Abbas: Israeli raid 'a massacre'

[ProgressiveMuslim]

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, has described as "a masscre" Israel's latest deadly incursion into the Gaza Strip which left 17 Palestinians dead.

At least 50 Palestinians were also injured in the military operation on Tuesday which had started the previous night while US president George Bush was in Saudi Arabia.

David Chater, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Jerusalem, said: "Apache helicopter gunships, armoured bulldozers, tanks and ground troops were all involved in this incursion.

"There are also reports of another incursion in the industrial zone near the Erez crossing."

Incursion 'a massacre'

Israel's incursion came a week after Bush said he wanted a peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians by the end of his presidential term at the end of 2008.

Hamas officials blamed Bush's presence in the region for the violence.


Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, has reportedly ordered a series of such "sharp and short" incursions, into Gaza and the West Bank.

Abbas said on Tuesday: "What happened today is a massacre, a slaughter against the Palestinian people.

"Our people cannot keep silent over these massacres. These massacres cannot bring peace."


EDITED TO INCLUDE SOURCE:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0787158A-D180-44F4-9327-7BE8DBBB197D.htm

[acmavm]

1. What a coincidence. blivet just in Israel and this shit starts. I bet

those were some interesting conversations between blivet and Ohlmert. I wonder if they have a pool on how many they can have killed in a certain period of time.

[subsuelo]

37. well, if Israel is good at anything

Killing Palestinians - civilians and militants alike - certainly does make the top of the list.

[Vegasaurus]

2. Hamas has claimed that there will be no peace

and that they plan to increase their attacks.

So, expect the escalation from the Israelis to continue, unless of course, it is OK with the anti-Israeli posters here for Israeli civilians to suffer, since those rockets, suicide bombings, etc. are really no big deal....

[angstlessk]

3. Sorry, but how many Israli's have been killed this year..last?..according to some

any possible, even if unlikely, Isreali death is worth about 100 dead Palistinians..sorry your diatribe to threaten anyone who does not like dead Palistinans as anti-Israeli is disgusting!

[rateyes]

4. It seems to me that every time there is an agreement for peace talks

including "land for peace," Israel grabs up more land to occupy. Israel needs to get out of the occupied territories and back behind the 1967 borders.

[henank]

5. Exactly what land has Israel "grabbed" since the agreement

for peace talks (I assume you mean Annapolis).

[rateyes]

6. Has settlement building stopped?

:shrug:

[henank]

7. Yes.

Olmert has declared a total freeze on settlement building plus 2 outposts were evacuated today.

Besides which, what has settlement building to do with what is going on in Gaza? Except to show what violence erupts from the Palestinians as soon as settlements are evacuated. Way to go to convince Israelis to withdraw from more settlements.

[breakaleg]

8. Huh? Just this week, even after the Bush visit, Israel said they are still going ahead with the

large block of new housing in East Jerusalem. How exactly does that qualify as a freeze on settlements?

[rateyes]

9. Yeah, right...

You asked what land grab is taking place. I asked you if settlement building has stopped. You errneously answered, "yes." The truth is "no." The settlement building in the occupied territories continue.

There will be no peace unless Israel ends the occupation. Period.

[Vegasaurus]

10. There will be no peace until the middle east is free of Jews nt

[rateyes]

11. Bull.

But, nice try at playing as if Israel is faultless.

[Vegasaurus]

12. HIstory is on my side, not yours

Israel has no incursions into countries with whom they have signed "peace agreements" (ie, Jordan and Egypt). The relations are tense but calm.

The Palestinians have that option too, but have never chosen to take it.

[rateyes]

17. Israel signed a peace agreement with Egypt that required them

to pull settlements out of the West Bank. They have NEVER upheld their end of the bargain on that one. History is not on "your" side. History proves that Israel, although it has said several times that it will, has no intention of withdrawing from the occupied territories.

[msmcghee]

19. What peace treaty was this . .

. . that Israel signed with Egypt agreeing to remove settlements from the WB?

[rateyes]

23. UN Resolutions 242 & 338...

they agreed to these resolutions with the world. Egypt negotiated the peace treaty of 1979 with Res. 242 as a basis. "Land for peace" come to mind?

[msmcghee]

25. R242 is not a peace treaty.

It is a UN approved basis for negotiating one in the aftermath of the Six Day War. No successful negotiations of R242 have ever been completed. No peace treaty has ever been signed between Egypt and Israel regarding the settlements as far as I know.

[rateyes]

26. The Camp David Accords provided the framework

for the 1979 Peace Treaty. The Accords used R242 as a basis for that peace treaty. R242, agreed to by the US and Israel, calls upon Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. The US should enforce (by withdrawing US Aid, if need be) R242.

[msmcghee]

27. Have a nice day.

[breakaleg]

29. R242 is not real popular around here. It's almost as if it doesn't exist. nt

[rateyes]

44. I'm finding that out. nt

[Shaktimaan]

48. r242 requires things from all parties, none of which, except Israel

have even begun to make good on.

Regardless, r242 is the basis of the treaty, yet that does not mean that either side is to be held to every aspect of 242, just that the principles of it are the basis for the arrangement between egypt and Israel. Beyond even that, 242 does not mention the Palestinians at all, nor does it indicate that Israel is required to create a palestinian state out of the OPT or that all of the land, (some of which is legitimately disputed territory), belongs to anyone specific.

The OPT is unclaimed territory right now. 242 doesn't say anything to indicate otherwise. It doesn't make much sense that r242 would demand that Israel abandon the west bank to another occupying power, Jordan, who also gained the land by conquest. And since it doesn't say a word about the Palestinians or their rights in the OPT, self-determination, etc., it doesn't make much sense to assume that 242 requires Israel to abandon the WB or EJ.

