Livni sparks Arab 'transfer' row

[dipsydoodle]

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has sparked controversy by saying a Palestinian state would provide "a national solution" for Israel's Arabs.

Politicians from the minority Arab community have demanded she clarify if it means that Arabs citizens will face loss of rights in Israel or expulsion.

Israeli politicians have long grappled with the issue of a growing proportion of ethnic Arabs in the Jewish state.

"Transfer" has been mooted explicitly only by far right-wingers in Israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7779087.stm

[ProgressiveMuslim]

1. Wow. I guess the day has arrived.

"Transfer" has entered the parlance of the non-wack-job political discourse.

How much longer before Israel is Arab-free?

[subsuelo]

3. Stealing land is a dirty business

After the theft, the problem becomes what to do with all those native people kicked out of their homes.

The ones that escaped alive, and refuse to leave on their own accord, that is.

So it doesn't surprise me that discussion of 'transfer' comes up. Terrorizing the remaining natives into going away somewhere else isn't working very well.

[oberliner]

4. What land was stolen and from whom?

And by whom?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

6. Why don't you educate us as to how the land on which all Israeli settlements sit was acquired? nt

[Vegasaurus]

7. Israel's Arabs live in Israel, not in the WB

There are no Israeli Arabs living near the "settlements".

They lost no land, so what are you talking about?

[subsuelo]

8. The denials around here are absolutely stunning, aren't they

[Vegasaurus]

9. Did Jews in Arab countries lose their homes and livelihood?

Are you crying a river for their losses, and how horrible those Arab countries were (and are) for wanting to be JEW-FREE?

1.5 million Arabs live in Israel with full rights.

Quit your hypocrisy.

[subsuelo]

11. The history of the region is nasty on all sides, I've never denied that

In fact, I routinely condemn both sides in this conflict, something you routinely fail to do (speaking of hypocrisy).

When you start condemning Israel's terrorism, war crimes and land theft, then maybe you can talk about hypocrisy.

[shira]

14. when your definitions of Israeli...

terrorism, war crimes, and land theft are more in line with reality rather than figments of your imagination, maybe some of us will start taking you more seriously.

Under the same circumstances against hostile surrounding countries, there is NO country in the world that would act more morally than Israel has the past 60 years. Nevermind all 2nd and 3rd world countries that you have zero expectations of, I'm talking first world countries. Look at China and Russia. France's record with Algeria. The USA and Britain with Iraq. Do you seriously believe the countries making up the security council would have reacted better to what Israel has endured the past 60 years? Can you seriously say 'YES' with a straight face?

[azurnoir]

15. Yes I suppose

expelling the Israeli Palestinian "enemy within" is "moral" in views of some here.

[subsuelo]

17. I love how land theft and terrorism is described as being moral

And the Mumbai terrorists were exemplary citizens right?

:crazy:

[shira]

18. can't admit it, can you?

name a country in the same circumstances the past 60 years that would have acted better, and justify your answer. You can't, can you?

The territories are disputed. No land theft has occured. Even if it has, that land was offered in exchange for peace 8 years ago and those whose land you believe was stolen, refused. As for terrorism, you believe that clear-cut accidental deaths are acts of state-sponsored terror, which is why you cannot be taken seriously.

[subsuelo]

19. "No land theft has occurred"

And you expect to be taken seriously?

[shira]

20. as i thought, you can't admit it.....also,

is the OPT sovereign Palestinian territory? Or disputed land?

[subsuelo]

22. sorry I'm unable to bring myself to admit

that stealing land and terrorizing the remaining natives is actually wonderful and moral.

I can see why you can't take me seriously.

[shira]

23. you're deflecting, as usual,,,,I wonder why

given Israel's battles within a very hostile region, can you name another country that would have acted better than Israel? If so, justify your answer. The question isn't whether Israel has always acted wonderful or moral. I think the build-your-own-home initiative of the late 70's was more moral and wonderful than anything the rest of the world has offered the Palestinians.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=52&x_article=960

can you name anything the rest of the world has offered the Palestinians more moral or wonderful than that? lemme guess, more silence by you. no admission of anything.

And once again, if Israel stole land - who did they steal it from? Which sovereign Palestinian nation did they steal from?

And you believe killing anyone unntentionally in self-defense is terrorism, so there goes that accusation.

