US borders, with their own tribal law.
"No, both must accept it...and neither seems inclined to do so. That's why a 2-state solution is the only viable course."
Then you resile from your position that religion cannot be part of the solution?
"Indian tribes are recognized as "nations" within US borders, with their own tribal law."
Yes it was one of history's most successful genocides. The reservation system appears to be the intention of the Zionists too.
“Nope. Their terrorism was not justified either.”
Wow. Even defending one’s country against colonial invaders is terrorism in your eyes. Revealing.
“But it does ultimately point to the successful implementation of a 2-state solution. Indian tribes are recognized as "nations" within US borders, with their own tribal law.”The Palestinians won’t accept the reservations-solution, that much is clear.
Except it was not "their" country. They were nomadic tribes, largely hunter-gatherer, that migrated along with the food supply.
Then by default, they are accepting diaspora status or extinction as a "people." Clearly native-american tribes came to that realization and chose wisely.
Are you kidding me? Are you claiming that Palistinian arabs were not disposessed of their land during the establishment of the Israeli state - never mind the expansionist wars? I hate to jump in so late, but Mike, your position is just not supported by facts, logic or history? Are you a racist who favors the jews because most arabs are muslim or is it about "end times" for you? I'll continue reading this troubling thread, but jeezus, I'm getting pissed off and I'm not even 10 posts in!
I'm not kidding you. You're just not reading it in context. I am referrring to native American tribes in North America, not Palestine. Geez...hope you don't have high blood pressure.
“Except it was not "their" country. They were nomadic tribes, largely hunter-gatherer, that migrated along with the food supply.”
And which stage of economic production must people have achieved before you would concede they have a claim on their country? (And by the way, “nomadic” was only true for some native American peoples, but by far not all of them.)
“Then by default, they are accepting diaspora status or extinction as a "people." Clearly native-american tribes came to that realization and chose wisely. “
That is the aim of the Israeli policy, but it won’t be successful.
Native Americans came to the realisation that the genocide by the invaders had decimated their numbers so far that they had no choice. Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but the attitude towards genocide has changed in the meantime. This option is only open to dictators that don’t depend on the opinion of the world public, and on support from democratic countries. Israel depends on both.
If Israel goes on pursuing the reservations-solution, the Palestinians will adopt Nusseibeh’s strategy: demand human and civil rights in Israel by all political and legal means. Israel will have two options then: either refuse these rights openly, which will cost them the support of every citizen of any democracy (with the exception of a few hardened right-wing crazies, but they won’t count). Or else they must grant these rights. It would be the one-state-solution.
And there is one argument against the one-state-solution: the accumulated hatred. It could lead to a bloodbath. This is the reason why I prefer the two-state-solution.
Post new comment