Personally I'd like to see Israel pull out and leave the settler there. It would be interesting to see whether the PA provided for their security or if they just roll in and try to massacre them. What do you think would happen?

[rateyes]

51. You have elaborated the Israeli position about what R242 means

well. However, the United Nations, and most of the rest of the world disagree. I know that many in Israel want to call the West Ban, the Golan Heights, "disputed territories." However, the UN, whose charter Israel is bound by, recognizes them as "occupied territories." Israel occupies land that does not belong to them. Bottom line. Many of the people of Israel live in homes they did not build, taken from others by force. And, Israel thinks itself justified in this.

[azurnoir]

34. Why would there be?

The only "settlements" on Egyptian land were in Gaza and possibly Sinai, one was given back to Egypt and the other was given to the Palestinians. Seeing as how both areas are desert with very little fresh water they were not of much value anyway except strategically.

[pelsar]

52. will your please do some research before posting.....

both areas are desert with very little fresh water

shheesh.....gaza is not desert..semi-humid coastal area in the north. and the semi-arid with an aquifer directly below

[azurnoir]

55. Gaza's water

You right in that in terms of geography I used the wrong term, Gaza is not a desert in official terms.Gaza has no above ground water.

Gaza area 360 sq km
land 360 sq km
surface water 0 km
arable land and permanent crops 50% approx or 180 sq km
land under irrigation 120 sq km or roughly 2/3 of the arable land

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/ciaga...

the "aquifer" is contaminated. Israel maintains that this is because of careless Palestinian "over pumping", but more likely because the aquifer does not produce water in the amounts needed to support the population

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArti...

I notice that you have a habit of making your title line insulting, why is that?

[pelsar]

58. it corrections of simple facts......

its happens constantly here......and as far as i see it, those misfacts make for a serious discussion impossible. One can hardly call for a serious discussion of the misuse of the gaza water table if the starting point is that its desert and has no water within easy access by the residents........ (as one assumes when its described as desert)
_____

you right in that in terms of geography I used the wrong term......it wasnt using the wrong term.....your used the wrong description. its like saying black is white and when caught claim its just the "wrong term".....(sounds like an innocent mistake).


how about this.....do a bit a research before you make a claim....and then i wont even have to correct you? (I noticed that all of your "misdescriptions" always show how evil israel is....)

[azurnoir]

59. You corrected me on a technical term

nothing more, perhaps you should then correct Rand-McNally who calls a few areas in the US deserts even though no true desert exists in the US.
You sir are using a technicality in an attempt to create the impression that purple is yellow.

If you read the thread or what prompted my post it was concerning the lack of Egyptian attacks.

[pelsar]

62. yes your wrong quite frequently "technically"

gaza is simply not desert...and the sinai has oil...i could go on about your "technical" terms that you seem to constantly mix up......like i said, if its merely technical, then take the 5 minutes to check it out in google before you post...then not only will you be technically correct, but you'll have to change your posts as well....and their meaning.

[eyl]

60. Sinai contains various raw resources

including oil

[azurnoir]

63. I have read about a pipeline/oil deal

between Israel and Egypt is that where the oil is coming from?

[eyl]

65. I would assume so

but I don't know for sure

[pelsar]

67. yes....

when israel returned the sinai, egypt took over the oil fields and sold (sells) the oil to israel......

[azurnoir]

33. Your side????

Thought you were American

[Tom Joad]

42. History is not on the side of any particular people or nation

I would like to think that history is on the side of human justice and peace. That is almost a religious concept, but so be it. It gives me hope.
Take heart.

[azurnoir]

49. I hope your right

but sometimes justice takes her sweet time.

[Shaktimaan]

56. "justice" is an arbitrary concept.

It has no objective meaning, especially in this conflict. Fulfilling the Palestinian version of justice necessitates denying Israelis justice of their own. Peace, (in all cases, but especially this one), usually requires forgoing any demands based on achieving "justice" for past wrongs or perceived rights as the trade-off for the ability to leave endless sectarian violence behind.

Deducing who owes what to whom is not a path towards peace. Figuring out what each side needs and what each side can reasonably contribute is.

[Vegasaurus]

13. HIstory is on my side, not yours

Israel has no incursions into countries with whom they have signed "peace agreements" (ie, Jordan and Egypt). The relations are tense but calm.

The Palestinians have that option too, but have never chosen to take it.

[Vegasaurus]

dupe, delete

[Vegasaurus]

14. another dupe

?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. The sad thing is that technically that's probably close to true.

Although I'd add an "or Arabs" on the end of it, and I think the latter more likely -I think there's no risk of Israel being destroyed, but the risk that at some point the Israelis elect someone like Avigdor Lieberman who sets about ethnically cleansing the Palestinians wholesale, while low, is non-zero.

I think by far the most likely thing, though, is that there will be no peace in the Middle East, at least in my lifetime.

[Vegasaurus]

41. Sadly, Donald

I don't think there will be peace in any of our lifetimes, and I don't just think it is because of imperialistic,militaristic, corporatist Westerners, though they don't help matters. There is more than enough internal strife to keep the middle east at odds for decades.

This is why this conflict will never be settled by Israel's withdrawal from the OT. It really isn't about the occupied territories anyway.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

57. At least half of it is.

By "The conflict", I suspect that you mean the Palestinian violence against Israel. To what extent that's motivated by the occupation of territory outside the Green Line, and to what extent Israel withdrawing to the Green Line would reduce it (two different questions) is debateable (I suspect you underestimate both answers, but I'm not 100% confident of either).

But the single most serious ongoing act of aggression in the Middle East conflict *is* the Israeli occuption of Palestinian land. "The conflict" is "about" the occupied territories in the the sense that they're *part* of the conflict, and the most important part at that.

