Is Israel guilty of ethnic cleanising?

[Slax]

With the world's attention now focused on Iraq and the conflict there Israel has upped it's miltary activity in the West Bank and other occupied terriotories.

It leads to the question is Israel guilty of etnic cleansing by using force to remove people from the lands destroying homes and making settlements in occupied territories. All of this is done with the bleasing of the USA due to political influence by Jews in New York and on the East Coast who contribute heavily to political parties.

I say Yes and Sharon should be forced to appear before the Hauge because in my mind he is no worse than Saddam Hussein. It is not the number killed that matters once it reaches 100 it is the intention that counts and his intention is clearly to remove Palestinians from the occupied territories which makes him guilty and should be tried and improsoned for it.

 

[knuckles]

Yes, as are most Arab countries in one way or another. Things should be busy at The Hague.
Incredibly, some say we should leave them all alone and let them sort it out themselves. Nice.

 

[Mr Q]

Originally posted by knuckles
Yes, as are most Arab countries in one way or another. Things should be busy at The Hague.
Incredibly, some say we should leave them all alone and let them sort it out themselves. Nice.

The problem (for me anyway), is that some countries (Israel against the Palestinians), Turkey (against the Kurds), Zimbabwe (the whites), China (Tibet)) are ignored by the US (and in the main the rest of the western world), while some are not (Iraq, Iran (again the Kurds), Afghanistan (bit all in), Serbia (eveyone around them) etc).

Now I'm in no way saying that ethnic cleansing is OK, but I object to the selective action on this. Now I know China is too big a target to tackle, but surely the Americans could put pressure on Israel or Turkey if they really wanted to, and certainly in Zimbabwe - although the landlocked nature of Zimbabwe would be a problem.

Incidentally, on the Hague, why does the US feel it has the right to not be bound by the international courts, but can bring others before it?

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by Mr Q
.

Incidentally, on the Hague, why does the US feel it has the right to not be bound by the international courts, but can bring others before it?

One of the reasons they gave was that it was going to be retrospective, and America is known to have committed many crimes in the past such as nuking japan.

This may of course have been a smokescreen, as I wouldnt really expect retrospectiveness to be an absolute requirement.

 

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by Mr Q
Incidentally, on the Hague, why does the US feel it has the right to not be bound by the international courts, but can bring others before it?

I think it's leaders would hate to think they were ever morally wrong.............even if it has been the truth at times.

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by Slax
With the world's attention now focused on Iraq and the conflict there Israel has upped it's miltary activity in the West Bank and other occupied terriotories.

It leads to the question is Israel guilty of etnic cleansing by using force to remove people from the lands destroying homes and making settlements in occupied territories. All of this is done with the bleasing of the USA due to political influence by Jews in New York and on the East Coast who contribute heavily to political parties.

I say Yes and Sharon should be forced to appear before the Hauge because in my mind he is no worse than Saddam Hussein. It is not the number killed that matters once it reaches 100 it is the intention that counts and his intention is clearly to remove Palestinians from the occupied territories which makes him guilty and should be tried and improsoned for it.

I think the Israel situation is a touch more complicated than that. The country has been on a war footing for pretty much all of it's existence, and is existing in circumstances where it's neighbours stated objectives include the elimination of the Israeli state.

Rightly or wrongly, Israel see a lot of it's military actions as the only way of ensuring the safety of the state, I would classify them as acts of war, and strategic defence rather than acts of ethnic cleansing.

I also think that it is simplistic (but quite fashionable) to lay the blame on the whole Middle East problems on one country. Israel, Palestine, Syria and other nations all engage in actions which IMO are counter-productive, there is fault on all sides, and it will take a generational (or longer) change in attitudes before we can ever think about real peace in the Middle East.

Moomba

 

[Hawkforce]

Well said Moomba.

As for the US not doing anything about Israel - what do people think Clinton spent the last year or so of his presidency working towards?