[subsuelo]

25. Refusing to excuse Israel's terrorism and land theft is not deflection

Fine, you have plenty of excuses to justify Israel's theft and terrorism, everyone can see that. Can we move along? Just because I don't go along with it doesn't mean I'm deflecting. I'm just opposed to it.

And the whole 'name another country that acts better' is a *really* pathetic excuse. As I wrote in one of my first responses in the thread here, stealing land is a dirty business. Nobody doing it is going to have clean hands.

[Shaktimaan]

36. Morality is subjective.

If a starving person steals bread, is he acting immorally? To say that he is not immoral isn't an endorsement of theft.

There is no question that Israel stole the land of the evicted Palestinians, most of whom were never compensated. Whether this was immoral or not is immaterial. It was necessary.

I personally think that "terrorism" is a stretch, but the word has no real meaning, so that's really up to you to decide for yourself according to your own definition of the word.

But your comparison is poor. Israel has never taken actions similar to those of the Mumbai terrorists. Israel happens to be one of the most lenient and tolerant nations out there. Every state that has fought a war has committed atrocities. Defending a state's basic ethics does not mean defending its atrocities as ethical. The Mumbai terrorists attacked helpless civilians during a time of peace in the hopes of sowing chaos and war, for ideological, not material, reasons. While some individual Israelis have crossed this line, Israeli policy never has.

Shira is right, I would stack Israel's actions against any other country's any day with confidence.

[shira]

10. is that officially Palestinian land or disputed territory?

and wasn't most of that particular land offered back in 2000 at Camp David / Taba, just as in the cases of the Sinai and Gaza?

Also, if you don't mind, are you satisfied or happy about Arafat declining that offer to end the occupation and settlements, now that it's 8 years later? An 8 year old Palestinian state could be in existance right now, minus all the deaths of the past eight years. No Gaza siege. No more "apartheid". Wouldn't Palestinians be better off?

[azurnoir]

16. Ah gee perhaps a closer look at Taba should be taken

this is a long excerpt any added emphsis is mine

Barak's negation of the talks

In fact Barak went even further, in a February 8, 2001 statement <8> released by Barak's media advisor he communicated to newly inaugurated President George W. Bush as follows:

Prime Minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak clarified this evening that the ideas which were brought up in the course of the recent negotiations conducted with the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, including those raised at the Camp David Summit and by President Clinton towards the end of his term in office, are not binding on the new government to be formed in Israel. In a letter to President George Bush, Prime Minister Barak stated that his government had done the utmost to bring about an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but that these efforts did not bear fruit, primarily because of a lack of sufficient readiness for compromise on the part of the Palestinian leadership...Before sending the letter, Barak spoke with former President Clinton, and they were in agreement that the ideas raised in the past months are not binding on the new government in Israel. Prime Minister Barak intends to convey this position also to the heads of the European Union and to Chairman Arafat.

Reasons for impasse

The reasons for impasse are highly disputed.

The breakdown is often attributed to the political circumstances posed by Israeli elections and changeover in leadership in the United States:<9> They had run out of political time. They couldn't conclude an agreement with Clinton now out of office and Barak standing for reelection in two weeks. "We made progress, substantial progress. We are closer than ever to the possibility of striking a final deal," said Shlomo Ben-Ami, Israel's negotiator. Saeb Erekat, Palestinian chief negotiator, said, "My heart aches because I know we were so close. We need six more weeks to conclude the drafting of the agreement."

Evidence to support this view is provided by David Matz in the Palestine - Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture<10> concerning a joint statement.<7> He notes that, "The Taba negotiation began on Sunday evening, January 21, and ended on Saturday afternoon, January 27 <2001>. At the closing press conference, the parties issued this joint statement: 'The sides declare that they have never been closer to reaching an agreement and it is thus our shared belief that the remaining gaps could be bridged with the resumption of negotiations following the Israeli election'."

Uri Avnery of the Israeli peace group Gush Shalom attributed the failure to Barak, claiming that<11>: "It was not Arafat who broke off the talks at this critical moment, when the light at the end of the tunnel was clearly visible to the negotiators, but Barak. He ordered his men to break off and return home."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_Summit#Barak.27s_negation_of_the_talks

It has ben opined that Barack felt that Bush would be more amenable to Israeli interests, and former President Clinton agreed? so what

[shira]

21. read Amos Oz and Shlomo ben Ami on CD and Taba

their story is in line with Dennis Ross.

so do you think Palestinians would be better off today had Arafat accepted 8 years ago?

