Is this REALLY a peace site or just a way to bash Israel?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Basil Keilani on January 30, 2011 at 8:22pm

                           For me, as a Semite with the blood of the Arameans, Canaanites, Israelites, Arabs, I am a Semite, so I relate to being Semitic.  And not all Jews are Semites.  You can convert to Judaism.  You cannot become a Semite.   I think the old term is also used in modern times to shut down opponents as if one state is above approach because of the tribe or nation that inhabits therein.  

                             Back to the idea of Arab Israelis, you said if you do not have a permit your home will be destroyed.  The point is it's hard to get a permit in many cases if you are an Arab-Israeli and you will have your home possibly destroyed.  This does not happen in Jordan.  A Jordanian won't be denied a permit because he is Christian.  You are trying to compare Black September in 1970 when the PLO was killed by members of the Jordanian army in 1970 to in 2010 when Israel destroyed a whole bedouin village? You claimed Jordan killed hundreds of thousands of people.  Why such a dishonest statement? The maximum number was 20,000 and some said 3,400.  We don't know how many of them were soldiers.   I think Jordan went too far at that time.  It was a civil war.  What civil war exists in Israel leading them in 2010 to destroy a whole bedouin village.  I checked the papers. There is no civil war in 2010 between Arabs and Israelis in Israel. Your point taken that the war in Jordan led to too many excesses and the killings of civilians is definitely something I can accept.  However, getting enough information on what happened is difficult to come by.  You said it happened one one day instead of 11.  Egypt called it genocide at the time. 

                        The land that was to be Israel had an Arab majority so the General Assembly did not state that the Arabs had to be moved out.  What would the Jews of Israel had to do? Ethnic cleanse the Arabs to have their state, and that's what happened.  How was there going to be a state if Jews were the minority.The General Assembly resolution did not give Israel anything.  It only made a recommendation.  It was not a Security Council resolution.  And many of the states that voted yes regretted it. 

                        Again, Jordanians are given more rights than Arab-Israelis.  If you are comparing Jews to Jordanians, then Jews have more rights than Jordanians. However, that's changing.  When you compare Arab-Israelis to Jordanians, it is not the case.  Arab-Israelis can't live in certain places, have a hard time to get a permit.  Are you saying all those Arab-Israelis who I know are crazy and don't know what they deal with all the time? It doesn't make sense.  I will be happy when it becomes easy for Arab-Israelis to live anywhere they want in Israel, to easily get permits even if they are not Jews. I would love to agree with you about Arab-Israelis.  I would love to see you fight against discrimination against Arab-Israelis.  I am against prejudice against Jews and I have had for many years Jewish friends, and I didn't care if someone liked it or not.  Tough luck for them.  However, do I want Arab-Israelis to suffer discrimination? No. Do you?

                          As far as Jews from other areas of the Middle East who suffered is that the fault of Palestinians? No.  It is not.  That is Israel's actions.  I don't support any wrong things that happened to Jews from anywhere whether in Europe or the Middle East.   You are correct that Jews being expelled

and Arabs being expelled has been the consequence of the Arab-Israeli wars.  I agree with you there, and I think it's wrong in both cases. 

 

 

Permalink Reply by TONY RANSOM on January 30, 2011 at 9:24pm

Basil:

 

You are making an illogical circuitous argument. The sequence of events must be adhered to and not just  taking a starting point which seems to be a moving target. The League of Nations gave Britain a Mandate for Palestine to create a National home for JEWS and than went on to break its terms. Lets fast forward to 1947 when the UNGA voted for partition. Jews agreed ,the Arabs did not making that vote null and void and reverting back to the Mandate as the UN assumed all the obligations of the League of Nations.

 

If not for the Arab invasion, there would have been a Arab State in Palestine and as it was it was occupied by Jordan 1948-1967 illegally, I may add by Egypt and Jordan without the Palestinians claiming to be occupied. There were no Palestinians in 1967 and 242 talks about Egypt, Jordan,Syria and Israel (the High Contracting parties)

 

There was terror between 1949 and 1967 emanating from Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon with the idea of Liberating Palestine (namely Israel in its pre 1967 borders) Jordan launched a war in 1967 and lost its occupied territories and subsequently made peace with Israel  agreeing to no claims against Israel. Israel is therefore in possession of disputed lands as you cannot occupy lands that were not sovereign by anyone.

