Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumYair Lapid, surprise of the Israeli election
The big surprise of this election was undoubtedly former journalist Yair Lapid. The last polls published before election day showed his Yesh Atid party getting about 12 seats. But last night television exit polls showed him getting 19, making him the second-largest party in the Knesset, contrary to all expectations, and significantly changing the likely composition of the next government.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/israeli-elections-2013/israeli-elections-news-features/yair-lapid-surprise-of-the-israeli-election-1.495710
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Yesh's position on the two-state solution is totally self-contradictory...it claims to favor a two-state solution, but insists at the same time on keeping the major settlement blocs, even though doing so would make a two-state solution impossible.
shira
(30,109 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And, in any case, why is keeping those settlement blocs MORE important than ending the war?
shira
(30,109 posts)As for the issue of Jerusalem, the Israeli official said that the solution should be based on the initiative that was presented by former U.S. President, Bill Clinton, calling for handing control of Arab neighborhoods to the Palestinians, while Jewish areas in occupied East Jerusalem remain under full Israeli control. Holy sites in the city should be under international control, she said.
http://www.imemc.org/article/64292
The settlement blocs aren't the reason the war persists. If they were, the PA would have made it perfectly clear since 2000 that the blocs were the main obstacle in negotiations.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If they weren't a major cause for the continuation of the war, no Palestinian leader would want them removed. The Palestinians don't oppose the settlements out of any reason other than that they hate the fact that THEIR land was taken. They'd feel the same way if Israel was a Scottish Presbyterian state...or a Mormon state...or a Massachusetts Unitarian state...or just a subsidiary of Haliburton.
shira
(30,109 posts)...about Syrian Palestinians.
And there were no settlements prior to the 70's. The PLO still wanted Israel dead.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)under any circumstances, with Israel...than all you've done is make the case for permanent war...and sense permanent war can't really be justified anywhere, for ANY cause at all, you've made the case for reducing Zionism to territorial nihilism.
You've yet to explain how holding onto the settlement blocs can possibly make the Palestinian side change its tactics or its views...and you certainly haven't made a case for how holding onto the settlement blocs could possibly make Palestinians accept Israel if they DON'T accept it now, or lead to peace where it doesn't exist now...so why defend something that we both know can't have any possible results?
It's not "moderate" to put holding somebody else's land BEFORE ending a war.
And I'll thank you to stop accusing me of supporting full RoR when I don't. Supporting RoR for the elders of '48, with compensation,apologies and acknowledgment of wrongs done for the rest, doesn't equate to supporting full RoR OR supporting BDS.
shira
(30,109 posts)....that means nothing short of full RoR will do, and the conflict will continue indefinitely. In no way does the PLO want peace when they're so willing to see 10's of thousands of Palestinians die.....and for what?
How much clearer could Abbas and the PA get for you?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Situation: Lots of Palestinian refugees are coming under fire in Syria and are (understandably) running for htier lives.
PA's reaction: Asked the UN to ask member states to open their borders to let these people seek refuge.
Israel's response: "They can't come to Israel, and they can only come to the West Bank if they forgo any and all future claims to their own rights. otherwise they can die in the desert."
Do you understand that Shira? Does that sink through your skull? Israel's response to a humanitarian crisis, was to exploit the victims for its own gain, and leave them to face death if they didn't fork over what Israel wanted. Israel saw thousands of people fleeing from death and carnage, and decided to hold a gun to their head from the other side of the border and go "yeah, but what's in it for me?"
That's what Israel did, Shira. That was all Israel. That was the nation you praise to the high heavens, attempting to mug people fleeing for their lives. Where the rest of the world saw desperate people trying to escape with their hides intact, Israel saw opportunity.
Interestingly, Abbas was not, as you claim, content to "let them die," and kept up the pressure to get them into the West bank without having to make a payout, which has - he claims - succeeded.
You've got to be pretty fucking low to give refugees a shakedown, in my book.
shira
(30,109 posts)You'd rather attack Israel.
Where's your outrage and utter contempt for Abbas WRT 10's of thousands of Palestinian lives? How about for other Arab regimes (including Hamas) that have treated Palestinians 100x worse (real, genuine apartheid) than Israel treats its Arab population? Are those Palestinians not human enough? Do you only show concern for Palestinians and voice your outrage if Israel can be blamed?
You can't be bothered by the Arab world's utter abuse of Palestinian refugees. Makes me think you loathe Palestinians every bit as much as they do.
Which reminds me of the following....and feel free to disagree and/or explain yourself:
The question is: are the current opponents of Israel simply ‘pro-Palestinian’ or ‘humanitarian’ (as they claim) – or are they prejudicially anti-Israeli? If Israel was not Jewish (but the creation of some other ethnic group) would reactions to it be the same? The empirical facts are the following. When Palestinians are subject to similar or worse sufferings due to the actions of other Arabs or Moslems (for example, when thousands of them were killed in Jordan in September 1970, or more recently in 2007, during the bombardment of a ‘Palestinian’ refugee camp by Lebanese forces trying to destroy a terrorist group there), the public outcry is much smaller or non-existent. When similar or worse sufferings happen to Jews by the hand of Palestinians (women and children deliberately killed by terrorists) or to other peoples elsewhere (for example, the Darfur minority in the Sudan), again the public outcry is noticeably less or almost nil.
The reactions to Israel are evidently out of all proportion, compared to usual reactions. Such observable discrepancies clearly and irrefutably prove that anti-Israeli sentiments are rooted in anti-Semitism and nothing else, for a majority Jewish population is the distinguishing mark of the Jewish State. The importance of this argument cannot be exaggerated: the evidence at hand proves the true cause. However much anti-Israelis protest their objectivity and even-handedness, their actions speak louder than their words: their basic motive is manifestly anti-Jewish racism and their reactions are manifestly based on double-standards.
They protest that “it is surely possible to criticize the Israeli government’s behavior without being an anti-Semite” – but the question they do not answer, note well, is: how come that criticism is so much more virulent than the criticism towards other countries or peoples for comparable behavior? Criticism is legitimate – but unfair criticism, criticism using double standards, is not legitimate. If all humans are equal in their hearts, then their indignation, anger and hatred should be commensurate with actual events. For instance, if a couple of thousand Palestinians die in anti-terrorist operations, while 400,000 Darfur people die in ethnic cleansing operations – the emotions aroused by the latter events should objectively be at least 200 times more intense than in the former. Yet the opposite occurs. This proves double standards are involved.
http://www.thelogician.net/5_other_writings/5_zionism.htm
You keep bringing up Zionist racism, Shira and her neo-con friends here hate Palestinians, pro-Israel people are bigots, yada, yada......but you do not recognize you're no better than those you accuse of racism, hatred, and bigotry.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)But he's not the one who demanded that people fleeing for their lives cough up a political advantage for Israel or else, was he? He's also kept trying to get those people to safety, despite his shitty remark.
shira
(30,109 posts)And you're trying to minimize/whitewash what Abbas is all about.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)A shitty remark paired with continued efforts to give these people refuge, does not compare with demanding a shakedown of those people under duress.