One might just as well say "the conflict isn't about the Palestinian violence against Israel, because that's not why Israel is occupying that land". Both statements are like saying "a donkey isn't about the back half of it".

The number of people who view the end of the Israeli occupation of Palestine as purely a means to ending Palestinian violence against Israel, and not as an end in itself, worries me.

[Vegasaurus]

64. I don't view the occupation as a way of ending Palestinian violence

But then again, I see that the Palestinan violence came first, not the other way around.

There was conflict before occupied territories, and there would be conflict after OT. The only end to this particular conflict is no more Jews in the middle east. But the Arabs would still have plenty of sectarian violence against each other.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

66. I think you may have misread my post.

I was talking not about people who view the occupation as a way of ending Palestinian violence (which it clearly isn't, it's a way of aquiring more territory for Israel) but about people who view the end of the occupation as a way of ending Palestinian violence, as purely a negotiating chip rather than an end in itself.

With regards to your point about conflict before occupied territories, it depends what you mean by "occupied territories". The occupation of Palestinian territory by Israel began in 48; it just got worse in 67; the hope is that the Palestinians will agree to allow the initial injustice to stand in return for the redress of the latter one, thus ending the conflict. I think it not certain but probable that this could end the conflict if it happened; I don't think there's any real chance of it happening.

I fully agree that there would still be sectarian violence among the Arabs even if Israel were destroyed.

[Vegasaurus]

74. Since now I see you are in the camp

that believes that all of Israel is actually "occupied territory" I see we have nothing further to discuss.

[msmcghee]

15. Hmm. Your statement . .

"There will be no peace unless Israel ends the occupation."

Is not the same as saying, "There will be peace if Israel ends the occupation." Which of course is not even close to being true.

But, based on 70 years of history and thousands of statements by Hamas, IJ, Fatah, etc. both are completely wrong.

Peace will come when Palestinians stop killing Jews - and stop trying to kill Jews - and stop wanting to kill Jews. That's what it will take. Nothing else will do the job.

The occupation prevents the killing of Jews. That's why Palestinians don't like it so much.

(BTW - settlement building and the occupation are two different issues.)

[rateyes]

18. One thing is for sure...

we won't know until it's tried.

[msmcghee]

20. It was tried. Gaza and Lebanon. n/t

[rateyes]

21. Yeah right. Again, nice try....

Israel "withdrew" only to deny the Palestinians living in Gaza the basics of life needed to survive. Israel has isolated Gaza by land, sea, and air. Starving a people is a sure fire way to engender peace. (rolls eyes).

[msmcghee]

22. I've been informed by a knowledgeable source . .

. . that Gazans produce all their own food needs within their borders.

"It is important to understand that the Palestinians grow enough food to feed themselves, and the greenhouses were useful only as providing exports."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=195730&mesg_id=196234

[rateyes]

24. Again, more garbage...

Israel has done nothing but try to starve the citizens of Gaza. And, they have separated citizens in the west bank from their olive orchards, etc. with their land grab in building their "security" fence.

Nice.

[azurnoir]

40. There is a detail about the greenhouses never mentioned

Israel shut off the water-

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46011

[rateyes]

45. Yeah. I remember that, too.

[msmcghee]

46. The reason it's never mentioned is that it has never been . .

. . substantiated - aside from this one article in "World Nut daily". All the references I found on the web seemed to refer back to this article.

The article quotes un-named settlers who supposedly returned to their greenhouses for some reason and saw the plants had died. They said Israel had shut off the water. How did they know who shut off the water? Were they there when somebody came and shut the valve? How did they know that somebody didn't dig up the water pipes for "other purposes" which then required shutting down those supply lines to avoid wasting all the water?

The article records no attempt to support the claims of these unknown settlers by asking the IDF or the GOI about it.

Maybe that's why it's never mentioned - except as propaganda to support the Palestinain Narrative.

But I guess if the "World Nut Daily" quotes an un-named source, that's good enough for you.

[pelsar]

68. now that was funny article...

several former Jewish residents who briefly returned to their farms.....sure..and they "lived to tell it".......funny i dont recall any israelis going back to gaza once the withdrawl...

i was going through some of the other articles there....how do they call that journalisim....they literally just make up stories as if they are facts....

[msmcghee]

69. What's even more amazing . .

. . is what people will believe as fact as long as Israel can be depicted as the monster out to destroy the lives of the Palestinians - and oh yeah, steal all their land.

[azurnoir]

71. Ok so tell me

does Israel directly supply Gaza with water?

BTW if you look at the article the date is 08/2005 before the complete pullouut.

[pelsar]

76. israel supplies some water....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/world/middleeast/20mideast.html
.... as the gaza acquifer is in poor shape...dont know nor could i find out exactly how much.

no doubt before destroying the settlements the closed off the water to each settlement so they're wouldnt be wasted water all over the ground as the pipes in the homes were destroyed (the infrastructure was left intact).

whether or not they closed off the water to the greenhouses is not clear (only those on the ground would really know...or maybe not, depending upon the valve system and who ever turned it off, if they knew exactly what they were doing....or maybe it was more like a 'try this one...nope didnt work, try the next one...kind of thing).

many of the articles from that site appear to full of BS......or at least with a healthy dose of imaginative writing......

once a while back i posted an article from there....and got roundly lambasted here for that (didnt really pay attention at time to the other articles....)

[Shaktimaan]

61. why did you put the word security in quotes?

[azurnoir]

38. Tried how?

By taking Israeli boots off the ground, but not planes out of the sky or gun boats out of the water? Or by oh so generously offering to sell Gaza water at only a "slight" mark up*? And oh yes lets not forget the settlements that were abandoned, only to replaced by other in "greener" pastures.
That's trying peace alright.