 

The 1967 cease fire lines are not borders but rather demarcation lines at the insistence of Jordan and the Arab League. The populations of Judea and Samaria are in fact Jordanian citizens and must conform to Israeli law there.

 

Until 2000 the Arabs of Judea and Samaria had almost full employment and there were no checkpoints but in 2000 the Palestinians decided to start a shooting war called Intifada.

 

There will not be peace with terror, delligitemizing of Israel, failure to conclude an end of conflict clause and recognition of Israel as a Jewish State. Agree to that and start negotiating. Once you have a state than you will not have to worry about checkpoints and what you call expulsions or demolitions. Until than Israel has a right under International Law to do what it sees fit.

 

 

Permalink Reply by Dan Smith on January 31, 2011 at 3:27pm

I thought you would apprecite this:

an·ti-Sem·ite

 /ˌæntiˈsɛmaɪt, ˌæntaɪ- or, especially Brit., -ˈsimaɪt/ Show Spelled[an-tee-sem-ahyt, an-tahy- or, especially Brit., -see-mahyt] Show IPA

–noun

a person who discriminates against or is prejudiced or hostile toward Jews.

As for equali rights in Jordan:

A report published by the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network states the following:

According to what we have learned in our interviews, although Palestinian refugees have been given Jordanian nationality, they are strongly discriminated against because of their Palestinian origins. In practice, roughly 90% of all government posts, in particular in the army, police, magistracy and the universities are reserved for people of Jordanian origin.

The Jordanians of Palestinian origin appear to be convinced that the authorities look upon them as temporary citizens who shouldn't really be given the right to settle because it is envisaged that they will one day return to Palestine. In his book entitled 'Jordanians, Palestinians and the Hashemite Kingdom', Mr. Adnan Abu-Odeh, a writer and former head of the Jordanian government, explains that although the laws do not advocate any form of discrimination as such, a certain de facto discrimination exists vis-à-vis Palestinians. Some people claim, for example, that the electoral system prevents Jordanians of Palestinian origin from being properly represented in parliament. According to the statements, it would appear that in those areas where Jordanians of Palestinian origin are in the majority, the number of seats up for election is generally less than the number of seats in areas where the majority of people are Jordanian in origin.

 

"Jordanians are given more rights than Arab-Israelis." Do you really believe this? - I guess you have not been following the news lately

I mean they have an Un-elected monarchy - If you speak against him yu can go to prison....

One of the first things I stated is that Israel is not perfect...

"I would love to see you fight against discrimination against Arab-Israelis." - the thing is Arab Israelis dont need my help they should all go out and vote and join the governent then they can make real change - they choose not to utilize the democracy they were given... why is it that 20% of the population in Israel is Arab but only 8% in the Kinneset - they have the tools. 

Please remember that after everything the settlers are people too - many who are living simple lives in an area that the governemnt sent them.  Many living on private Jewish land purchased.... they too deserve right sand should no be discriminated because they are Jewish...

Regarding the expulsion of populations - should the Jews not be equally compensated for them being expelled? The difference is they were not expelled as a consequence of war ...there was no war between the Arab countries and their Jewish populations....

Permalink Reply by Stewart Mills on January 30, 2011 at 1:20pm

Hi Dan,

 

There is difference between Israel bashing and holding a government to account for their actions.  It is a foundation of the democratic system to critically analyse what a state says it stands for and what in fact happens on the ground.

 

I will be the first to say the governments in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, China, Egypt or Iran continue to deny people basic human rights.   The thing is that is no justification for denying Israel to be accountable for her actions in war and in continuing to occupy or lay siege to Palestinian people.

 

As a teacher I am very familiar with students who get caught for doing something wrong try to excuse themselves of responsibility by saying look what someone else is doing.  My response to the student is for them first to focus on their behaviour admit responsibility, so that I can then move on to the other offending students. If that one student continues to argue to avoid responsibility all this means is I have little time or energy to move on to the next offending students.  The point is if you get caught, admit it, then we can move on and try and solve other  problems.  If Israel, despite all the elements of democracy cannot respond to the situation of Palestinians with compassion and justice, then why should we expect anything more of the Egyptians, Saudis or whoever?   