Think of it this way. Who in Jewish history is worse, the Zionists who decried the notion of "refugeeism," or the opportunist gentiles who demanded those refugees hand over billfolds and pull out gold teeth before they could get on the boat?
shira
(30,109 posts)For that matter, Palestinian refugees are rotting away in camps throughout the mideast - in apartheid conditions - but this doesn't phase you.
Why?
Is it because Israel can't be blamed for that, so you don't care about those Palestinians?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Sometimes the truth slips out.
shira
(30,109 posts)Why aren't the anti-Israel humanist, so-called pro-Palestinians vocal in their opposition to this?
You guys have been silent for 65 years now.
Why?
http://www.thelogician.net/5_other_writings/5_zionism.htm
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Is Israel part of the Mid East, or are you now realizing your Freudian Schlep?
"Why aren't the anti-Israel humanist, so-called pro-Palestinians vocal in their opposition to this? You guys have been silent for 65 years now."
Shira, my friend. I am only in my mid 40s, and I am not anti-Israel because I criticize Israel. We have been down this winding road of your before. it's time you straitened it out, and stopped with the accusations.
I'm not sure why you would point to a theological site when concerned with humanists, but I guess that is the way to find some justification to label critics as anti-Israel or anti-Jewish as the snippit proclaims.
shira
(30,109 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)It wasn't a deflection. It was the truth.
So why would you say "Palestinian refugees are rotting away in camps throughout the mideast - in apartheid" (Israel is part of the Mid East) and then try to backtrack to mean everybody else except for Israel?
Now that is deflection, pure and simple.
shira
(30,109 posts)Did you know there are no Palestinian refugee camps in Israel where they rot away for over 6 decades?
Your turn.
Feel free to deflect and not answer the question again.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Israel holds the keys. They invite themselves in when they want to. They take the land they want: security zones and settlements. They wall in the Palestinians any way they see fit, and now there is a drive by some to take even these things away and make it part of greater Israel. And some say that they have just as much of a right to those lands as Palestinians do: creating the groundwork for more refugees to be the problem of some other country to be scapegoated later.
And some try to excuse these problems: make it all about somebody else or some other country's mistake.
Yes, there are Palestinian refugee camps. Who helped these people become refugees in the first place? Who drove them out? Why weren't they let back in?
The UN has a pretty good description of refugees.
Article 1 of the Convention as amended by the 1967 Protocol provides the definition of a refugee:
"A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.."[6]
The UN and the international community see this while loyalists are blind to it: making Palestinians strangers in their own house.
"Feel free to deflect and not answer the question again."
Odd tap dance you have there. Israel seems to have some responsibility to these refugees, but will not bother to either acknowledge it or make amends in ROR for some.
Yes, we know the tired response of some. If Israel takes any refugees back then there will be no Israel. I see that as showing cowardice, greed, genuine apathy for human rights and international law.
Care to keep on kicking that trash down the road and blaming others for it?
shira
(30,109 posts)So please desist from putting words into my mouth. I know what I wrote and I'm sure you had your kicks trying so hard to to turn my words against me, but it's not working. Maybe some other time....
The sad fact of the matter is that those refugee camps all outside of Israel, run by UNWRA which is part of the UN, are housing refugees under Arab regimes that force them to live in apartheid conditions. I know that you so badly want to accuse Israel of same, in yet another attempt to deflect from a heinously vile action that has been going on for over 6 decades (under corrupt UN auspices), but I won't allow you to do so.
This attempt at role reversal - for each crime the Arabs or Palestinians commit, make Israel guilty of it - is a FAIL for you.
R.Daneel, my poor dear friend, you really, really need to make up your mind on these refugees. In one post you say they should get to live in the Gaza and W.Bank and not Israel, but in another post you blame Israel for not allowing them into Israel. So which is it? Do you want them in the territories or in Israel? I wish you'd make up your mind. Israel has no say in bringing in refugees from the greater Arab world and into the W.Bank, and especially Gaza (who could easily import them in through Egypt's border if they gave a shit about their fellow Palestinians).
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)I was very clear in what I wrote, Shira.
"Israel seems to have some responsibility to these refugees, but will not bother to either acknowledge it or make amends in ROR for some."
I am on record as stating that the West bank and Palestinian territories should absorb Palestinians that want to come home, but I am surprised (not really) by Israel's refusal to let any Palestinians into the WB unless they sign an agreement first foregoing any claim on ROR. That action is callous.
Israel holds responsibility for what it has done to the WB, and Israeli settlers there have to go home to Israel. After that there will be plenty of space to accommodate Palestinian refugees.
And as for putting words in your mouth, my friend, I put what you write in quotes so there is no misunderstanding.
But lets get back to all the things that you sidestepped or ignored\, shall we?
And some try to excuse these problems: make it all about somebody else or some other country's mistake.
Yes, there are Palestinian refugee camps. Who helped these people become refugees in the first place? Who drove them out? Why weren't they let back in?
The UN has a pretty good description of refugees.
Article 1 of the Convention as amended by the 1967 Protocol provides the definition of a refugee:
"A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.."
shira
(30,109 posts)You'll notice, if you take the time to look, that the UN's definition of a refugee does not match in any way UNRWA's definition of a refugee. The former does not recognize endless generations of descendants as refugees. The latter doesn't even explain what it takes for them to lose their refugee status.
You want to blame Israel for the original 1948 refugees, have at it.
But if you're disgusted by all severe violations of human rights, I expect a little more out of you WRT the role of Arab regimes and UNWRA in making the lives of refugees in camps so miserable the past 6 decades. They're cynically used and abused as political pawns. And for one nefarious purpose that all Arab regimes freely and very publicly admit.
Instead, I see nothing from you. No specific condemnation.
Just sanctimony WRT the refugees plight.
================================
One more thing...
