The Palestine thread

[Ball DeBeaver]

BDB,
You mentioned to an earlier reply to me that the Israelis feel the weight of international opinion is largely against them; they have a siege mentality (or something to that effect.)
Undoubtedly, the former is true.
I believe that the Jewish struggle to establish a state was widely supported by people all over the world in the aftermath of WWII. Jews had built up an enormous fund of goodwill, arising out of sympathy people everywhere felt for them as the true extent of the atrocities they suffered at the hands of Hitler and Stalin became evident.
This is what my father told me and others of his generation said the same and I see no reason to doubt what I was told.

While the formation of what most would call modern Israel did indeed come about as an act of sympathy (blood money) in the aftermath of ww11. But in reality it's modern birth started long before, with the British (Balfour) intention of giving jews their own home in "British Mandate of Palestine."  This BMoP included modern day Jordan, which should be described as a "palestinian homeland." The original Land was to be from the Jordan river to the Med, but this was eventually halved by 1947.

County Mayo at any rate, backed the Jewish attempts to establish a homeland of their own!
I think it's equally fair to say that most, if not all, of this sympathy has now disappeared.
From what I can gather, this in the main is due to the Israeli policy of establishing settlements on disputed territories.
There are other reasons of course but this is a central issue and it's  one with which Irish people can readily identify. Forceful eviction and being dumped on the roadside was an all too common occurrence down the ages for our ancestors.

That is the difference you see, the Israelis believe that the settlements have been established in "disputed territories," and are therefore not illegal. Personally I don't believe the vast majority of them are needed or warranted, although some of them are.
When you feel sympathy for the palestinians you say have been "dumped on the roadside" are you forgetting who's land it was in the first place? Any Irish man will tell you that this island we live on is irish soil, and always has been. We are still trying to regain 6 counties back from the British, after over 300 years of settlements, plantation and murder. Try looking at it from an Israeli point of view. They were forced from their land many centuries ago, and now want to reclaim it. Who are we to deny them what was taken from them by invaders, as rightfully theirs?

I'd like to have your thoughts on the subject.
Do you feel that all of those forceful occupations are legal and justified?

If by "forcefull occupations" you mean settlements, then no. I believe many of them are driven by religious zealots who have no regard for anyone's wishes but their own. Many of these settlements are sited on Israeli owned land, state lands and land bought by Israelis. Very many of the disputed sites are ones that were vacant, but taken over by pals, who claimed it as being in their families hands for generations, when in fact aeriel photographs have proved there had been no buildings on the site until recently. Others, I believe, are justified. As in Jerusalem.

Is the Israeli agenda  in this case being driven by religious zealots or is it considered government policy?

Some settlements are part of Israeli government policy, but many aren't, and are being torn down by Israeli army/contractors on a regular basis.

Do you agree that this encroachment on lands regarded as Palestinian by most of the international community is a reason for the loss of sympathy and support?

Yes, partially. But then again, up until recently, there was a large part of this island regarded by the world as British, but this too is changing.

Finally, have you any idea of the extent to which the Israelis intend to go when establishing those settlements? In other words, what is the minimum amount of territory they are prepared to leave in Palestinian hands?
Once again, my questions are genuine and I'd very much like to find out what your  opinions on the subject may be.

Israel dismantled all it's settlements in Gaza as part of a peace agreement which was supposed to bring peace to the south of the country. All that happened was it gave the militants a secure base to attack Israel from.
I believe that if and when there is an eventual settlement (no pun intended), that the Israelis will withdraw behind the seperation wall, which runs roughly along the 1967 armistice line. It's worth noting that there has never been a defined agreement on what the exact Israeli border is, as the arabs refused to negotiate it in 1948.

[trileacman]

BDB,
You mentioned to an earlier reply to me that the Israelis feel the weight of international opinion is largely against them; they have a siege mentality (or something to that effect.)
Undoubtedly, the former is true.
I believe that the Jewish struggle to establish a state was widely supported by people all over the world in the aftermath of WWII. Jews had built up an enormous fund of goodwill, arising out of sympathy people everywhere felt for them as the true extent of the atrocities they suffered at the hands of Hitler and Stalin became evident.
This is what my father told me and others of his generation said the same and I see no reason to doubt what I was told.
County Mayo at any rate, backed the Jewish attempts to establish a homeland of their own!
I think it's equally fair to say that most, if not all, of this sympathy has now disappeared.
From what I can gather, this in the main is due to the Israeli policy of establishing settlements on disputed territories.
There are other reasons of course but this is a central issue and it's  one with which Irish people can readily identify. Forceful eviction and being dumped on the roadside was an all too common occurrence down the ages for our ancestors.
I'd like to have your thoughts on the subject.
Do you feel that all of those forceful occupations are legal and justified?
Is the Israeli agenda  in this case being driven by religious zealots or is it considered government policy?
Do you agree that this encroachment on lands regarded as Palestinian by most of the international community is a reason for the loss of sympathy and support?
Finally, have you any idea of the extent to which the Israelis intend to go when establishing those settlements? In other words, what is the minimum amount of territory they are prepared to leave in Palestinian hands?
Once again, my questions are genuine and I'd very much like to find out what your  opinions on the subject may be.