[azurnoir]

24. Nope as Barack said

that nothing from a former administration was binding there would be no difference, in fact that may have actually increased the violence.

[shira]

38. why can't you answer the simplest of questions?

do you find your opponents here to be as remotely evasive as you are?

and the reason barak took all of Taba/CD off the table is because he realized Palestinian negotiators would want to pick up right from that point in their next round of negotiations. as backed by Amos Oz, Shlomo ben-Ami, Dennis Ross, etc... the Palestinians never counter-offered and only waited for Israel to concede more and more throughout the process. Barak put an end to that.

[Shaktimaan]

35. Shira, that doesn't particularly matter.

Land was certainly stolen from the Palestinians by Israel. I mean, what else was the Nakba and the Land Transfer Act if not theft?

Palestinians lived in what is now Israel. They fled during wartime, as many civilians are likely to do. Israel prevented their return and then passed legislation which essentially labeled their land as abandoned. Town were destroyed and most of the people were never compensated.

Israel had reasons for doing this, but let's not pretend that it never happened.

As the saying goes, "you can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs." So, eggs were broken. Of course the Palestinians played a role in forcing Israel's hand here. Remember, ethics are always subjective. Is it immoral for a starving man to steal bread? To simply say that stealing is wrong without giving leeway for context isn't a good way to determine morality.

So yes, the Israelis stole from the Palestinians. But the Palestinians did not leave them any other choice.

[shira]

37. can't argue with that...

...but if that's what subsuelo is arguing, in that the land INSIDE the green line is stolen, then that position is EXTREMELY radical and is what currently stands as a barrier to a peaceful 2-state solution. IOW, even if Israel tomorrow gives up every last inch of the disputed territory from the 1967 war, much of Israel within the green land is still "stolen" property according to that viewpoint. Subsuelo could still argue with Hamas and other extremists that, peace deal or not, Israel remains on stolen land until Israel is eventually taken out of existence. Any terror against it is "understood" due to the unjust "Nakba". And why stop there? The territory allocated to Israel in 1947 before the war is ALSO stolen land, taken "unjustly" due to a racist zionist idelogy.

[oberliner]

27. 1967 War?

The war where Egypt, Jordan, and Syria fought against Israel.

Would you argue that Israel stole the land from Egypt and Jordan?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[azurnoir]

13. Attempt at distraction?

Well it is nice that you are justifying or is it distract from Livni's suggestion that Israel expel it's Arab population

[Dick Dastardly]

30. You mean the suggestion that went through the spin machine to come out a misrepresentation

Part of her comment was left out, she never advocated forced expulsion as it was spun.

Not saying you did it intentionally but you took the bait and didnt check it out

"The national aspirations (of the Arabs) should be realised elsewhere, but there is no question of carrying out a transfer or forcing them to leave," she told public radio.


"I am willing to give up a part of the country over which I believe we have rights so that Israel will remain a Jewish and democratic state in which citizens have equal rights, whatever their religion," she said in reference to the creation of a Palestinian state.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iMhXDvCb5fKUFzR6oPHMs3JVN5Nw

[subsuelo]

26. Shocking comment

I'm wondering how it would be received around here if someone commented:

"More likely that the whole middle east will become Arab-free, just as the Jews want."

Absolutely shocking.

[azurnoir]

2. Hmmm

Is this a surprise? A poll in April of 2007 showed that half of Israeli Jews wee in favor of this "transfer", coupled with the change in language used Israeli Arabs suddenly became "Palestinians" or for PC purposes Israeli Palestinians and then this comment by Livni

"Among other things I will also be able to approach the Palestinian residents of Israel... and tell them: 'Your national aspirations lie elsewhere.'"

The parsing will be "entertaining" Bad translation maybe? :sarcasm:

diaspora by any other name

[Dick Dastardly]

28. Your claim that a poll showed half of Israeli Jews support expulsion or forced

tranfer is not true.

There was not support as you tried to imply for forcible tranfer but there was support for incentives for them to emigrate to a new Palestinian state or support for the transfer of territory for settlement territory in a peace deal. Only those on the extreme right fringe advocate forced expulsions and they are a small minority. Trying to portray this as the Israeli public supporting forced transfer and mass expulsions is a gross misrepresentation. That said it is still a disturbing trend that needs to be monitored so it doesnt get promoted and grow to a mainstream view.