On refugees, Israel made 2 offers at Lausanne in 1949. One that would take in 270,000 Palestinians and another that would take in 100,000.
to Israel, contingent upon Arab agreement to a comprehensive peace, and to resettlement of the remaining refugees in Arab countries. Israel also put forward a proposal called the "Gaza Plan," whereby Israel would repatriate some 200,000 refugees and 70,000 Arabs in Gaza as citizens if Egypt would relinquish control of Gaza Strip to Israel, and the international community would provide aid for refugee resettlement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lausanne_Conference,_1949
What do you think of that?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The Knesset is not solely Jewish. In Israel, non-Jewish residents are free.
They are probably freer than are Christians in Egypt or Saudi Arabia.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Did them a lot of good, I hear.
Neat trick, how 20% of the population has 9% representation in the government, while the remaining 91% acts in opposition against them.
Casting a ballot does not equate democracy. Ask an Iraqi about that.
sabbat hunter
(6,828 posts)how the Israeli electoral system works. Not all Israeli Arabs vote for the Arab parties.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Majority rule equates democracy.
Minorities have their rights -- to participate in the democracy.
Thank God, majorities rule. Because if the majority did not rule in the US, we too would have a fundamentalist theocracy like they have in Saudi Arabia or Egypt or a number of other Middle Eastern countries. Perhaps including Israel.
The vast majority of British are Protestant. The vast majority of the British Parliament are Protestant. Does that mean that minority groups like Catholics or Muslims don't have rights? No. It simply means that the majority wins the most seats and therefore rules.
In Bavaria, Catholics are the majority. Same in Italy. That is majority rule. That is democracy.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Typical Zionist, I guess; the more Jews suffer, the happier a Zionist is, after all.
shira
(30,109 posts)....who know they're being cynically used as political pawns and know they are not returning to Israel would choose - like any other human being on the planet - to live under more normal conditions rather than apartheid.
Dont'cha think?
From a typical Palestinian's POV, a normal life trumps living under apartheid with no future hoping for the impossible (RoR).
It is you and your lot in the UN who insist on keeping them under apartheid conditions in order to realize the vile, wet dreams of Hamas, the PLO, Syria, and other inhumane regimes that use Palestinians as political pawns in order to attack Israel.
Haven't these refugees suffered enough w/o you and your lot exploiting them?
Show some mercy.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Ironically while accusing others of exploiting them. And pretending to have a problem with it.
shira
(30,109 posts)That by signing a piece of paper they hereby accept that they're not allowed to be used and abused as political pawns in order to destroy Israel demographically?
Please.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)even being allowed to enter the West Bank?
If it wanted those folks to get used to living in the West Bank, why not just LET them live there without preconditions?
Why couldn't Israel put the right to survival of those people BEFORE a demand that was, at that moment, totally inappropriate and beside the point?
These people are trying to get out of a war. If they got to the West Bank, they'd want a hot shower, a decent meal, and perhaps medical care. It's not as though, if they didn't have to renounce RoR as a precondition of entering the West Bank, that they'd just instantly become suicide bombers. It's not as if, without group renounciation, they'd all march straight to over to the Fatah or Hamas recruiting offices.
And it's not as though MAKING them renounce RoR would STOP SYrian Pals who wanted to join Hamas, Fatah or some crazier group from doing so. Why on Earth would you ever think renounciation would have such an effect, anyway?
If Abbas only wanted the Pal refugees from Syria to come home and be armed troublemakers, wouldn't he just agree to the renounciation and them hand them weapons a minute later?
Israel's leaders had a chance to put common humanity first. Instead, they put an arbitrary demand ahead of common humanity. And not only an arbitrary demand, but a useless demand at that, since if those people put the destruction of Israel before everything else, they'd agree to it and then become terrorists anyway-that's the kind of thing such people do.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Why indeed.
shira
(30,109 posts)Are you more outraged at Israel WRT refugees signing off on RoR than you are Abbas, who says they're better off dead than doing that?
Please don't deflect.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)That it wouldn't make any difference in how they acted once back in the West Bank, and wouldn't STOP anybody who wanted to become a terrorist from becoming one?
And do you think NOT renouncing RoR would make it any more difficult for the IDF to round them up or kill them?
It's not as if getting that renounciation would create some sort of magical powers of control over these guys.
Why do you think that making these folks renounce RoR is going to actually make them behave differently? Why do you think it would change anything at all?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)in the least. I also don't agree with what Israel is doing by demanding that any refugee sign a waiver against ror. I'm not a big proponent of ror to Israel. Not in the least.
Outrage? No. I think that both sides are dimwits. Abbas should let the refugees in, and Israel should move their settlers out.
The question is not who is the most asinine when both sides act that way. But, you know I can see both sides clearly from where I sit.
shira
(30,109 posts)....who let his mask slip, stating it's better they die than renounce RoR?
Please answer with a yes or no.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I just proved that agreeing to renounce RoR wouldn't actually have STOPPED any of those people from becoming terrorists if that's what they wanted to become and if that's what Abbas wanted them there for. They'd sign the papers and then grab the rifles or the bombs.
Renouncing RoR wouldn't make those people ACT any differently if they did get to the West Bank...therefore, it was pointless and useless for Israel to make that demand. Renouncing RoR wasn't going to force the Syrian Pal refugees to become Gandhian saints.
I am against all terrorism...I'm also against delusions, though. And the notion that getting those folks to renounce RoR would have made them act any differently towards Israel is delusional. Making them renounce RoR wouldn't have changed ANYTHING those folks were going to do or be able to do.
Can't you see that?
shira
(30,109 posts)You're not outraged at the way Palestinians are treated by the PLO or Hamas.
Or for that matter, how they're treated (in apartheid conditions) throughout the Arab mideast.
Why?
http://www.thelogician.net/5_other_writings/5_zionism.htm
Care to explain that?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Why was GETTING that renounciation from the Syrian Pals so bloody important? It's not as if getting it BEFORE they were allowed to enter the West Bank would actually make any difference on anything at all.
(It would actually have been more cynical had Abbas agreed to that, and then, as he easily could have done, recruited the refugees to join the armed struggle anyway...and it would have been impossible to stop him doing that, because renouncing RoR wouldn't have stopped him from doing that or even slowed him down, were that his intent).
The demand that the Syrian Pal refugees renounce RoR before being allowed to not live in Israel is absurd on the face ot it...and useless in terms of any practical effects.
It wouldn't STOP any of those who wanted to join an armed group from doing so...it wouldn't make Israel any more OR less secure...and it wouldn't affect in any way at all the IDF's capacity to enforce the Occupation.
