Family Watches Israeli Forces Take Down Home

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by mika laiho on January 20, 2011 at 7:01pm

there was no such thing at the time there was only Jordan and Egypt on the map....

 

++++ Where did palestinians disappear then ?

 

 If it meant 67 it would have said it it says "(withdraw) ...from the lands occupied during the Six Day War in exchange for recognition and secure borders " -

 

++++ Do you really think that they intended whole resolution, that in same resolution is mentioned that you cant take in war areas, and next sentence that you can keep those. What you think ?

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TONY RANSOM on January 20, 2011 at 10:31pm

 

Mika:

 

242 tals about the High Contracting parties- Jordan,Syria, Egypt and Israel. No Palestinian is ever mentioned as they were considered citizens of Jordan.Yes, the Arabs of that area were dropped as they were absorbed by Jordan and Egypt and had no interest in a country of their own.

 

It is up to the combatants to fix border and not the UN, UK, USA or anyone else. That is the essence of 242 evn if you fail to understand it. Read Walt Rostow (one of the framers of 242)

 

The 1949 Armistice lines were to be negotiated into a border as per the insistence of Jordan at that time and reiterated in the UN by them in 1952 and post.

 

There is no codified "International Law" thus you have Chechnya, Ingusetia, Falklands, Kyril Islands, Tibet and dozens of other territorial disputes. Not unlike what we have here.

 

BTW: The Palestinians appear in 1988 only and not in 1948 or 1967.

Permalink Reply by Basil Keilani on January 23, 2011 at 6:24am

Sussan, yes the British were more specific about territory a Jewish state would consist of with the Peel Commission of 1937, which the Zionist camp objected to as well as the Arab camp. 

The Arabs were the majority until 1947.  They are not a majority now for clear reasons, but in the lands west of the Jordan, the Palestinians Arabs will soon be the majority and 20% of Arab-Israelis are Arab.  Israel talks of negotiations, but it is much stronger than the Palestinians and the one that is stronger and has no real desire to be fair, will give as little as possible.  That's what Israel wants to do, and as Philip Weiss has said the US administration has capitulated to pro-Israeli interests in the US.  Obama has backtracked on what he has said in Cairo, and George Mitchell a person of Irish and Lebanese Christian ancestry was pushed aside for more hawkish pro-Israeli folks who haven't succeeded in bring about peace to the region.  It's Israel's bed.  It shouldn't complain when the cards go against them later.

 

They want to go against the world, and also against moderate Jews in America.  It won't work.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Basil Keilani on January 22, 2011 at 10:05pm

Archana, it's not simply about those who want to make money from the military industrial complex.  I think it's much more complex than that, but I do think Jews and Muslims and Americans are manipulated by various groups to make conflict possible.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TONY RANSOM on January 20, 2011 at 2:31pm

Basil

 

Invoking Nazi images does nothing for your argument other than inflame passions. The 1947 partition resolution died with the Arab rejection of it. Simple Law of Contracts and Israel's victory in 1967 just moved the line of demarcation further and was not an acquisition in war. "Palestine was not a High Contracting party in 1967 but rather Egypt and Jordan and Israel made peace with both and their border is demarcated. This IS DISPUTED TERRITORY and there is nothing preventing Israel from building there and applying its laws. So it does matter that Jordan was in possession in 1967.

 

As previously mentioned ,International Law does not apply as there is no sovereign in Judea and Samaria and no fixed borders (courtesy of the Arabs in 1949).The Arab majority in the UN and its supporters on ICJ cannot change that .

 

Stop the TERROR, stop the Qassams and Negotiate. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY.

 

PS stop with the demonizing and buzz words such as "occupation, "apartheid" "nazi comparisons" etc. That will not get you a state or PEACE.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stewart Mills on January 30, 2011 at 1:05pm

Thanks Sandra for reminding us about the Freedom Theatre set up by Juliano Mer Khami and to the memory of his mother Arna who originally set it up in 1988 before it was destroyed in 2002.  Juliano and his mother exemplified the best that Israel can do, striving to see a better life for all people, rather than for an exclusivist view of the world that seeks to demonise the other and only seek benefit for one's self.

 

I am continually reminded of the great teacher Micah - who reminds us to do justice, show constant love and live humbly within this fragile planet of ours.  The example of Juliano and Arna was about doing justice, about giving dignity to those who have lost so much.

 

May we build a future, as mentioned in the documentary, where 11 year old children no longer wet themselves because of post traumatic stress; where Palestinians no longer see Israelis only as soldiers but can meet them as equals and as neighbours.

 

Thanks again Sandra.

 

P.S.

 

Can anyone confirm the situation in relation to Jenin.  Juliano mentioned it being cut off by electric fence.  Was he only referring to the separation barrier to the north of Jenin, or was he referring to the general situation of road blocks and checkpoints?