* http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NET20051103&articleId=1178


* http://www.associated.org/page.html?ArticleID=112599

[pelsar]

53. i agree...

israel shouldnt sell the Palestinians water... especially since their kassams have hit the area near the plant.....for israel its a lose lose situation selling them water.

[msmcghee]

16. Yes, of course.

It was a "massacre". And the 14 militants who were killed were all "martyrs" who are now enjoying their 72 virgins.

Question: Do the virgins get stoned to death in heaven after they are enjoyed by the martyrs for consorting with non-related males? How does that work? Are there any good Hadiths on this?

[kayecy]

28. Not all "martyrs" - some were civilians ....

Haaretz, Jan 16th:

Israel Defense Forces troops on Tuesday killed at least 19 Palestinians, including three civilians , in ground and air operations on the Gaza Strip.


My bold letters

[msmcghee]

30. Maybe I misinterpreted the latest edict . .

. . but I thought any Palestinain who died at the hands of the IDF was a "martyr".

For 75 years the I/P conflict has been waged as a jihad against Israeli Jews whereby militants and jihadnikim purposely target innocent civilians - and Israeli defense forces that try to stop them by targeting the militants who hide among and hide their weapons and explosives among the civilian Palestinain populace.

The three civilians who died in this raid along with the 14 militants - are proof of this fact. If the IDF was simply targeting Palestinian civilians there would be no need to expose themselves to armed militants. There would have been no militants killed and a great many more civilians.

There is no moral equivalence between murder and self-defense - except maybe in the minds of the religious fanatics that push that crap - and those that support them.

[kayecy]

32. They are both callous with lives but

The Kassams are dangerous, stupid and achieve nothing, not even civilians deaths.

The IDF are callous and lethal. If the settlers started firing Kassams or bullets or whatever at the IDF do you think the IDF would be so careless of settler civilian lives?

[msmcghee]

36. Your statement . .

"They are both callous with lives", is absolutely false. It is another attempt to claim moral equivalence between murder and self-defense. It is an important part of the Palestinain narrative.

All nations should be judged in comparison with other nations facing similar threats. That way there will be no double standards.

Judged in that context, I will state that few nations in modern history, faced with continuous attacks against its civilians over several decades by people who celebrate the successful murders of Israeli civilians - has ever been more careful with its enemy's civilians' lives or more committed to following the rule of law while protecting its own civilians from attack.

[kayecy]

39. You didn't answer my question ....

You didn't answer my question......Would the IDF be so callous with settler civilian lives?

Judged in that context, I will state that few nations in modern history, faced with continuous attacks against its civilians over several decades by people who celebrate the successful murders of Israeli civilians - has ever been more careful with the lives of its enemy's civilians' lives or more committed to following the rule of law while protecting its own civilians from attack.

Maybe not, but you could also state that few peoples driven or fleeing from their land have had to suffer from an occupying force for such a long period of time?

How many years of road blocks, random searches, indignities and by-pass roads from an occupying power would you suffer before you became murderous?

[msmcghee]

43. Regarding your question.

I wasn't ignoring it. I was thinking about it wondering if I had an answer.

Since, the settlers have never tried to kill either the IDF or Israeli civilians with suicide bombs, snipers or mortars - I don't know the answer. But, I would guess they would be justified to be quite harsh against anyone using those tactics.

You seem not to be aware that hundreds of attacks against Israel are ignored and not responded to by the IDF at all.

What do think would happen if Hamas started firing Qassams into Egypt that landed in any of the towns in N. Egypt? My guess, based on Arab history in the region, is that in order to avoid assassination by his own people those actions would need to be quelled with extreme force - not negotiations. Also, that unless there were at least several hundred if not a few thousand dead Palestinians within a day or two - there would be riots in the streets of Cairo and that leader would be thrown out. Look what happened on Black September.

September 1970 is known as the Black September in Arab history and sometimes is referred to as the "era of regrettable events." It was a month when Hashemite King Hussein of Jordan moved to quash an attempt by Palestinian organizations to overthrow his monarchy. The violence resulted in the killing of 7,000 to 8,000 from both sides.<1> Armed conflict lasted until July 1971 with the expulsion of the PLO and thousands of Palestinians to Lebanon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan

[kayecy]

47. We are talking of moral equivalence ....

We are talking of moral equivalence between Israelis and Palestinians, not Hamas or Egyptians or Jordanians.

The IDF attacks Hamas and kills civilians. I can't really believe that the IDF would risk killing civilian settlers to get at settler right-wing terrorists any more than the US would kill Americans civilians in trying to kill a few US militants.

Let's face it, in asymetric conflicts, some civilian lives are given greater consideration than others.

Do you call that moral equivalence?

I suppose you think the continuation of a 40 year occupation is more moral than a few hundred kassams fired blindly into the air?

[msmcghee]

50. I think attacking civilians is immoral.

I think defending the lives of civilians from attack is moral.

The end.

[pelsar]

54. quite the difference...

a settler killing an idf soldier would be an isolated incident....arresting such a soldier would not require a squad of soldiers to raid their settlement and to watch out for snipers etc...t would require a couple of police cars.....

a jihadnkim in nabulus requires a very different type of approach, including bomb sniffing dogs, etc.....
____

Your moral equivalence between the Palestinian and the Israeli doesnt work. Its the Palestenian that shoot children at point blank range, celebrate civilian deaths, call sports events after suicide bombers, attempt to kill as many israeli civilians as possible.....the IDF simply tries not to.....and given the firepower of a single tank or squad, its clear that they arent attempting to kill Palestenian civilians.....otherwise there would be 1,000 of dead Palestinians every week.

[msmcghee]

70. What occupation?

The WB is not a state. Jews have just as much right to be there as Arabs. If the Arabs there want to continue trying to kill Jews in Israel, then Israel has every right to place their military there to stop them, set up checkpoints, build fences and barriers, etc.