Why not let the RoR issue be PART of a real negotiating process...something that could be compromised on in exchange for getting something else? Why does it have to be TOTALLY given up before any talks can even start?
Would it really be intolerable for Israel to accept RoR just for the remaining elders of '48? Obviously, Palestinians all know that they won't ALL get to go back...but why demand that even their elders can't go back, unless their return is treated not as a right but simply a special privilege given on sufferance?
Look at Netanyahu's preconditions...the settlement blocs made permanent...IDF control of the Jordan Valley made eternal. Palestine NEVER to be given control of its own airspace or even its own water supply...if a Palestinian leadership were to accept ALL of those things, what else would there even be to talk about? There wouldn't be enough contiguous territory for a real state and Palestinian sovereignty would always be conditional, never absolute. Nobody, anywhere, would EVER enter any negotiations on those terms...because anybody asked to do so would realize they were agreeing to negotiate their own country's stillbirth.
And I'm not an anti-Zionist, so I don't bear the responsibility of entering a loaded dialogue about what anti-Zionists do or do not believe. Why do you insist on dragging accusations of antisemitism into virtually EVERY discussion in this group? Are you EVER going to stop beating that not only dead, but mummified horse?
Whatever people might have thought in 1970, the issue with what Israel does to Palestinians is now totally divorced from Israel's stated identity. Today, people condemn the Occupation because they genuinely see the Palestinians as an oppressed people...and they would do so no matter what. Why is it so important to you to keep denying that anyone could have any legitimate or genuinely humanist reasons for caring about this? What GOOD comes of denying that? And what good would possibly come of everybody doing what you REALLY want, taking Israel's side against the Palestinians and spending twenty-four hours a day denouncing Palestine for not being a land of Gandhian saints?
What, in the end, would that achieve? It wouldn't make life better for Palestinians...it wouldn't make life better for Israelis...and it wouldn't make anything better for anybody else anywhere else.
shira
(30,109 posts)What kind of humane reply is that? How is your position any different than Abbas'?
Death to 10's of thousands of Palestinians is not as bad as revoking RoR?
Un-freaking-believable.
Now if Naftali Bennett says it's best that 10's of thousands of Palestinians die, would you say that's worse than Netanyahu's conditions?
I'm certain you would.
See the contradiction in your outrage? Much more virulent WRT Israelis than Palestinians.
=====================
As to Netanyahu, he's giving Syrian refugees a way out of the camps and into a more normal life. Call it cynical, but that's what would result. They're not getting RoR anyway so they may as well get on with life about as normally as they can - without the apartheid conditions of Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It isn't worth it because making them renounce RoR wouldn't change anything they did or COULD do once they got back to Palestine. Why make a totally useless demand, shira? What DIFFERENCE, as you see it, would it make if they DID agree to renounce RoR in exchange for being allowed to enter the West Bank? Do you actually think that such a renounciation would prevent someone with inclinations to join the armed struggle from doing so? If it wouldn't do that(and we both KNOW it wouldn't)than what, might I ask, is the point?
I wouldn't actually have minded if Abbas had agreed to the demand, for whatever it's worth...as I've shown, he COULD have agreed to that and then sent them all straight down to the Al-Aksa recruiting office, since agreeing to that renounciation is utterly meaningless in practical terms...I just don't know why making him agree to it was so important to since it obviously wouldn't make any difference in anything at all. The demand was silly...as is any demand that can't have practical positive results.
Why are you so obsessed with getting TOTAL renounciation on RoR? Why does it have to be TOTAL? Why does it have to be for ALL of them? I can see pushing for a compromise(like the humane, sensible one I outlined above), but why is it so important to you that no Palestinians AT ALL get to move back to Israel(unless such a return is treated strictly as a special privilege rather than a right), and that the Palestinian leadership agree to that without getting anything in return for agreeing to it? Why are YOU all-or-nothing on this?
Is total renounciation of RoR really MORE important than any other issue in this dispute?
What harm would letting the elders of '48 have physical RoR do?
What harm would be done by admitting that many of those forced out in 1948 were innocent civilians who didn't do anything personally to deserve displacement? Is it impossible, for some reason, for Israel to admit that and still survive? If so, why? What is the harm of acknowledging that there were innocent victims on both sides and undeserved suffering on both sides? If you want the Palestinians to acknowledge that Israelis suffered, don't you have to acknowledge THEIR suffering and their pain too? Don't you kind of HAVE to admit that both sides were to blame for the suffering? That's what mature countries do, you know...admit wrong when they've done it. And they they go on living AFTER they've admitted it...with no adverse consequences at all.
We all know, and even the Palestinians themselves accept deep down inside(they aren't a nation of psychopaths, for God's sakes), that there is never going to be full physical RoR in the end anyway...why should they have to agree to no RoR for any of them, or even to get anything meaningful in exchange for renouncing that right?
Your absolutism on this point is mystifying.
shira
(30,109 posts)It gets them out of the camps and gives them more of a normal life, minus the discriminatory conditions they suffer in the camps.
They're not getting RoR anyway, so why not get on with a more normal life sooner?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Why not just accept RoR being PART of the negotiations?
Do you know how much it is to ask that a people accept that they will NEVER get to go home?
There has to be some way of dealing with that rather than just, in effect, telling them to "suck it".
If you want people to stop being violent, you need to address the pain that made them violent. You need to heal the wounds.
Acknowledgment of the wrong needs to be part of it. Israel's security isn't compromised by admitting that there were, in fact, innocent Palestinian victims in 1948...that they weren't ALL murderous psychos.
Perhaps financial rehabilitation programs, which would transform RoR, without forcing Palestinians to go through the official humiliation of renouncing their ancestral home, could be put into place. A lot of Palestinians are basically practical folks, and they'd at least consider something like that, I think...IF, and this is crucial, that they weren't forced to allow themselves to look like they "lost" overall in the conflict...that the Israeli leadership wasn't gloating, as Netanyahu and his mob would, about putting the Pals in their place.
All you have to do is work from the assumption that it's at least possible for Palestinians to be reasonable about this, if they're given some demonstration that being reasonable, being open to compromise, isn't defeat and humiliation. A simple display of mutual respect would do a lot in this regard-as would the discipline to resist the temptation of insisting on looking as if anyone has "the upper hand". It has to be a compromise, and neither side can be seen to have lost to the other.