 

The American Peace Now settlement map offered no further clues:

http://peacenow.org/map.php

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Basil Keilani on January 20, 2011 at 6:31pm

                         Bring up the Nazi regime in Germany, for me, is valid since they also stated when on trial that the Geneva Convention did not occupy in areas of questionable sovereignty, and so they were not guilty in certain cases.   Israel when it destroys homes, forcibly removes Palestinians to place settlers claims the Geneva Convention does not apply.   Serbia also did not think the Geneva Convention applied when it wanted to have parts of Balkans Bosnian free and place Chetniks, Serbians there.   Israel, at any rate, is doing something similar to Serbia in that regard, but the Palestinians have no NATO troops.  No one mentions some terrorism Bosnians committed because it was Serbians who were killing Bosnians, and they were not favored by the U.S.  Israel is favored, so it's crimes are glossed over. The reality is Israel is an apartheid state that ethnic cleanses Palestinians.  How else can one characterizes using your troops to prevent Palestinian landowners from living on their privately owned land so settlers can live there? It's ethnic cleansing and apartheid.  I am sure the Afrikkaners didn't like the labels, either, anymore than segregationists in the U.S. South.  Sometimes, it hurts to look in the mirror.  I am sure the Serbians felt justified in their nationalization and following Radovan Karadzic.

What can you to the pictures of the Arab-Israeli bedouins who had their homes destroyed? And you talk of peace as if it is a threat.  We are talking about the human rights of the Palestinian people, and they are human whether Israel accepts that or not.  When I see these homes destroyed, it pains me and angers me. 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TONY RANSOM on January 20, 2011 at 10:18pm

Basil.

It would take volumes to reply to all of these inaccuracies ,so suffice it to say that this is exactly why peace is still not at hand. Now you even have the audacity to bring in the Israeli Bedouin.

 

I just chuckle when someone points out that "rightful owners" canard as if this was somehow the gospel (according to the Palestinians) but in fact even though there is a right to bring these to the Supreme Court in Israel or even to the Hague , no one has done that. WHY? because all they have is those trusty rusted keys but no deeds from either the Ottoman era or the British Mandate days.

 

But woe be to any Jew that either buys the land for the umpteenth time or reclaims it with a deed and evicts people that refuse to pay rent. What nonsensical comparisons.

 

I do object to the nazi comparisons or even to nazi invocations. Was it not Husseini who was a nazi sympathizer?

 

BTW: Just like the Czechs of 1938 so did the Serbs get the short end of the stick just so that Muslims could be appeased. Yet you bring these up . I wonder why?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Basil Keilani on January 20, 2011 at 11:58pm

                                     My family owned land in Palestine, and it was taken by your occupying brethren.  They were 1948 lands.  It certainly was our family's land.  However, that was 1948 lands.

We also lost some land in the West Bank and hope to get it back.   Israel demolished a home on land owned by a family in reference to the above article.  Peace Now, an Israeli group, has said many settlements were built on privately owned Palestinian land.  If Palestinians can't have owned Palestinians because Israeli Jews say so that sounds like the attitude of the Europeans or Spaniards when they took Jewish property.  I guess that was a canard, too.  They couldn't have been property owners, they weren't Protestant or Catholic, and the powers that be said they weren't.  That's the logic you're giving me.

                              As far as Nazi Germany, I think it's valid to bring up the fact that it was a fascist regime that ethnic cleansed people, and during the trials at Nuremberg German officers did use the arguments that the Geneva Convention did not apply to them in certain areas because of questionable sovereignty.  The courts ruled against them.  It's fair to bring them as a precedent.

As far as America allowing Israel to grab more and more West Bank land in the name of Jewish ethnic nationalism does remind people when Germany used that argument with Neville Chamberlain to take Czech land.  What makes Israelis so much better that they can't be doing similar things as German Europeans? Whether it's like the Serbians or Germans in Europe, Israel is depopulating Palestinian areas in favour of making them Jewish just as the Serbians tried and succeeded with the Bosnians

and Germans with Jews, and tried with the Slavs.  It's the reality of your state.

                                  As far as Haj Amin Husseini, the Zionist organization made an agreement with Germany in 1933 called the Ha'avara Agreement.  He was an ally of Hitler, and he supported ethnic cleansing of Jews in the camps.  Yet, you say nothing about Palestinians being ethnically cleansed. Do Husseini's views which formed in the a middle of upheaval in Palestine constitute that Israel's actions are just? I wouldn't defend Husseini as you turn a blind eye to the demolitions of Israel, removing Arabs from East Jerusalem, the West Bank. 