[kayecy]

72. Israel claims no eastern border .........

Here we have the crux of the Israel narrative.

The WB is not a state. Jews have just as much right to be there as Arabs

Israel claims no eastern border (If I am wrong, show me where it lies!) Do Palestinians therefore have just as much right to move and live west of the Green line as Jews?

[msmcghee]

73. Israel does have an eastern border.

Grab any weapon and try crossing it sometime, east to west. You'll see that Israel recognizes its eastern border.

[kayecy]

75. Can't you do better than that?

I'm sure you can. Even in Cyprus if I grab a weapon and cross into my local town I shall be arrested but this doesn't make it the state border. I expect I would also be stopped at any of the 600 odd road-blocks in the West-bank - does that make them Israel's State border?

You claimed you tried to answer any reasonable question. I asked you a reasonable question which you have dodged.

Let's try again. I stated that Israel does not say what it claims as it's eastern border. Can you refer me to any document that says what its eastern border claim is?

Assuming you cannot offer any such document, my second question becomes pertinent:

If Jews have just as much right to live in the West Bank as Arabs, why don't Arabs have as much right as Jews to live West of the Green Line?

[msmcghee]

77. Feel free to press your question if you don't like my answer . .

. . or explain your point further if you think I'm not recognizing it. That's fair. Accusing me of dodging your question will not help the discussion. You'll find that I'll go out of my way to respect your position in a discussion as long as I feel that you are doing the same. You don't have to agree with someone to respect their position as worth arguing. If you just want to score "points" by being snarky - I can do that too if I'm bored and don't have other things to do at the time. I try to know at all times which mode I am in and which mode you are in.

************************************

A state having a disputed border is not the same has having no border. Israel is a state. It has an eastern border marked with fences of various kinds and a barrier wall in some places. I don't know about the documentation but I assume such documents are maintained by the GOI. That doesn't mean any other state will recognize that border. States are free to recognize another state's borders or not.

But, the WB is not a state and it is not recognized as having statehood by any other state in the world or by the UN. The borders of the WB (a disputed territory) are basically the borders of the states that surround it.

Israel is a state, even if parts of its border are in dispute by the people of the WB. That is why the government of Israel decides who can pass into and out of its state (including along that disputed border) and who can live in Israel or immigrate. That's a function of statehood that stateless territories do not enjoy.

Often, for purposes of administration, the UN will recognize some foreign power as administrators for a territory until statehood can be implemented. That's what happened during the Mandatory period throughout the ME after WWII. That's what happened in Gaza and the WB at the end of the Six Day War. Whether you call it "occupation" or "administration" the UN document that authorizes that administrative power is Res 242. It authorizes the administration of the WB by Israel and how it can begin the transition from a disputed territory to a state administered by its own elected leaders - by negotiating a final peace treaty with Israel that will establish mutually recognized borders.

(Note that WB Palestinians refer to Israel as an occupying power. I believe only states can be "occupied" by foreign powers and therefore it is an inaccurate term. I point that out to clarify my position on that - not to argue the point.)

As the administrative power in parts of the WB Israel also determines who can pass into and out of the territory - especially if those persons are deemed a threat to Israel's or the WB's security.

If this doesn't answer your question please restate it more carefully and I'll give it another try.

[kayecy]

79. Come. come, you know that was not an answer.....

Methinks the Lady doth complain too much.

Grab any weapon and try crossing it sometime, east to west. You'll see that Israel recognizes its eastern border.

If that isn't being facetious and 'snarky' I don't know what is, but don't get me wrong, I'm trying to find out which side in this conflict can claim to have the balance of justice and humanity, not argue over 'presentation'.

I don't even complain when you claim R242 "....authorizes the administration of the WB by Israel." when it does no such thing.

It has an eastern border marked with fences of various kinds and a barrier wall in some places. I don't know about the documentation but I assume such documents are maintained by the GOI

I have tried every source I know to find out if Israel claims any border no matter who recognises it - I have drawn a blank. If you can do better - fine, if not, lets assume the border is along the barrier.

Now, what is the position on the east side of the fence.

1. Todate, any Jewish settler seems to have been able to start a settlement wherever he wishes with virtually nothing done by Israel to stop them.

2. Most Palestinians who were born on the West Bank and were caught outside the area in 1967 (due being students, refugees etc) have no right to return to their villages according to Israel.

If a Jew can settle anywhere, what is the justification for refusing to allow Palestinians to return to their homes on the West Bank?

[msmcghee]

80. You can interpret . .

"Grab any weapon and try crossing it sometime, east to west. You'll see that Israel recognizes its eastern border."

. . as being snarky. Or, you can look at it as a way to make a point that is more dramatic than pedantic. I often try to do that because I think I tend to be too pedantic. If you really want to have an interesting discussion, rather than achieve some "virtual victory" you should give me the benefit of the doubt on that - which is what I'm doing for you.

You ask again,

If a Jew can settle anywhere, what is the justification for refusing to allow Palestinians to return to their homes on the West Bank?

I tried very hard to thoroughly answer this question in my previous post. You don't seem to be respecting my argument enough to read it. Let me try once more. The short version,

Israel is the administrator of the WB according to Res242 until a final peace treaty is signed. As the administrator, and whether anyone thinks they have the right to be the administrator or not, Israel decides who can live there and who can't, who comes and goes. etc.

[breakaleg]

81. No, they don't. They do not have any right to transfer civilian population to land they occupy.

nice try though.

[msmcghee]

82. Israel is not transferring anybody anyplace.

They are allowing people to go on their free will into a stateless territory to establish settlements and build their homes. That is not "transferring civilians" according to the meaning of the term as established in international law.