We already know, and the Palestinians already all know(and privately accept)that most Palestinians won't ever be allowed to physically move TO Israel. That, in practical terms, isn't even an issue. Really, it's about getting an admission that, as was the case with the Israelis themselves, Palestinians are human beings, have suffered, and have even at times suffered without deserving to. That's how you resolve conflicts when a "World War II ending" isn't possible-by having it be enough that the war is over...by admitting that it doesn't matter who "wins" and who "loses".
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)for providing inarguable facts showing there is little difference between the major Israeli parties when it comes to Palestine 
shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)well if I do it, but I was backing your statement 
shira
(30,109 posts)...PeaceNow and Meretz are rightwing, anti-Palestinian, and racist
Your rhetoric is no different than the typical anti-zionist noise.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)your post was made expressly to point out that Meretz did not differ from other MAJOR parties in Israel wrt the Palestinians nothing more or less
shira
(30,109 posts)That's what I take from it.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There's nothing "reasonable" about supporting the preservation of the major settlement blocs. They play no positive role in Israeli life whatsoever and it goes without saying that no Palestinian leadership that could EVER emerge could ever accept their preservation. And the only things that happen on those settlements are anti-progressive and anti-human equality. You won't even find many centrists on those settlements(ok, there might be a few, but not many).
Again, I ask you...because YOU have been an unquestioning defender of the settlement project in the I/P group here(I don't know what views you express elsewhere)why do you feel that preserving the major settlement blocs is MORE important than ending the war? Why take the position that holding land is more important than peace?
shira
(30,109 posts)...staying in Israel. Chomsky and Carter endorsed it.
Why defend the PA and Hamas' hardline, extreme views WRT borders? Are the exact '67 borders sacred for some reason?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)About wanting to have enough territory to build a REAL country?
It's enough for Israelis to have Israel itself to live in. They don't need ANY of the West Bank. The key to security is creating a REAL peace, with neither side living at the mercy of the other. Netanyahu doesn't get that...he's more concerned with having "the upper hand" than ending the war.
The '67 borders are the only borders ANY Palestinian leadership could possibly be expected to accept-they're the only ones that make a REAL Palestinian state, a contiguous West Bank state, possible...there isn't enough land in Israel to swap for the massive amount of territory taken by the settlements. And there's no way that there could EVER be a genuine reconciliation process if the settlements were preserved...because the whole point of the settlements was saying "fuck you" to the Palestinians...it was about rubbing their noses in a defeat...and that's not how you make reconciliation.
And it's not fair to either Chomsky or Carter to imply that their support of the Geneva Accords equates to them accepting every proposal within the accords...Neither of those men accept the legitimacy of ANY of the illegal settlements.
It's obvious that, to you, the settlements are more important than ending the war...more important than the lives of Israeli or Palestinian children yet to be born...why is that?
shira
(30,109 posts)You're calling for the same thing.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Israel with the settlement blocs and war isn't going to be more secure than Israel without the settlement blocs but at peace.
Norman Finklestein did NOT endorse keeping the settlement blocs.
And you can't make peace if you simply assume that the Palestinians will never ever WANT peace.
Keeping the settlement blocs means Palestinians would have nothing left. A Palestinian state without at least a contiguous West Bank CAN'T be viable. That's why Netanyahu is insisting on it...because he doesn't WANT a Palestinian state...he wants the status quo to go on forever...even though he knows that means permanent war.
shira
(30,109 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And we weren't even talking about that issue here.
I'd call for letting the elders of '48 move back, with compensation and apologies(most of them weren't combatants and there are only a few thousand left).
For the rest, I'd go with symbolic RoR...not only compensation, but apologies and an acknowledgment that it was wrong that their ancestors were made to leave.
So no, I'm not talking about flooding Israel with everybody who claims to be of Palestinian descent.
shira
(30,109 posts)They want full RoR.
Can we all start blaming Ken Burch for being an extremist against peace since he would never agree to what the Palestinians require for peace?
Ken, you're so anti-peace. Why can't you see this?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)In parity-based negotiations, I think they could compromise, if they got something real in exchange FOR the compromise.
Israel is going to have to accept the right of the remaining elders of '48 to come home...there's only a few thousand of them, and they're too old to harm anybody, even if they wanted too...for the rest, the Israeli side could, for once, try creativity...try offering something on that issue that, while making full physical RoR moot, would offer, not just compensation, but actual acknowledgment that wrongs were done and that at least some of those who were driven away were just civilians who were trying to keep their heads down and ride the fighting out.
In practical terms, Israel would lose nothing by, for once, actually acknowledging that it did, in fact, inflict undeserved suffering on some Palestinians...that not all of the villages that were destroyed deserved to be destroyed...that not all of the history that was erased deserved to be erased.
People can move on from a lot of things if their pain is acknowledged...if it's admitted that they are real, flesh-and-blood human beings, with hopes, dreams, and wishes for a good life like anybody else...it's going to be much harder to get them to move on if they're told "none of what you feel is real...you have no right to feel anything you feel...just get over it and stop whining", which is basically the position the Israeli political establishment takes towards Palestinians as a collective entity.
I want Israel to live in peace and justice, as I want everybody else to do so. But that can't be made to happen if its leaders keep saying "it's all the other sides' fault and OUR side isn't responsible for anything".
shira
(30,109 posts)...that it's better for 150,000 refugees to die than renounce their God given RoR.
They're pretty fucking serious about RoR.
Why else would they lock up Palestinians in cages, depriving them of basic rights other Arabs have, for the past 65 years?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Whether by the other Arabs or by the side you support in the conflict.
Palestinians SHOULD have been let out of those camps and offered citizenship, and not just in Arab countries, but in North America, Europe and the Antipodean countries as well...it's not like the Arabs had a greater responsibility on that than the rest of the world.
But, at some point, you're going to have to accept this reality:
Even if they'd been given citizenship in other Arab countries, even if they'd been treated better, all of them, ALL OF THEM, would still want it to be acknowledged that they were Palestinian...None of them would turn in to "generic Arabs"...because they were always distinct from other Arabs.
Your alleged concern about what was done to those folks by other Arabs is a canard...you think that, for some reason, the Arab world had an obligation to make Palestinians vanish as a people. Even though they SHOULD have treated Palestinians far better, they never had an obligation to make Palestinians stop BEING Palestinians.
Look at the huge numbers of Irish refugees in America, Britain, Australia/New Zealand and Canada that, while having been absorbed into new countries, continued to support(even through arms purchases)the Irish republican cause.