Your poll was also at the height of 4 years of terror, suicide bombing and rocket/mortar attacks. Support for these attacks by Palestinians hovered around 80% through the years


It also was after some polls like below of Israeli Arabs in Haaretz and other media and incedents showing Arab Israeli radicalization that shocked Israeli Jews

28 percent of local Arabs did not believe the Holocaust happened, and that among high-school and college graduates the figure was even higher: 33 percent.

Asked about Israel’s war in Lebanon last summer, 48 percent of the Israeli Arabs polled said they believe Hezbollah’s rocket attacks on northern Israel during that war were justified, even though numerous Arabs were killed and wounded as well.

While 89 percent said they view Israel’s bombing of Lebanon as a war crime, only 44 percent said they see Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel as such.

Half of Israeli Arab respondents said Hezbollah’s capture of the two Israeli soldiers, which sparked the fighting, was justified.

Notwithstanding the suspicions of both sides; 86% of the Jewish population
and 75% of the Arab population believe that Israel is a good place to live;
85% amongst the Jewish public and 71% amongst the Arab public prefer Israel
over any other nation in the world. 58% amongst the Arab public believe that
Israel democratic for them too.

Furthermore, the percentage of Arabs who deny Israel’s right to exist as a
Jewish-Zionist state rose slightly from 62.6% last year to 64% this year.
The percentage of Arab civilians who deny Israel’s right to exist rose from
15% last year to 20% this year. Support for the use of violence to advance
the interests of the Arab minority rose from 9.5% to 10.8% this year. 18% of
the Jewish public denies the right of existence to the Arabs as a minority
in Israel compared to 16% last year.

“The index exposes the dimensions of the deep rift between Arabs and Jews;
in order to narrow this divide, there is a need to settle the Palestinian
question and to find a balance between the Jewish and democratic characters
of the State. Nevertheless, looking at it in perspective and in comparison
to surveys conducted over the years, it is important to note that there isn’t
a trend towards extremism in the attitudes of the Arab population or
entrenchment among the Jewish public,” Prof. Smooha said.



http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/839117.html
http://www.yourish.com/2007/03/20/2883




Here is a snip of the poll published in April that you talked about


The survey, carried out among a representative sample of 501 Jewish Israelis, found 42 percent agreed that the state should encourage Israeli Arabs to emigrate while another 17 percent said they tended to agree with this.

This compares to 40 percent who disagreed or tended to disagree.

The poll was conducted in mid March by the Dahaf Institute on behalf of Madar, the Palestinian Center for Israel Studies.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-15924548.html



btw how about this poll that is far worse than anything that has come from Israeli polls

PSR Poll No. 27 - Joint Palestinain Israeli Press release -Palestinians support of violent acts against Israel is staggering

Consistent with the gloomy expectations from the peace process and the
heightened threat feelings, Palestinians support of violent acts against
Israel is staggering while Israeli support for military action in Gaza
remains stable.
An overwhelming majority of 84% support and 13% oppose the shooting attack
that took place in a religious school in West Jerusalem. Support for this
attack is greater in the Gaza Strip (91%) compared to the West Bank (79%).
64% support and 33% oppose launching rockets from the Gaza Strip against
Israeli towns and cities such as Sderot and Ashkelon.







I like the fact that part of her comment was left out, she never advocated forced expulsion as it was insinuated

"The national aspirations (of the Arabs) should be realised elsewhere, but there is no question of carrying out a transfer or forcing them to leave," she told public radio.


"I am willing to give up a part of the country over which I believe we have rights so that Israel will remain a Jewish and democratic state in which citizens have equal rights, whatever their religion," she said in reference to the creation of a Palestinian state.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iMhXDvCb5fKUFzR6oPHMs3JVN5Nw

[azurnoir]

29. I am sure Ms Livni thanks you for cleaning up her statement

but in reality that part you cite was not left out at least if one bothered to read,and explain this

Furthermore, the percentage of Arabs who deny Israel’s right to exist as a
Jewish-Zionist state rose slightly from 62.6% last year to 64% this year.
The percentage of Arab civilians who deny Israel’s right to exist rose from
15% last year to 20% this year. Support for the use of violence to advance
the interests of the Arab minority rose from 9.5% to 10.8% this year. 18% of
the Jewish public denies the right of existence to the Arabs as a minority
in Israel compared to 16% last year.

Arabs where, you seem to insinuate Israel but that is hardly believable,not to mention the numbers conflict or are you intentionally paraphrasing to create a gottcha'?