 

Dan, I wish you peace.  I wish your family peace.  And I am sure whether in this generation or the next the people of Israel and Palestine will live together side-by-side as neighbours and friends.  There is so much that the people of Israel and Palestine share in their stories.

 

If you are in Israel I hope you get a chance to catch up with the other mepeace people on the ground so you can share with others their personal stories

 

Shalom Salam Peace

 

Permalink Reply by Dan Smith on January 31, 2011 at 3:31pm

Let me clarify myself - I am not saying Israel is perfect, I am noyt saying they are not wrong because Arab dictators are horrible... I just ask why you are not fighting for Arabs who really have it bad.... Even Palestinians in teh PA - Is they had half the rights of Israeli Arabs they would be thrilled.... It does not seem that anyone cares.

 

Its like constantly complaining that your soup is served cold while people are dying on teh street from starvation... Yes, the soup should be better but look out the window, there is your real problem.  I am am happy to see that finally there are people in the Arab streets who are doing this....

Permalink Reply by Stewart Mills on January 31, 2011 at 8:43pm

Dan, I applaud your honesty about your own government.  In terms of why this issue of injustice and not another. The question in response I would ask is do you agree that sanctions placed on the white South African government in the 80's was a necessary means to bring about regime change and an end to Apartheid?  If you say no, then it will be interesting to hear your response why and what would have been a more appropriate response.  If you say  yes, then it is important to consider that the key arguments against sanctions on South Africa were 1. It is discriminatory to choose sanctions against South Africa when there are greater injustices in the world (eg at the time the argument was about why not place more sanctions on the Soviets or their allies). 2. Sanctions will hurt black South Africans  3. South Africa is a friend in our fight against communism.

 

The argument by those in favour of sanctions was 1. All conventional diplomatic steps had been tried with no substantial reform form the white South African government. 2. South Africa is dependent on the West economically and culturally and thus sanctions would make an impact on the government in contrast to those other nations of concern. 3. South Africa was a friend and if a friend did not change what grounds could be used to show other nations of concern (or greater concern) that implementation of fundamental human rights for all citizens were an essential part of the community of nations.  

 

The soup analogy - 1. Yes, the scale of human beings suffering in Palestine is significantly less than suffering in the Congo, or North Korea.  But Palestinians are still suffering and dying on the streets and that is a reason to act.  2. Actions are not mutually exclusive.  You can raise concerns about the plight of Palestinians, Jewish-Israelis, Palestinian-Israelis, Christians in Egypt, Muslims in Egypt, the situation in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, West Papua, Australia, the US, Mexico, wherever.  Time is one limiting factor as is knowledge and personal priorities.  

 

As a European Australian who grew up in a community with Aboriginal Australians and European Australians I see many parallels in negative attitudes between both communities and in both Israel and Australia.  As a means to silence dissent (or for reasons of not understanding why other people act the way they do other than for some contrived false allegation of anti-Semitism)  there will be those who say mind your own business and sort out your own problems before coming to 'us'.   ALternatively, the approach is people act because they do not like see suffering and they want others to find peace.  I agree with Uri Avnery and others who would see that apart purely from the moral position, practically if Jewish-Israelis want peace then they need to understand why Palestinians feel aggrieved.  The old mantra of the Arabs this and the Aarbs that..(insert your negative racial stereotype) has not helped Israel one step towards peace.

 

A fresh and honest approach is required.  Certainly guns and bombs are no solution. Generosity, compassion, empathy these are the keys to freedom. The sooner our leaders learn this , the sooner Israelis and Palestinians can live as neighbours in peace.

 

 

http://palestineisraelterrorism.blogspot.com/

 

 

Permalink Reply by TONY RANSOM on January 31, 2011 at 9:17pm

STEWART.

I did ask how you are trying to redress the evils in Australia and in other parts of the world. But Alas I did not rate a reply ,it would seem. You seem to be too busy and pre-occupied with the Palestinians to the exclusion of others.

 

Your analogy with South Africa and apartheid is extremely misplaced and disingenuous. If you were truly interested in the Palestinians or even the Arabs as a whole you would be screaming blue murder at what Hamas is doing to their own men and women and children. But again you are too busy exposing the evil Jews of Israel to notice anything wrong. You see nothing wrong with the murder of tourists by terrorists even though they may have been mistaken for Jews.