Look at the massive number of black South African exiles in other African countries who NEVER stopped fighting against the conditions in their homeland...none of whom ever, EVER gave up their identification and solidarity with their homeland.
Nobody has an obligation to erase anybody else's identity. Identity is always permanent.
You're still holding onto Ben-Gurion's delusion that Palestinian resistance would have vanished if only the other Arabs(who, as he saw it, invented a "Palestinian" identity that was never real)had just decided that it should. Why do you hold onto that, when history has clearly proven it was totally wrong?
And once more...why was it so important to you to get these particular refugees to renounce RoR before they could live in the West Bank, when you know perfectly well it wouldn't have made ANY difference? That it wouldn't have changed anything they did or could have done once they got TO the West Bank? Why insist on a demand that, in practical terms, is useless and pointless?
Shouldn't demands only be made if they're actually going to have demonstrable, practical, and quick positive results?
shira
(30,109 posts)And this isn't about my alleged concern. Remember, I'm a Zionist. We're all anti-peace as none of us are willing to give up the big settlement blocs. As others remind us, we're racists too and are the living antithesis of all that is progressive or leftwing.
But you and your lot claim to represent progressive, anti-racist, humane, Leftwing ideology - being the pro- Palestinians you are. It turns out you appear to be no different than Arab regimes WRT refugees who have cynically used them as political pawns the past 65 years. A heinous act that you could care less about.
Why don't those Palestinians count? Are they less human than Palestinians directly harmed by Israelis?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And it isn't anti-Zionist to call for those blocs to be removed.
You do not speak for EVERY Zionist on the planet...and you don't even speak for all of the ones in Israel, since you don't even live there. You do tend to echo every ad that CAMERA and FLAME post(for those who don't know, CAMERA and FLAME are long-standing pressure groups who take positions on the I/P conflict that put them to the right of every Israeli government since the 1980's on territorial issues-if CAMERA and FLAME had their way, the IDF would still be in the Sinai.)
BTW, I'm not in anybody's "lot". I'm just me...speaking for myself and representing myself. I follow no line and obey no orders.
shira
(30,109 posts)You may not be in anyone's lot, but for someone advocating for refugee rights, I don't see any significant difference between your position and that of all the Arab regimes in the mideast.
In fact, who out there among groups you respect like the ISM, BDS, FreeGaza, PSC, Mondoweiss, ElectronicIntifada,.. are on the front lines very vocally and passionately advocating for those refugee rights?
Answer:
No one.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You're using McCarthyite tactics again.
I don't have to choose between unquestioningly supporting a group or relentlessly denouncing it. Those aren't the only options.
I don't even follow everything all of those groups do, nor am I responsible for them.
You're not entitled to act like a prosecutor.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Wed Jan 23, 2013, 07:13 PM - Edit history (1)
It's simple...if you want the major settlement blocs, you're AGAINST peace.
Because NO Palestinian leader could ever possible accept such an illegitimate demand.
Why would anyone prefer keeping the settlements to peace?
Keeping the settlements(and giving up on peace)can't possibly make Israel more secure than giving up the settlements in exchange for peace.
(apologies to azur for getting her gender wrong again in a post...I don't know why I keep doing that.)
shira
(30,109 posts)...are all against peace b/c they're against the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people from land mostly in and around Jerusalem?
They should do that for a signed piece of paper from the PLO?
Tell me, can you name any significant, known Zionists who advocate abandoning the major settlement blocs? And if not, what does that tell you?
Not hard to figure out, is it? You can't say "I want peace, but I also want to keep the stuff that makes peace fucking impossible!" That's not a position. It's a cop-out to try to play both angles while actually doing nothing.
it tells me that Zionists are the last people whose opinion should count on this issue. I don't listen to the opinion of men in pointy white hoods when the discussion is voting rights, I don't listen to skinheads when the discussion is immigration, and I don't listen to Zionists when the discussion is Palestine - none of them have anything of worth to contribute to the discussion.
shira
(30,109 posts)Why are land swaps blasphemous?
I'm curious about your answer b/c I see such a position as religious, by nature. Every inch of pre-67 land is sacred and holy. Not one centimeter can be traded to Israel in a land swap....
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)My problem, at least, is that it is the occupying, encroaching force that is demanding them. It is the occupier saying "in exchange for ending the occupation, you must allow us to continue the occupation here, here, and here." It's simply a ludicrous demand.
On the other hand, if the Palestinians decide to swap territories of their own volition, then I have no problem with that. It's their land to trade off, they can do whatever the hell they want with it.
See the difference? One is a chop-shop demanding the right to keep the stereos after the cops bust them, and the other is a car owner deciding to sell off his own stereo system.
shira
(30,109 posts)So as a result of that, the Jewish Quarter (including the Wall) is Palestinian land in your opinion?
Why?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Do you believe that the refugees of 1948 have a right to reclaim what is theirs?
shira
(30,109 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The people driven from Jerusalem by the Jordanian army in 1948 are refugees, aren't they? Do you, or do you not think that the refugees of 1948 have a right to reclaim what is theirs?
shira
(30,109 posts)You believe all land beyond the '67 lines are Palestinian, by right.
I'm challenging you on that specific point and nothing else (with the Jewish Quarter as an example).
I promise to answer you right after you answer me.
I can only surmise that you won't answer b/c you realize how piss-poor and wrong your misguided and ignorant POV is. And that is why you're desperate to deflect.
delrem
(9,688 posts)driven out or fled during wartime, certainly do have a RoR. Because after the hell of the first half of the 20th century international humanitarian law has been established that all countries have signed onto, and that law accepts it as an axiom that ethnic cleansing cannot be an object of or legitimate result of war. Nor can the annexation of land, whether or not it is taken as prize by one ethnic group.
To be sure, countries do divide when the different peoples can't get along. But international humanitarian law does NOT endorse ethnic cleansing as a method.
The identical reasoning applies to Palestinian refugees.
The only way for the I/P war to end is for both sides to realize that they have obligations to a common humanity. You reject these obligations because, according as your extreme sectarian political philosophy, to abide by them would mean the destruction of Israel as you understand it. Which says something very powerful about Israel as you understand it.
shira
(30,109 posts)If applied in other situations (Cyprus, India/Pakistan) this RoR would very likely lead to mass ethnic strife and/or wars there too. That's why it's not applied there either.
Stay focused.
That's why RoR isn't granted to people outright and without exception via IHL. It's not absolute for very good, humane reasons.