[shira]

31. so if you read Livni's entire statement....

why were you criticizing her repeatedly as if she were in favor of forced expulsion?

[shira]

32. so you were wrong again

as Dick Dastardly pointed out, 42% of Israelis were in favor of the govt encouraging a transfer by offering incentives, not forcing expulsion. Big difference.

Imagine if some of us here were constantly misquoting Palestinian leaders or misrepresenting Palestinian views repeatedly. We'd be called haters. Our opponents, of course, are not haters and are just making "honest errors" in their "criticisms" of all things Jewish or Israeli. Yep, got it!

[azurnoir]

39. No I was not wrong

and the percentage of the Haaretz poll was a bit higher, rthe rest is your own spin and distortion made necessary to make your supposed point but I always consider the source.

And yes big difference we won't force you to leave but we would be really, really happy if you would.

Imagine if some of us here were constantly misquoting Palestinian leaders or misrepresenting Palestinian views repeatedly. We'd be called haters. Our opponents, of course, are not haters and are just making "honest errors" in their "criticisms" of all things Jewish or Israeli. Yep, got it!

Yes like posting pictures of Palestinian children in Gaza and then claiming that they prove there is no problem. no hunger, its all a lie

I made no error Ms Livni's quote was quite clear especially the part about "nationalist aspirations" seeing that the people she was talking about are Israeli citizens what nation was she talking about? Or perhaps was it a threat to Israeli Arabs that support the Palestinian cause?

[Behind the Aegis]

40. You were wrong.

Why do you insist on making things up and declaring them factual?

"I made no error Ms Livni's quote was quite clear especially the part about "nationalist aspirations" seeing that the people she was talking about are Israeli citizens what nation was she talking about? Or perhaps was it a threat to Israeli Arabs that support the Palestinian cause?"

Livni's actual quote:

""the conflict between us and the Palestinians is a national conflict and therefore the solution has to be a national solution in the form of the establishment of two nation states."

She also said: "The future Palestinian state should be the response to the national aspirations of the Palestinian people wherever they are - even those who chose to be citizens with equal rights of the Jewish and democratic state that will respect their individual rights, while their national rights will be expressed by the Palestinian state." source

Is not clear enough for you she was speaking of all PALESTINIANS? Is not express enough for you to understand she was saying if they want a "Palestinian homeland," it will not be Israel, but the newly created Palestine? Is not easy enough to understand neither of those statements call for forcible expulsion? Why do you claim another "cleaned up her statement" but, then acknowledge it was she who made the comment (source)? So, do you realize she is not calling for the forced expulsion of Israeli Arabs, so why pretend, like others here (so you aren't alone) she is calling for a 'transfer?'

Do you honestly believe she is suggesting the "ethnic cleansing" of Israeli Arabs?

[azurnoir]

41. Wow thats a new spin

is this a pile on coming is simply someone elses pyles?

[Behind the Aegis]

42. Predictable non-response.

[shira]

12. expulsion from Israel will never happen

maybe Israel will find a way to expel only those who are openly hostile and clear enemies of the state, but they'd never be able to get the Supreme Court to put a stamp of approval on expelling all arabs within Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Ah, but it's all okay. She'd only *encourage* them to leave, not *force* them!

See, as long as the language is kept on the passive side it's all much preferable and ever-so-progressive. Seriously, who gives a flying fuck? When it boils down to it, sugar-coating a desire to not have a country's citizens of a particular ethnicity remain there is ugly as hell no matter how it's said. She trotted out that crap to school-kids, and couldn't even bring herself to refer to them as citizens, but merely residents. Make no mistake about it. She's talking about transfer and it's similar to what Lieberman advocates. Why would it be any more palatable when Livni comes out with it?

[shira]

34. she also said this

"I am willing to give up a part of the country over which I believe we have rights so that Israel will remain a Jewish and democratic state in which citizens have equal rights, whatever their religion," she added.

==============================

In english, that means those Arabs living around the green line would remain in their homes and communities, but instead of being under Israeli rule, they'd be under Palestinian rule instead.

Would you be for that?

btw, I'd only agree with her statement about national aspirations if it only applied to those Arabs within Israel who would rather see Israel destroyed and replaced by one Palestinian state. Encourage THEM to have their national aspirations realized elsewhere, not all Arabs within Israel - which I'm not at all certain is what Livni realy means.