If you disagaree, if you think they are violating some international law - maybe you should write the UN and suggest some remedy.

[breakaleg]

83. Give me a fucking break. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention nt

[msmcghee]

84. Explain how you think "fucking" Article 49 applies . .

. . and I might respond if you do a good enough job of it. ;)

[msmcghee]

85. Beuhler? Beuhler? Anybody? n/t

[breakaleg]

89. Feign ignorance if you wish. But I've seen enough threads here where this has been

discussed and I believe you are very much aware of the issues. I also realize that regardless of which organization comes out with the view that Israel wrong when it comes to the settlements, your ears are closed.

But if your question is genuine, please feel free to use the search function to refresh your memory.

[msmcghee]

90. Not good enough. Sorry. But . .

. . about what I expected. ;)

[Violet_Crumble]

95. Here's one of those threads....

It's by far the best discussion I've read at DU and since it's at the old DU where there's no longer any search function, I'll post the link here for those who are interested in reading why Article 49 does apply to Israel and the settlers...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=2918&forum=DCForumID30&archive=yes#13

For those who don't have the time to click on links, I'll summarise it in a nutshell. A common mistake by some is to claim that Israel isn't transferring its own population into the West Bank therefore Article 49 doesn't apply. To try to argue that is to ignore the fact that Israel strongly encourages its population to move into the Occupied Territories with subsidies and with the setting up of infrastructure....

[msmcghee]

98. It's just another opinion.

Like is said, it's not that one view is right and the other wrong. It's that until the UN is ready to enforce its opinion on the parties - and that zero chance of happening - the parties to the conflict will settle it themselves. And that's not so good for the Palestinians.

So, throw all the opinions out there you wish. Yours and others. They don't mean squat.

[Violet_Crumble]

100. If you'd read the thread you'd have spotted that it's not just another opinion...

I'd say the official commentary of Article 49 which states the intent of the Article isn't just another opinion. Those who drafted the Convention explaining what the intent was does carry far more weight than the opinion of you or anyone else posting here at DU....

But let's talk about opinions. You say the opinion of me and others doesn't mean squat. In that case, surely yr opinion doesn't mean squat either, yet in this thread you claimed: 'They are allowing people to go on their free will into a stateless territory to establish settlements and build their homes. That is not "transferring civilians" according to the meaning of the term as established in international law.'

Sure, that's an opinion, but it's an ill thought out one, and it's not one that can be supported by any sort of logical argument, nor is it an opinion supported by the intent of Article 49. The official commentary explains the meaning and nowhere does it define it in such a narrow way that citizens of the occupying power must be forcibly moved into the occupied territory for it to apply...

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kayecy]

102. Illegal or not, settlers are living in the West Bank .....

Illegal or not, settlers are living in the West Bank. If, for arguments sake, we accept this ‘fact on the ground’, can someone explain how Israel can morally justify differentiating between West Bank Palestinian residents and West-bank Jewish residents in terms of provision of infrastructure, building approvals and equitable water use not to mention Jewish only by-pass roads and road-block fast-lanes?


In other words, is there any moral justification for a public administration/occupying force to give preference to one ethnic group of civilians over another ethnic group of civilians?

[msmcghee]

104. I don't have a position regarding Israel's . .

. . administration of the WB. I am not Israeli and I don't know enough about why they have the policies they have. I have read some good criticisms and I've read some good justifications for it. However, I have no doubt they are there to prevent attacks from the WB on the citizens of Israel. Every people and every state has the right to proportional self defense.

As far as different treatment of the Arab and Jewish populations: Again, I have no standing to say what policies the IDF should be following there. It is Israel's citizens that are threatened - not mine. Apparently the GOI believes that the current policies are working better than any alternatives they have. They could be right or wrong. They have to live with the consequences of a wrong choice, not you or me, directly anyway.

However, my impression is that it is from the Arab population on the WB that attacks are directed at Israeli civilians. Protecting those civilians is the IDF's primary responsibility. I see no reason that the IDF should subject the settlers to the same restrictions unless and until they start attacking the citizens of Israel as well - in which case I suspect the IDF would probably treat them just as they do the Arabs there - or anyone there who is likely to attack Israeli civilians.

When you attack the citizens of another state, there will be consequences, some of them very bad. That's how things work in a world that respects the idea of people being able to live in peace - free from such attacks. That's how things should work IMO.

[kayecy]

107. I was hoping Pelsar or another Israeli could explain the morality ...

As far as different treatment of the Arab and Jewish populations: Again, I have no standing to say what policies the IDF should be following there.

Thank you for your response, but I was hoping that Pelsar or another Israeli could explain how they saw the morality of giving preference to civilians of one ethnic/cultural group over another.

As you say, they are the ones who have to live with the consequences (and their consiences).

[msmcghee]

108. You responded to post #83 . .

. . which I was directly involved with. Then you said, "Can anybody explain . . . ".

I explained.

I too would like to hear pelsar's opinion on this.

[pelsar]

109. whats difficult to understand...

every nation in the world treats its citizens different from those under their jurisdiction from those who are not citizens....

that said i read article 49 and with all its legalize...i dont have the patience to figure it out....
_____

as far as the differences: when an IDF soldier is near israeli citizens, hes not worried about being attacked, he can take off his equipment, have lunch, get a sun tan.....he wont be doing that while Palestinians are in the area......

[kayecy]

112. Thank you for responding Pelsar ....

as far as the differences: when an IDF soldier is near israeli citizens, hes not worried about being attacked, he can take off his equipment, have lunch, get a sun tan.....he wont be doing that while Palestinians are in the area......

Thank you for responding Pelsar. I am sure you have good reason as an IDF soldier to be worried. However I was hoping that your military instruction would have included some reference and explanation as to why Palestinian West Bank civilians were treated by the Israeli Government in a different manner to Jewish West Bank residents.