Your insistence that it be forced regardless of the circumstances, even if it leads to mass war and bloodshed, exposes you as just another anti-Israel agitator advocating sanctimoniously against human rights for the majority of the people in that region.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Is there any nation, people or otherwise, in existence now where another nation has decided to colonize, live within it, in differing locals with 350-500K of its citizens there?
Is there any country that would stand for this?
And some expect to believe that they can successfully negotiate this comedy? That it is just?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)of course you'll have to find how the details differ to make your claim still stands.but in principle your wrong
Morocco and the Western Sahara
of course the I/P conflict is rather unique in that the original indigenous peoples and their relatives who survived industrial genocide are considered colonialist while the latter immigrants (muslim arabs from egypt, sudan, syrian etc ) are considered "Indigenous."
so part of the comedy is the redefinition of words to fit the ideology. Even the word colonialist doesnt even fit by its own real definition the situation, unless of course one gets to redefine all of the identities and history and motivations of the groups involved.
using the dictionary to define words is a real killer, it takes out the emotion-ladden words....to be avoided at all costs.
___
and since i find this all rather amusing...how many years does it take for a group to be defined as "indigenous"
seems to me that the settlers just have to hang on for a 9 generations? and then they can be declared indigenous and the Palestenians who want their land will be potential occupiers?
(yes i know, you wont put down a "number" for how long it takes to go from occupier/invader to "indigenous".....coward)
shira
(30,109 posts)...in any part of Israel or the territories west of the Jordan River.
That's IHL.
Here's what IHL states WRT these imaginary colonialists:
http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/San_Remo_Convention
Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;
The Zionist Organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate shall be recognized as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)your probably (just guessing here) one that believes govt should talk to the taliban, or to hamas or to the muslim brotherhood ....all ideological groups that have clear anti western liberal agendas
yet talking to social democratic zionists is something that you can't do.....because our view points cannot possible be accepted since were like the KKK.....
hell i would then put us with the dreaded "N" people for that matter, and with proper end result..
____
it always refreshing to find a progressive who is honest about their ideology and doesn't even pretend to have an open mind, you would fit right in, in the middle east, pick any country.....
just love the religious fanatics...they have a nice honesty about themselves, clear cut viewpoints and zero tolerance for those that "are not on the reservation"
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Do you bring poachers in on a discussion of wildlife management in a national park? No, because you already know what they want, and what they want runs counter to the goals of the discussion, right?
Zionists don't want there to be a West Bank, much less a Palestine. They want there to be Judea and Samaria, they want it to be full of Jews and curiously empty of Arabs. They don't want to dismantle settlements of any size, large or small, as Shira helpfully pointed out; they want to preserve and expand them, and add to their number. Their opinion is already known (they certainly make no secret of it, after all) and is decidedly unhelpful to the discussion. So, why include them?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)just for fun...what kind of proof would you accept that shows your wrong...and if i come up with that very proof, not only will you write out that you were wrong, but when posters here make the same comments you will be one of the first to explain how wrong they are?
well? game to proven wrong? accept it and be committed to your new knowledge?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And I mean "the settlements." Not "some settlements," not "this settlement."
You show me a Zionist who accepts a full 100% evacuation of the West Bank behind the Green Line as an option. They don't have to endorse the idea, even, they just have to be willing to accept it if that's what the Palestinians decide to go with.
If you show me such a person, my first reaction will be deep puzzlement over whether such a person is actually a zionist, or just deeply confused. But even so, I'll drop their name where I can.
So. let's see this unicorn of yours.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)first you wrote:
They don't want to dismantle settlements of any size, large or small, as Shira helpfully pointed out; they want to preserve and expand them, and add to their number.
now you wrote:
You show me a Zionist who accepts a full 100% evacuation of the West Bank behind the Green Line as an option. They don't have to endorse the idea, even, they just have to be willing to accept it if that's what the Palestinians decide to go with.
do you see a difference? so which is it? which claim of yours is the one fits your particular definition of zionist. and then explain why you wrote the one that you no longer agree with....
and i didnt say "drop their name"....the admittance that you were wrong about what defines a zionist...or is that too much for you
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Show me a Zionist who accepts that there may have to be a 100% evacuation. They don't have to say "I want this to happen," they just have to admit the possibility.
You can't do it. There is not a single Zionist you can cite - not even among your "progressive" fellows here on DU - who acknowledges the possibility. Yes, you can find a Zionist here and there who thinks people in campers claiming land should be shuttled back to whatever "official" settlement they came from... but who have no problem if that land is "officially" declared a valid claim, either.
Zionists want to preserve, expand, and add to the number of settlements, Pelsar. This is why the settlements are maintained, expanding, and increasing in number. It's not rocket science, they don't just pop up after it rains like daisies, you know.
But hell. Tell you what. I recognize that you are not going to be able to find such a zionist for me. After all, there's no such thing, as the idea of not stealing land and gunning down anyone who resists is contrary to the integal philosophy of Zionism. Given that, what were you going to regale me with? I'm curious. Is it another "Look, look! Israel knocked over a family outpost in the West bank (and didn't stop the family from putting it back together 20 minutes later)" story, perhaps?
shira
(30,109 posts)Those Zionists already dismantled settlements in Egypt, Gaza, and in parts of the W.Bank.
Apparently you realized you made an ignorant statement and moved the goalposts. Now, unless Zionists are for dismantling every single settlement then they must be for continuous expansion - which is logically absurd.
After all, you just claimed:
From PeaceNow to J-Street to Meretz, they are all Zionist organizations for dismantling major settlements and against expansion of any kind.
So what's your next bullshit tirade going to be about?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)But right here, you say...
First Meretz, PeaceNow, and J-street are against dismantling settlements, when you need to claim they're on your side in an argument... Now Meretz, PeaceNow, and J-Street are for dismantling settlements, when you need to claim they're on your side in an argument.
What's Larry Derfner say about all this? I'll bet he's hurt at being left out. Maybe he's just puzzled at being included in your initial assertion, I know I am.
Also in Post #29, you ask this:
You sure seem to be implying that no significant, known Zionists advocate abandoning major settlement blocs, and that this should "tell us something."
Here in this post, you say...
Now you have a problem with my belief that there are no significant, known Zionists advocating abandoning major settlement blocks?
Your position isn't just inconsistent. It's absolutely two-faced and utterly incoherent.