 

Yes, thee may be a time when Israelis and Arabs will live in peace but it is their decision and not your place to interfere. Your experience and history is not sufficient to replace their judgment with yours.

 

PS: There is no government in this world that I would not disagree with at one time or another but the Israeli government is responsible to their electorate ans not to me or to you or anyone else no matter who they are.

Permalink Reply by Sussan on February 1, 2011 at 8:14am

The Israeli government receives unconditional support from the UN and US. That is what makes Israel is the most urgent human rights issue.

Sudan never had UN support. The Sudanese atrocities were very serious. Yet, comparatively, it has taken minimal effort to resolve them.

Your argument that:
‘there may be a time when Israelis and Arabs will live in peace but it is their decision and not your place to interfere’, is nonsense. Everyone knows that Israel is 100% responsible for the plight of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

 
A United Nations that makes ethical decisions is desperately needed. An end to the fundamental lack of integrity within the highest echelons of the United Nations will greatly benefit every vulnerable country.

Palestine is the best example there will ever be of the disgraceful corruption within the UN, because the UN has thoroughly documented every step of this corruption.

Permalink Reply by Dan Smith on February 1, 2011 at 12:43pm

"The Israeli government receives unconditional support from the UN and US. That is what makes Israel is the most urgent human rights issue." REALLY?

 