I don't mean physically treated, but in terms of provision of infrastructure, building approvals, equitable water use by-pass roads and road-block fast-lanes.

Do the USA treat Iraq Sunnis differently from the way they treat Iraqi Shias?

Did the British treat Mandate Jews differently from Mandate Arabs?

[pelsar]

113. first accept a simple fact

Palestenians are not citizens of israel...and in fact to a certain degree they represent a threat to the citizens of israel, hence they dont have the same rights as israeli citizens.

like all countries in the world...israel is no different here, its citizens are treated differently from non citizens.
______________________

are you being serious....."road block fast lanes"....is that for the suicide bombers, so they dont have to wait in line?


Did the British treat Mandate Jews differently from Mandate Arabs? ....yes

[kayecy]

118. And who are the 'citizens' of the West Bank?

Palestenians are not citizens of israel

Of course, but we are discussing the ethics of equal treatment of different ethnic residents in the West Bank not Israel.

Do citizens of Israel (ie settlers), receive more favourable treatment than Palestinian residents in the West Bank?

[Vegasaurus]

103. Jews lived in the west bank

in Hebron, etc. before the state of Israel was formed. There was a massacre of Jews by Arabs in 1929.

And a Jew can't settle "anywhere". I have already told you that Jews are not welcome in most of the countries in the middle east, including those where they used to live, had homes, owned land, etc. You have conveniently ignored that reality.

[kayecy]

105. I have ignored no reality ........

I have ignored no reality. I made no comment as to Hebron, 1929 massacres or the right of Jews to settle in other Middle East countries.

As to a Jew returning to live in his home in Hebron, of course he should have the absolute right to do so.


My question was why a Palestinian born on the West Bank and caught outside the area in 1967 (due being students, refugees etc) should not also have an absolute right to return to live in his village.

[msmcghee]

106. You are ignoring the reality of armed conflict.

If there was peace between Israel and the Arab citizens of the WB then there would be no occupation - or certainly no onerous occupation - and the PA would decide the question of who gets to live there.

As it is, Israel decides as a necessity for protecting its citizens from attack. When Israel's citizens are no longer threatened by Qassams and suicide bombers from the WB, then the Palestinians can decide for themselves. Palestinians should stop attacking Israelis and then they won't have to worry about the IDF deciding who is and who is not a threat to Israeli civilians.

(Vega - Excuse me jumping in.)

[kayecy]

110. But as you know, there is no peace.......

If there was peace between Israel and the Arab citizens of the WB then there would be no occupation

I'm pleased to see that you have changed your mind from your Jan 18th post "What occupation?"

There is no peace and as you know there are differences of opinion as to why this is so. You are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.

Palestinians should stop attacking Israelis and then they won't have to worry about the IDF deciding who is and who is not a threat to Israeli civilians.

I was trying to clarify the treatment of innocent, non-combatants, not militants or civilians wishing to attack Israelis.

Shall we see what Vegasaurus has to say?

[msmcghee]

111. Yes, we probably will . .

. . see what Vega has to say.

You said, "I was trying to clarify the treatment of innocent, non-combatants, not militants or civilians wishing to attack Israelis. "

Unfortunately, the militants do not wear uniforms. They also store their weapons and explosives in civilian households and stay in civilians households rather than military barracks. That is what causes the non-combatants to suffer - not any desire on the part of Israel to exact "collective punishment". I'm sure they'd prefer that the militants wore uniforms and stayed away from civilians.

Whether you call it occupation or administration - the effect is the same - as is the cause.

[pelsar]

114. the treatment......

I was trying to clarify the treatment of innocent, non-combatants, not militants or civilians wishing to attack Israelis.

easy. but ...first explain to me..how i can identify which are the non combatants and which are the militants.....

[kayecy]

117. Can we limit this sub-thread to the 'right to return to live in one's home'? n/t

[pelsar]

115. dupe

[msmcghee]

78. Just to be sure that I answered that last question . . .

Israel is a state and determines who can live there.

The WB is not a state. It is under the administration of Israel as per Res242. For whatever reasons Israel has decided that Israeli Jews who wish to build homes and establish settlements in the WB can do so subject to certain restrictions.

You may think that's awful. Personally, I see it as the price Palestinians pay for refusing to agree to final borders with Israel according to Res242 during any of the several chances they've been offered to do so. According to the statements of their leaders, they thought that by choosing unending war and terrorism they'd eventually force the Jews out of the ME or at least get a much better deal - like getting a full right of return for refugees which would also destroy Israel as a Jewish state. I think that was a bad choice. But, they made that choice (repeatedly) and took their chances. Now, they are whining about the consequences of that choice.

I have read Israeli scholars who think Israel's implementation of that policy was wrongheaded (not immoral or illegal) and that that policy has caused a lot of problems for Israel they could have avoided. They could be right but I don't understand Israeli politics well enough to know if they are right or wrong.

Israeli politics is not my interest. I am interested in the morality of conflict. I see Israel's actions as almost entirely defensive and therefore moral. I see the militants' actions as immoral attacks against civilians. I also see the great majority of Palestinians supporting those attacks and celebrating them. As a liberal I find that repugnant and immoral. That's the consistent position I take in this forum.

I offer these observations as a third party in an attempt to thoroughly answer your question. It's really between Israel and the PA (whoever that is). What I think about it isn't important.

[kayecy]

86. You say you are interested in the morality of conflict ........

I must be having difficulty understanding your english.

The WB is not a state. It is under the administration of Israel as per Res242

Why do you persist in referring to R242 when you know it says no such thing?

Israel decides who can live there and who can't, who comes and goes. etc.