ANd what about the statement from the Azores - and roadmap to Palestinian state?

I heard an interview on BBC Radio last night with a Lebanese Govt official - he basically said that the only thing that would satisfy Arab people is not simply a viable Palestinian state but a settlement to be forced on the Israeli's that sates the Arab street.

Basically code for Israel to be swept into the sea at the earliest possible convenience.

THis is going to be a very dangerous time. Unless the Palestinian Authority can demonstrate a genuine commitment to democratic principles the US will not force anything on Israel.

Sharon will do nothing at all to assist the Palestinian Authority to embrace democracy.

If Blair can't find a way to bang heads together it will all get a lot worse before it gets any better.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

In theory yes Israel is guilty of genocide.

Trying to make it stick is another matter.

Solution? Stop the billion dollar aid trade to them until a mutually acceptable Palestinian/Israel solution is achieved.

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts
Solution? Stop the billion dollar aid trade to them until a mutually acceptable Palestinian/Israel solution is achieved.

Only problem with that as far as I can see is that without the aid, will Israel be around long enough to find a peaceful solution. My guess is no.

Moomba

 

[Sherman]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts
In theory yes Israel is guilty of genocide.

Trying to make it stick is another matter.

Solution? Stop the billion dollar aid trade to them until a mutually acceptable Palestinian/Israel solution is achieved.

Dippers - "Israel is guilty of genocide" is hyperbole at best and outright intentional prevarication at worst.

And as for "a mutually acceptable Palestinian/Israel solution" - how about this, instead: Palestinians stop killing unsuspecting non-combatants, old men, women, children, families and friends at wedding celebrations, people at prayer, people driving to work, on and on and on and on, ad infinitum.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Sherman
Dippers - "Israel is guilty of genocide" is hyperbole at best and outright intentional prevarication at worst.

And as for "a mutually acceptable Palestinian/Israel solution" - how about this, instead: Palestinians stop killing unsuspecting non-combatants, old men, women, children, families and friends at wedding celebrations, people at prayer, people driving to work, on and on and on and on, ad infinitum.

oh dear - another Israeli apologist in our midsts...

How was my statement hyperbole? Would you like the gory facts? Feel free...

Maybe, just maybe; the Palestinians would't think to resort to such extreme acts if their occupiers (ie the israelis) hadn't provoked such an extreme response.

an eye for eye my jewish friend once said...

 

[Sherman]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts
oh dear - another Israeli apologist in our midsts...

How was my statement hyperbole? Would you like the gory facts? Feel free...

Maybe, just maybe; the Palestinians would't think to resort to such extreme acts if their occupiers (ie the israelis) hadn't provoked such an extreme response.

an eye for eye my jewish friend once said...

the "gory facts"? yes - please provide the facts and the source.

Did it ever occur to you that the Arabs of the middle east, including those people now known as "Palestinians" have been massacring the Jews in their midst for (we'll just stick to "modern" times) the last 120 years? And as a result of that almost unbroken stream of murderous events, the Israelis might be justified in being rather aggressive about their defense?

Dippers, you label me as an "Israeli apologist". Judging by the content of your posts in this forum, and applying the same standard as you have applied to me, I believe it is fair to label you, clearly, as an Arab apologist. I am not ashamed of my interpretation of events in the middle east. I do not expect you to be ashamed by yours. We will not convince one another of our positions. Labels are OK, but in the heat of passionate debate legitimate labels can take on a hard edge and transmogrify into unsavory ad hominem attacks. Thus far that has not happened. I agree to do my part to keep the debate civil.

As I have challenged you for "facts" and "sources" I suspect you are going to ask me for mine. Fair enough. I may be slow (at work today, going out of town Thursday and Friday) but if you ask, I will provide.

Peace to you . . . .

 

[Hawkforce]

Well said Sherman.

 

[skilts]

Originally posted by Sherman
the "gory facts"? yes - please provide the facts and the source.