As for bullshit tirades, my dear Shira, I'm afraid I could never hope to compete against you and your years of practice and expertise in that arena. I yield the bullshit tirade arena to you.
shira
(30,109 posts)....and ONLY for expansion. I gave you examples with Egypt, Gaza, and the W.Bank of Zionists (Israel) evacuating settlements altogether.
You were also provided some Zionist organizations who are FOR evacuation from SOME major settlements and are ALSO against expansion.
No, they are not for evacuation from ALL settlements, but from some.
What's difficult about this?
You were wrong.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You claim there are no Zionists who want to abandon major settlements. Then you have a fit when I agree with you.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)start with Uri Avnery from "gush shalom" zionist
The solution is this: There will be a state of Palestine in all of the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The Green Line, the border that existed before 1967, will come into being again
http://www.progressive.org/mag_intvavnery
then move on to Gidon Levy (writer for Ha'aretz) patriot and zionist as per their own description
Levy supports unilateral withdrawal from occupied Palestinian territories without concessions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_Levy
____
both zionists, are major figures in israel, respected or demonized, depending upon ones point of view, but no one doubts their zionist credentials ......the fact that you don't even know about them, just shows how ignorant you are about the conflict
oh yea...look up gush shalom
(and before you start looking for excuses for your willful ignorence, it took only 4 israeli women to get israel to pullout of lebanon)
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)See, I decided to read up on Messrs. Levy and Avnery. Rather than flail through tons and tons of redundant reposts on a regular google search, I just site-searched DU, and, well...
..that CounterPunch is allowed here.
Avnery is writing for Alex Cockburn at CounterPunch. Cockburn blames the Jews for 911 and the anthrax attacks that followed.
Avnery has also written articles for the Neo-Nazi, holocaust denying website Rense as well.
This article is a page out of history's many anti-Jew blood libels. Avnery has zero proof the "Jews" killed Arafat, but that doesn't stop him.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113413509#post2
So, doesn't look like the voice of well-reasoned fact-based Progressive Zionism holds Mr. Avnery in high regard!
You yourself have addressed him as a naive fool; http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=198267&mesg_id=198336
Here's your response to one of Mr. Avnery's Daily Times articles: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=154207&mesg_id=154629
And your mocking another that he's written: http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x177746#177749
And again: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=116692&mesg_id=116735
Even our wonderful, even-handed, thoughtful friend behind the Aegis can't seem to find anything nice to say: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=113749&mesg_id=113826
(also note the poster Channa there, calling him essentially a "self-hating Jew)
So, my take-away is that you nor any other self-professed Zionists on DU take mr. Avnery seriously at all or, in the case of Shira at least, actively maintain a hate-on for the man. Just for grits and shiggles I went over to PSU to see if the rtrend continued, and, yup, both Mr. Avnery and Gush Shalom are derided by the Zionist posters there as well.
And I won't even get into my own wariness over someoen who writes for... LewRockwell.com and Information Clearing House? Seriously?
Okay, okay, what about Mr. Levy?
Well, Oberliner regards him as "far left" - which from other stuff from Oberliner, is something he considers a deep negative:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=353094&mesg_id=353162
Shira considers him a "phony liberal"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=339174&mesg_id=339214
Two Progressive Zionist strikes against mr. Levy, uh-oh!
Wait wait, here's an OP by yourself, posting avery critical letter by a known "leftest" in response to Gordon Levy:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=248952&mesg_id=248952
You don't seem impressed with his "Arabs for Hire" article, either:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=94117&mesg_id=94122
and
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=94117&mesg_id=94141
(And for what it's worth, you and I agree here; The idea of "race loyalty" in politics is something I find bizarre and dangerous, and is in fact a component of my disgust for Zionism)
Your response to someone's take on a Gideon Levy piece seems to imply that you don't find Mr. Levy to be very logical:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=154207&mesg_id=154634
And according to this poster, he's responsible for the deaths in the second intifada:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=187182&mesg_id=187191
And by the words of this one, he's a "far left Israel Basher"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x155568#155604
And some more recent results, such as...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113420157#post7 - Oberliner on Levy's "Apology" for his article about Israelis "wanting Apartheid"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11347689 - Aranthus, King_David, Shira, and Oberliner pile on about what drek they feel Mr. Levy is
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11348657 - Gideon Levy is "another propagandist that no liberal Zionists take seriously. "
So... my question to you is this, Pelsar;
If you nor any other self-proclaimed 'Progressive Zionist' on DU takes Gideon Levy or Uri Avnery seriously, why are you citing them as examples for me?
Doesn't doing so actually strengthen my position, that Zionists are opposed to reducing settlements? By citing Levy and Avnery, you've shown me they are truly outliers, large exceptions regarded by other Zionists as outsiders, apostates, perhaps even enemies.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 26, 2013, 08:23 AM - Edit history (2)
you just tried to move the goal posts again, so obvious, so weak so pathetic.
whether i (i'm not a progressive) or anybody else here agrees with the two men and gush shalom, a movement of several thousand israeli zionists is irrelevant to what you claimed. It does not make them less zionistic.....no one in israel doubts their integrity as believing in their own version, especially levy who has a large readership and is well respected on countless talk shows or the gush shalom movement.
You made a statement about zionists, you were challenged, your challenge was met by your own criteria and you have been shown to be wrong..now "man-up" and admit it (and get used to the idea).
zionism has a multitude of variations (do you need more examples of its variations?), which is why zionists here can agree or disagree with the two and others....perhaps its the way your brain is wired, where everything is black or white where you have zero tolerance for other opinions.
_______
Now, understanding that your willfully ignorant and prefer to be that i mentioned the 4 women and the war in Lebanon (actually 4 women in black). Now you probably never heard of them, so go learn about them.
____
now so far your 0-2...ready to be 0-3?...I'll give you a chance to recant on your last post about israel in the other thread, before i go to another one of your false statements.
I'll give u some time......your credibility here is going down fast
and btw, when u "move the goal posts" its so obvious, its better just to admit that your wrong rather than pretend you didn't claim something that is not true, you might even learn something with the awful consequences that follow
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)It is a welcomed surprise imo in that the shift will/should produce more infighting..to me that
is a plus for the Palestinians...politically speaking.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts) shira
(30,109 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 22, 2013, 10:09 PM - Edit history (1)
He's a studly-looking dude who looks good in a suit OR a uniform.
Fits the fixation with "toughness" at all costs as well.
Questions to ponder...will Livni keep her party going, or merge with either Labor or Yesh? If so, which would she be most likely to merge with?
delrem
(9,688 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)if he gets caught faking tears in a reaction shot.