United Nations Security Council resolutions

See also: United Nations Security Council resolution

1. Resolution 42: The Palestine Question (5 March 1948) Requests recommendations for the Palestine Commission
2. Resolution 43: The Palestine Question (1 Apr 1948) Recognizes "increasing violence and disorder in Palestine" and requests that representatives of "the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the Arab Higher Committee" arrange, with the Security Council, "a truce between the Arab and Jewish Communities of Palestine...Calls upon Arab and Jewish armed groups in Palestine to cease acts of violence immediately."
3. Resolution 44: The Palestine Question (1 Apr 1948) Requests convocation of special session of the General Assembly
4. Resolution 46: The Palestine Question (17 Apr 1948) As the United Kingdom is the Mandatory Power, "it is responsible for the maintenance of peace and order in Palestine." The Resolutions also "Calls upon all persons and organizations in Palestine" to stop importing "armed bands and fighting personnel...whatever their origin;...weapons and war materials;...Refrain, pending the future government of Palestine...from any political activity which might prejudice the rights, claims, or position of either community;...refrain from any action which will endager the safety of the Holy Places in Palestine."
5. Resolution 48: April 23, 1948, calls on all concerned parties to comply with UNSC Resolution 46 and establishes a Truce Commission for Palestine to assist the SC in implementing the truce. Approved 8-0, abstentions from Colombia, Ukrainian SSR and USSR.
6. Resolution 49: May 22, 1948 issues a cease-fire order to come into effect at noon, May 24, 1948, New York time. Orders the Truce Commission for Palestine previously set up to report on compliance. Passed by 8-0, abstentions from Ukrainian SSR, USSR and Syria.
7. Resolution 50: May 29, 1948, calls for a four week ceasefire covering Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Transjordan and Yemen. Urges all to protect the Holy Places and Jerusalem. Offers the UN Mediator as many military observers as necessary. Further violations and the Council would consider action under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Adopted in parts; no voting on the resolution as a whole.
8. Resolution 53: The Palestine Question (7 Jul 1948)
9. Resolution 54: The Palestine Question (15 Jul 1948)
10. Resolution 56: The Palestine Question (19 Aug 1948)
11. Resolution 57: The Palestine Question (18 Sep 1948)
12. Resolution 59: The Palestine Question (19 Oct 1948)
13. Resolution 60: The Palestine Question (29 Oct 1948)
14. Resolution 61: The Palestine Question (4 Nov 1948)
15. Resolution 62: The Palestine Question (16 Nov 1948)
16. Resolution 66: The Palestine Question (29 Dec 1948)
17. Resolution 72: The Palestine Question (11 Aug 1949)
18. Resolution 73: The Palestine Question (11 Aug 1949)
19. Resolution 89 (17 November 1950): regarding Armistice in 1948 Arab-Israeli War and "transfer of persons".
20. Resolution 92: The Palestine Question (8 May 1951)
21. Resolution 93: The Palestine Question (18 May 1951)
22. Resolution 95: The Palestine Question (1 Sep 1951)
23. Resolution 100: The Palestine Question (27 Oct 1953)
24. Resolution 101: The Palestine Question (24 Nov 1953)
25. Resolution 106: The Palestine Question (29 Mar 1955) 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid.
26. Resolution 107: The Palestine Question (30 March)
27. Resolution 108: The Palestine Question (8 September)
28. Resolution 111: The Palestine Question (January 19, 1956) " ... 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
29. Resolution 113: The Palestine Question (4 April)
30. Resolution 114: The Palestine Question (4 June)
31. Resolution 127: The Palestine Question (January 22, 1958) " ... 'recommends' Israel suspends its 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
32. Resolution 138: (June 23, 1960) Question relating to the case of Adolf Eichmann, concerning Argentine complaint that Israel breached its sovereignty.
33. Resolution 162: The Palestine Question (April 11, 1961) " ... 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
34. Resolution 171: The Palestine Question (April 9, 1962) " ... determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
35. Resolution 228: The Palestine Question (November 25, 1966) " ... 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
36. Resolution 233 Six Day War (June 6, 1967)
37. Resolution 234 Six Day War (June 7, 1967)
38. Resolution 235 Six Day War (June 9, 1967)
39. Resolution 236 Six Day War (June 11, 1967)
40. Resolution 237: Six Day War June 14, 1967) " ... 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
41. Resolution 240 (October 25, 1967): concerning violations of the cease-fire
42. Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967): Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area. Calls on Israel's neighbors to end the state of belligerency and calls upon Israel to reciprocate by withdraw its forces from land claimed by other parties in 1967 war. Interpreted commonly today as calling for the Land for peace principle as a way to resolve Arab-Israeli conflict
43. Resolution 248: (March 24, 1968) " ... 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
44. Resolution 250: (April 27) " ... 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
45. Resolution 251: (May 2) " ... 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
46. Resolution 252: (May 21) " ... 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
47. Resolution 256: (August 16) " ... 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
48. Resolution 258: (September 18)
49. Resolution 259: (September 27) " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
50. Resolution 262: (December 31) " ... 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
51. Resolution 265: (April 1, 1969) " ... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on Salt, Jordan".
52. Resolution 267: (July 3) " ... 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
53. Resolution 270: (August 26) " ... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
54. Resolution 271: (September 15) " ... 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
55. Resolution 279: (May 12, 1970) "Demands the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory."(full text)
56. Resolution 280: (May 19) " ... 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
57. Resolution 285: (September 5) " ... 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
58. Resolution 298: (September 25, 1971) " ... 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
59. Resolution 313: (February 28, 1972) " ... 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
60. Resolution 316: (June 26) " ... 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
61. Resolution 317: (July 21) " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
62. Resolution 331: (April 20, 1973)
63. Resolution 332: (April 21) " ... 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
64. Resolution 337: (August 15) " ... 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity and for the forcible diversion and seizure of a Lebanese airliner from Lebanon's air space".
65. Resolution 338 (22 October 1973): " ...'calls' for a cease fire" in Yom Kippur War and "the implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts", and "Decides that, immediately and concurrently with the cease-fire, negotiations shall start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East."
66. Resolution 339 (23 October 1973): Confirms Res. 338, dispatch UN observers.
67. Resolution 340 (25 October): "Demands that immediate and complete cease-fire be observed, per 338 and 339, and requests to increase the number of United Nations military observers
68. Resolution 341 (27 October): "Approves the report on the implementation resolution 340
69. Resolution 344 (15 December)
70. Resolution 346 (April 8, 1974)
71. Resolution 347: (April 24)" ... 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
72. Resolution 350 (31 May 1974) established the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, to monitor the ceasefire between Israel and Syria in the wake of the Yom Kippur War.
73. Resolution 362 (October 23) decides to extend the mandate of the United Nations Emergency Force for another six months
74. Resolution 363 (November 29), regarding the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force
75. Resolution 368 (April 17, 1975)
76. Resolution 369 (May 28, 1975)
77. Resolution 371
78. Resolution 378
79. Resolution 381
80. Resolution 390
81. Resolution 396
82. Resolution 398
83. Resolution 408
84. Resolution 416
85. Resolution 420
86. Resolution 425 (1978): " ... 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon". Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon was completed by 16 June 2000.
87. Resolution 426
88. Resolution 427: " ... 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon".
89. Resolution 429
90. Resolution 434
91. Resolution 438
92. Resolution 441
93. Resolution 444: " ... 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
94. Resolution 446 (1979): 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
95. Resolution 449
96. Resolution 450: " ... 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
97. Resolution 452: " ... 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
98. Resolution 456
99. Resolution 459
100. Resolution 465: " ... 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
101. Resolution 467: " ... 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
102. Resolution 468: " ... 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
103. Resolution 469: " ... 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians".
104. Resolution 470
105. Resolution 471: " ... 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
     .
     .
     .
     .