Did it ever occur to you that the Arabs of the middle east, including those people now known as "Palestinians" have been massacring the Jews in their midst for (we'll just stick to "modern" times) the last 120 years? And as a result of that almost unbroken stream of murderous events, the Israelis might be justified in being rather aggressive about their defense?

I presume you'll be falling over yourself to explain the non-violent method employed by the Jews to stake their claim to the original area of Israel. What was the name of that tribe they displaced? Was there any other reason, apart from their encounter with the Jews, which caused this tribe to become extinct. What was the real reason the Jews laid claim to and then appropriated this area? Anything to do with trade and a misbegotten notion of a directive from an imaginary friend?

Frankly, I find it offensive that we are expected to take sides in this conflict. To me, both sides are morally reprehensible. I can understand that the Israelis feel threatened if they cede the West Bank back to the Palestinians, because of the topography. I also sympathise with their plight of having human incendiaries walking around the streets of their cities. If our government did nothing to stop the No. 96 tram being blown up every other morning, they wouldn't stay in power long.

The Palestinians HAVE been displaced, or at least feel they have. They HAVE been screwed by occupying forces for at least 80 years. Their children ARE being killed in this undeclared war.

The main problem I have is that both sides have painted themselves into a corner with their unbending rhetoric (excuse the mangled metaphor). Neither side seems capable of throwing up a leader who can break the impasse.

Is it possible we are wrong in thinking there is a human solution to every problem? Are our humanist beliefs out of date? Have they ceased to serve us well? In the end, we have to ask if the outcome, the end of humanity, is a price worth paying to pander to both sides' obsession with posturing.

 

[Sherman]

Originally posted by skilts
I presume you'll be falling over yourself to explain the non-violent method employed by the Jews to stake their claim to the original area of Israel. What was the name of that tribe they displaced? Was there any other reason, apart from their encounter with the Jews, which caused this tribe to become extinct. What was the real reason the Jews laid claim to and then appropriated this area? Anything to do with trade and a misbegotten notion of a directive from an imaginary friend?

Frankly, I find it offensive that we are expected to take sides in this conflict. To me, both sides are morally reprehensible. I can understand that the Israelis feel threatened if they cede the West Bank back to the Palestinians, because of the topography. I also sympathise with their plight of having human incendiaries walking around the streets of their cities. If our government did nothing to stop the No. 96 tram being blown up every other morning, they wouldn't stay in power long.

The Palestinians HAVE been displaced, or at least feel they have. They HAVE been screwed by occupying forces for at least 80 years. Their children ARE being killed in this undeclared war.

The main problem I have is that both sides have painted themselves into a corner with their unbending rhetoric (excuse the mangled metaphor). Neither side seems capable of throwing up a leader who can break the impasse.

Is it possible we are wrong in thinking there is a human solution to every problem? Are our humanist beliefs out of date? Have they ceased to serve us well? In the end, we have to ask if the outcome, the end of humanity, is a price worth paying to pander to both sides' obsession with posturing.

Skilts,
I actually agree with most of what you write in this post. The only clarifications I might add is that long before Jews started to migrate in mass in the 1880's to what we now call "Palestine", the native Arabs were displaced and abused by the local overseers for the occupying Turks, who, of course, were Muslims. The discord only began when Jews started buying up the swampland. Swampland, I might add, that wasn't occupied by any Arab, because they deemed it unfit for habitation or agriculture.

 

[GuruJane]

The leaders of the Arab world, the leaders of the PLA, the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and the PFLP all go to Jerusalem where they address the Knesset.

They say:

1. We recognise the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish State.

2. We recognise that the jews prior to 1948 did not conquer the land by force, but bought the land from our Ottoman landlords.

3. We recognise that the State of Palestine could have existed in 1937, 1948 and 1967 but it was we who rejected a separate state and chose war instead.

4. We recognise that we have waged war either by traditional means or by terrorism ever since 1948 against Israel, a state that was established by the United Nations.