You can say that and then claim you are interested in the morality of the conflict?

Tell me any other state that refuses a person the right to return to the village of his birth?
Even worse, tell me any other occupying power which refuses him that right?

What sort of morality is that?

[Vegasaurus]

87. It that question a joke?

Almost every Arab nation does not allow Jews to return to the villages of their births. They were all kicked out of their countries without compensation.

And to add insult to injury, most of these countries will not even let Israelis (and in some cases, Jews ) visit, particularly if they have either an Israeli passport (the kiss of death to the Arab nations) or even an Israeli visitor stamp.

So not only can they not return to the villages or homes (that they owned) of their births to live, they can't even visit.

Next question?

[kayecy]

91. I thought Israel thought of itself as a western democracy......

Does Israel consider itself a western democracy or not?

Why must Israelis resort to comparing their actions with the undemoctatic Arab world?

I'd be disgusted if anyone thought there was a comparison between my country and an Arab dictatorship.

[pelsar]

92. yes israeli is a western democracy....

and in fact more liberal than many.....we can also compare israel to other democracies in near similar situations....... However when those insist upon negotiations with the Palestinians it is also relevant to look at their governing style/culture etc to understand what is to be expected.

granted there is a lot of guess work, but at the sametime one shouldnt close one eyes to the various aspects of the history/culture, etc.

[Violet_Crumble]

96. Not sure about the question, but I think the answer may have been...

Almost every Arab nation does not allow Jews to return to the villages of their births. They were all kicked out of their countries without compensation.

They were ALL kicked out? History sure isn't on yr side on this one. The reality is that some were expelled, some fled out of fear, and some left because they wanted to live in Israel, which was at that time wanting them to move there. To claim all were expelled is every bit as simplistic and incorrect as someone saying ALL the Palestinian refugees were expelled from Israel...

[Vegasaurus]

97. Fine. Remove the word ALL

if it makes you feel better. The fact is, some 650,000-800,000 Jews were expelled or fled from their homes in Arab countries, and most of these countries have almost no Jews left. Those Jews left (or were forced out) and were offered not a penny of compensation, and no one considers their losses, only the Palestinian losses. Why is that? I think both should be compensated.

While the Arab countries are more or less free of Jews though, there are a million and a half Arabs in Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

99. It's about factuality. You were incorrect, that's all...

Nothing about making me feel better, but you would have been all over anyone who claimed that all the Palestinian refugees were expelled from what is now Israel...

[msmcghee]

88. I interpret R242 as basically calling for a settlement . .

. . between Israel and the Palestinians based on the concept of land for peace. It was an agreement that Israel and the Arab states as well as the Palestinians signed - to stop hostilities and begin negotiations for a final settlement based on that concept.

The Palestinians have both refused to negotiate and have refused to end the hostilities. Israel has kept the IDF there in a defensive position against the constant attempts at terrorism pending a change in the Palestinians' hostile and violent position.

You can interpret R242 however you wish. The point is not that I am right and you are wrong. It is that there is disagreement about the interpretation.

Aside from R242 the UN absolutely does recognize as a fundamental element of its charter the right of member states to self defense. It is not reasonable to expect the UN to pass any resolution that would directly violate its charter. As long as attacks are being made from the WB against Israel it would be difficult to assert that the UN should deny Israel the right to go into the WB (a stateless territory that has no government that is subject to international pressure), to set up checkpoints, etc. to intercept those attacks before they reach Israel. As a practical matter, unless the UN is willing to send in troops to force its interpretation on the parties, or to defend Israel against terrorism, then the parties will determine their actions themselves.

You say, "Tell me any other state that refuses a person the right to return to the village of his birth? Even worse, tell me any other occupying power which refuses him that right?"

Well, aside from all the Arab states as regards Jews, as Vegasaurus points out, China. According to the Dalai Lama in 2000, a total of 11,409 monks and nuns had been expelled from Tibet and not allowed to return.

John S. Hall, "Chinese Population Transfer in Tibet" page 173

Tibet has been brutally occupied by China for fifty years. Unlike Israel, China simply claims Tibet as theirs and has never offered the Tibetans any negotiations for self-determination. Despite all that, the UN has never condemned China or recognized in any resolutions the right of the Tibetans to self determination. Instead the world granted China the 2008 Olympics.

The Palestinians have been offered a homeland by the international community three times - 1937, 1947 and 2000-2001. In the latest offer Israel's only requirement for Palestinian statehood was an agreement that the PA make its best efforts to halt terrorism against Israel. In each case the Palestinians rejected the offers - electing instead to escalate their use of violence and attempts to kill the Jews or push them into the sea. I'd say the Tibetans have a far more compelling case for statehood than the Palestinians.

[kayecy]

93. I must have a higher regard for Israel…….

I must have a higher regard for Israel than you do. I didn’t think it necessary to specify that the comparison should be with a western democracy.

Comparing Israel with China and Arab dictatorships hardly sits well with your claim to be interested in the morality of this conflict.


Give up msmcghee. You know it’s immoral to bar Palestinians or anyone else returning to their homes.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Joad]

35. The LA Times featured a photo of the Helicopter gunship that was used in this terror attack

I think it is obvious that was provided by extremist hardliners based in Washington DC.

Some of these hardliners are motivated by religious extremism, others simply for political expediency, but whatever the motivation, the results are the bloody same.

As much as we are able, we must work for different foreign policy based on pursuit of peace with justice.

It's not going to happen from above, the people will lead on this issue, just as they have done in the past on so many other struggles.

http://endtheoccupation.org/
http://pdamerica.org/
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/

[oberliner]

116. It starts with Iraq

We are engaging in our own occupation right there right now with about a thousand times the amount of money and weaponry.

15 killed there today and it's as if it isn't even news any more.