    225..Resolution 1860 (9 January 2009) called for the full cessation of war between Israel and Hamas.

Everyone knows that Israel is 100% responsible for the plight of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. - Palestinians play great victims but they only have their Arab brethern to blame - otherwise they would have had a state over 60 years ago.

Susan seriously, I dont understand your arguments.....

 

 

 

Permalink Reply by Dan Smith on February 1, 2011 at 6:03am

Hi,

  I think your comparision to south Africa is not very accurate... Black residents of South Africa did not have rights Arab Citizens of Israel have full rights... The question comes down to the Arabs living outside Israel proper in teh disputer terriitories... Of them 90% lives are no longer controlled on a daily basis by Israel but by the PA, so you see the comparison falls flat.

 

Also, Israel is not a colonizing force that took over a new land, they are coming back to

a homeland wich was once theirs and have even been supported in the UN resolution as to this

matter...

 

Regarding the soup analogy, forget about Congo, Saudi Arabia... what about the Palestinians themselves?  The ones living under Arab rule - they have little rights, minorities are persecuted, journalist were recently jailed for speaking out against Abas.  This is an overwhelliming majority of the Arabs living under "occupation", they are occupied by the PA and Hamas...

 

As we can see in recent poles, more Arabs in East Jerusalem would rather stay under the "horrible occupation" then live under a "free Palestine".. I am just not sure why this is not an issue for you.  OK, tomorrow there is no occupation all Palestinians are free.  Of course there is no freedom of the press, broad persecution of minorites, tourture and very limited human rights... what have you accomplished..

 

The discussion regarding Peace between Israel and Palestinians is practically about land and a state,like I mentioned they are mostly ruled by Arabs already, why not try to make their lives better?  Why excuse or ignore it?  Why accept racist rules like Anyone whio sells land to Jews will be put to death?

 

Is this the future you want?

Permalink Reply by Adekunle Tinuoye on January 31, 2011 at 11:02am

In as much as i share similar passions for peace in the MIDDLE EAST,your noticing only the horrible hate and anti-semetic rants that go on here. Dehumanizing Israel, Jews, settlers, comparisons to the Nazis could cast a question mark on your objectivity,!, why not from the other side too to the arabs? I agree with you that peace cannot equal hate, but the fact is that both parties must learn the imperative and essence of peace and the need to sheathe the sword ! Tunisians, yemenis and egyptions are simply exercising their fundamental human dn civl rights by canvassing for enthronement of democracy and the implementation of basic democratic tenets in their respective countries( a global phenomenon) which is not the same thing as demanding for the same rights given to all Isreal citizens like you postulated. A lasting solution is would be the resumption of peace talks, this time in or with good faith, it might sound simplistic, but unless both parties are willing to sit down no hold barred, negotiate, bargain, dialogue honestly and sincerely and make the necessary concessions and compromises, peace might continue to elude them. A step in this direction would be an open cessation in all forms of hostilities either directly, indirectly through proxies between the two parties. LET THEM WALK THIS TALK. Finally, i concur with DAN THAT LETS BE CONSTRUCTIVE AND PROFFER PRAGMATIC SOLUTIONS

Permalink Reply by Dan Smith on January 31, 2011 at 3:33pm

I agree and appreciate your positive comments.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 6
• Next ›
• Page