5. We recognise that the Jews have a religious affiliation to the land of Palestine no less authentic than our own.

6. From henceforth we cease all forms of war and terrorism against the Jewish State and renounce all demands for "right of Return" to Israel.

7. In return we ask that our state of Palestine be established within the borders we rejected in 1967 and that all Israeli troops are withdrawn.
We propose an economic federarion between ourselves, the jews and Jordan with open borders and free markets
We guarantee the jews, as our brothers of the book, full access to the Jewish sites in East Jerusalem and within our boundaries and joint sovereignity over the Temple Mount.
We welcome the settlers to live in peace with us with the choice of becoming citizens of the state of Palestine or remaining as citizens of Israel.

The Arabs finish this address to the Knesset.

What does Israel say in response?

 

[Slax]

Originally posted by moomba

I also think that it is simplistic (but quite fashionable) to lay the blame on the whole Middle East problems on one country. Israel, Palestine, Syria and other nations all engage in actions which IMO are counter-productive, there is fault on all sides, and it will take a generational (or longer) change in attitudes before we can ever think about real peace in the Middle East.

There is a mutual problem and I will grant you that. I don't think Syria is anywhere near as actively involved as they have been previously. The problem for the Palestinians and Yassar Arrafat is that the Israeli government will not talk peace until he controls Hamas.

A brief politics on Hamas is that they hate the PLO almost as much as Israel. They will not cease military action unless Israel is pro-active. Whilst Israel bomb refuge camps, destroy homes and kill civilians Hamas who are the major trouble makers will continue to recruit the Palestinian youth in large numbers. if Israel is pro-active and a period of peace happens then the numbers turning to violence and suicide bombing will reduce.

The middle East is a delicate circle of violence and the only way to stop it is if the bully eases off and the bully is Israel.

The major sticking point has been and always will be Juresalem and the Jews want it all to themselves.

 

[moomba]

All fair points, although I can understand Israel being reluctant to cede any ground, which would undermine the safety of their citizens in Jerusalum. When your enemy does not recognise your right to exist in any form, you don't make it easier for them by bringing them closer to your heartland.

I'm by no means an expert on Middle East politics so I apologise if I am off the mark here, but I believe that in addition to Jerusalem, there are also major sticking points in terms of access to water, and also arable land. For these reasons, and others I believe Syria will always be considered a threat to Israel, and while they are fairly quiet at the moment, they can hardly afford to be any different knowing that the USA is firmly behind Israel at this point in time. I believe that if the USA position on supporting Israel was reversed, Syria would be back in the picture.

I agree with you that it will take a pro-active approach to resolving this issue, and I would love for either of Israel or the Palestinians to "be the bigger people" and make the first move toward peace, rather than the current t1t for tat violence which I find sickening in it's pointlessness.

I fear that even if this does happen that the ingrained culture of the Jewish and Palestinian people, together with their hatred and fear of each other will make peace very difficult to attain in the region.

Moomba

 

[Hawkforce]

Originally posted by Slax


They will not cease military action unless Israel is pro-active.

if Israel is pro-active and a period of peace happens then the numbers turning to violence and suicide bombing will reduce.

The middle East is a delicate circle of violence and the only way to stop it is if the bully eases off and the bully is Israel.

You write as if there was no attempt at peacemaking in Camp David 2000.

YOu write as if Israel has never been "pro-active". THis is simply not true.

At present your claims hold some validity but there's still a strong movement for peace in Israeli politics, and the simple fact is that when Arafat rejected Camp David the Israeli electorate, who had voted Barak in on a landslide on a peace ticket, then swung towards Sharon.

Originally posted by Slax
The major sticking point has been and always will be Juresalem and the Jews want it all to themselves.

No. The main sticking point is the "right of return". Barak offered up East Jerusalem at Camp David.

THe other sticking points are the continued illegal settlement expansion and the unfortunate reality that popular Arab opinion fundamentally rejects the right of Israel to exist.