                                   The Bosnians have lost 10s of thousands of people in the Balkans in order for Serbian nationalists to expand.  The Serbians cited Kossovo, 1288 or what have you claiming they are more purely Slavic historically since the Bosnians converted to Islam and tried to claim Bosnians are foreigners just as Israel also says Palestinians are some newcomers because they embraced Arabic as their language and Islam as their religion.  You say that the West Bank used to belong to the ancient Israelites 2,000 years ago whose blood would also be in the local Palestinians.  The Jews of Europe in many cases went to Europe of their own free will to parts of the Roman Empire and settled there.  They didn't all leave en masse.  Many became Palestinian or went to other parts of the Middle East.  Speaking Arabic doesn't negate the rights of the Palestinians. 

                                        I brought up the Czech example because you acted as if whatever the League Nations or Britain said were all fine and innocent to play with the fact that many Arabs as Ahad Ha'am and others knew lived on the land, as if they didn't exist.   They were essentially to be sold and what land was to be taken away was up to debate, but where the homeland would be exactly wasn't certain.  I said well the European powers decided the Czechs should arbitrarily lose their land to Germany.  What powers dictate whether it's colonial powers, occupying powers is not about justice, it's what they can do.  Jews, Muslims, and Christians of Middle Eastern origin lived relatively well together, especially the Jews and Muslims.  This problem is a new creation that came from Europe, and European nationalism. 

                                 At any rate, your government cites WWII when talking about threats.  It refers to Iran and mentions the holocaust in order to conjure up a threat. Netanyahu did that last year.   Threats to Israel are not because Israel is an innocent, peace-making nation.  I don't like Iran, but is nuclear, occupying Israel really so benevolent? It seems more malevolent, than benevolent.  Begin referred to WWII when he invaded Lebanon and it was as if Arafat was Hitler himself.  The result was 10,000 Lebanese civilians or so died and Israeli young boys died in a useless war.  Did they need to die? Netanyahu didn't want to withdraw.  Barak did it.

                               I wish for all people freedom in this world.  If the people of South Sudan want to be independent and it will meaning having true freedom for them, I support it.  No nation or people should be subjugated by another as Israel does. And what happened in World War II and the ramifications are relevant to international law, the Nuremberg trials.  

 

Personally, I can't understand how people think it's okay to demolish homes and say Palestinians can't own land because Ottoman history is not valid history because it's not European Jewish history.  It makes no sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TONY RANSOM on January 21, 2011 at 2:13am

BASIL.

 

Lets just hope that not all Peacemakers are like you. If I were an Israeli and this is what I heard , I would not want to ever to consider giving up land and security and swallow the inaccuracies that you are mouthing . At least have some respect for history and accuracy of what you are stating.

 

It is not Jewish or any other history. Pure fiction.

 

PS. If your family has a deed they certainly can petition the high court in both the Israel pre 1967 and post 1967 territories. Have they done that?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TONY RANSOM on January 21, 2011 at 2:15am

Sussan:

 

You are wrong. Nazis come in all shapes and sizes and nationalities. Look at Husseini!!!!!

 

But comparisons come very easily to some even though highly misplaced.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mika laiho on January 21, 2011 at 2:49pm

Tony :

 

242 tals about the High Contracting parties- Jordan,Syria, Egypt and Israel.

 

++++ Because war was between of them.

 

 

No Palestinian is ever mentioned as they were considered citizens of Jordan.

 

++++ No they are not citizens of Jordan.

 

Yes, the Arabs of that area were dropped as they were absorbed by Jordan and Egypt and had no interest in a country of their own.

 

++++ But by miracle they were in that position 1948 when area was split between jews and arabs of palestine.

 

It is up to the combatants to fix border and not the UN, UK, USA or anyone else.

 

++++ Indeed. And in peacefully, not through war.

 

That is the essence of 242 evn if you fail to understand it. Read Walt Rostow (one of the framers of 242)

 

++++ Also read Lord Caradon. Btw, wasnt Rostow US citizen ? And again, resolution 242 included part from international law, you cant take area through war. Or keep it. Against of will of population of area.

 

The 1949 Armistice lines were to be negotiated into a border as per the insistence of Jordan at that time and reiterated in the UN by them in 1952 and post.

 

++++ Read again those 1949 ceasefire agreements.

Quote : "2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question."

 

Which in the end means, that real borders now, are really 1948 borders. Until Israeli and palestinian names are in paper.

 

 

There is no codified "International Law" thus you have Chechnya, Ingusetia, Falklands, Kyril Islands, Tibet and dozens of other territorial disputes. Not unlike what we have here.

 

++++ Common tactic. Try to look some place else or distract talk elsewhere. Lets still focus in I/P.

 

BTW: The Palestinians appear in 1988 only and not in 1948 or 1967.

 

++++ Common tactic part 2.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 7
• Next ›
• Page