Bit of a stretch to include Stalin in the same bracket as Hitler. Many different groups were persecuted under Stalin's reign. I don't make the point to lessen acknowledgement of what happened to the Jews in Russia but phrases like "Stalin and Hitler" is used by the Western media as an attempt to deflect from the actions of the West and create a school of thought that antisemitism only existed "over there" in the typical baddies Russia and Germany. Hitler clearly took it a step further but most of the Western countries were as antisemitic as Russia (if not more) pre-1939. A clearly deranged and aging Stalin did persecute a section of the Jews towards the end of his life but I think ranking Hitler and Stalin in the same bracket ignores the degree of antisemitism in the West.

[Ball DeBeaver]

Feiglin Urges Giving Arabs a $500,000 One-Way Ticket
Likud Knesset candidate hopeful Feiglin wants to pay each PA Arab $500,000 to leave Israel.


AAFont Size
By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
First Publish: 1/2/2013, 1:18 PM




Moshe Feiglin

Yoni Kempinski



Likud Knesset Member candidate Moshe Feiglin, indicted for trying to prostate himself in prayer on the Temple Mount, wants to pay each Palestinian Authority Arab $500,000 to leave Israel.


He unveiled the proposal at a "Sovereignty" conference sponsored by the Women in Green and which is discussing ideas for Israeli annexation of Judea and Samaria or part of it and for removing it from military control, as Israel did with the Golan Heights and areas in Jerusalem that were under tJordanian occupation before the Six-Day War in 1967.

"The country pays 10% of its gross national product every year to maintain the 'two-state solution' and the Oslo Accords," Feiglin said.

He explained the money is for the security fences and checkpoints, Iron Dome missile defense systems and guards whom he said are posted "at every café."

Feiglin said the same money could be used to pay every PA Arab half a million dollars to leave Israel. This idea was broached several weeks ago by columnist and political scientist Dr. Martin Sherman.

A long-time thorn in the side of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Feiglin is not alone in the Likud party in stating strong nationalist views.

Several Likud MKs told the conference they support annexing all or part of Judea and Samaria and abolishing the Oslo Accords, whose content, as a matter of practicality, has little meaning outside of diplomatic circles, especially since Mahmoud Abbas ignored them in his recent unilateral request for UN recognition.

Reports, generally not disseminated by mainstream media, have shown that thousands of PA Arabs leave for other countries every year. Feiglin said  polls of Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Gaza "show that 80% in Gaza and 65% in Judea and Samaria want to immigrate" and that paying them to do so is the "perfect solution."

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/163806

[seafoid]

BDB is fairly typical of the thinking of the average Israeli right winger. The Palestinians are an invented people. They never owned land. Most only arrived when Zionism started. They have 22 other countries. The settlements are legal. Israel is entitled to all of the land including Jordan. Anyone who disagrees with any of this hates Jews and is an antisemite. 

Good luck selling this horseshit on the gaaboard.

[Ball DeBeaver]

Did you even read my post? We may have to get Itchy to up your medication.

[give her dixie]

State bars Westerners living in West Bank from entering Israel, East Jerusalem

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/state-bars-westerners-living-in-west-bank-from-entering-israel-east-jerusalem.premium-1.491318


Israel recently renewed restrictions on the freedom of movement of foreigners nationals who live and work in the West Bank that prohibit them from entering East Jerusalem or Israel. The changes were discovered when foreigners learned, after renewing their tourist visas, that the words "Judea and Samaria only" had been stamped inside. Citizens from these countries who come to live in Israel or Jewish settlements in the West Bank are not subjected to these restrictions.

Neither the Interior Ministry's Population and Immigration Authority nor the coordinator of government activities in the territories responded to questions from Haaretz concerning the number of long-term foreign residents of the West Bank.

Some of these individuals are Palestinians who were born in the West Bank and whose residency status was rescinded by Israel prior to 1994 due to their prolonged residence abroad. Others are married to Palestinians, while still others work in the West Bank, often as university teachers.

The American Consulate in Jerusalem has expressed its displeasure with the restrictions. They contravene prior understandings to lift similar restrictions that the Interior Ministry imposed suddenly in the summer of 2009, when "PA only" was stamped in Western nationals' passports.

Although Israel never officially announced a policy change, this stamp, which theoretically limits people to Areas A and B (which under the Oslo Accords are under full Palestinian control and Israeli security control only, respectively ), has rarely been used in the past two years.

Maj. Guy Inbar, the coordinator of government activities in the territories, told Haaretz in a written statement: "There is no essential difference between the stamps. The agreements and the restrictions in permits remain as they were." He also wrote that the change was not new, and has been in place for more than six months. In response to a further query Inbar said the only change is the language used on the stamp.

Population and Immigration Authority spokeswoman Sabine Haddad also told Haaretz that there had been "no change in the matter." But according to officials in the Palestinian Interior Ministry, the renewed restriction in its new version ("Judea and Samaria only" ) was instituted on November 1. On that date it was applied to all foreign nationals of Palestinian origin, and subsequently to non-Palestinians. Several people interviewed by Haaretz confirmed the Palestinian officials' statements. For example, in the case of one American couple, the woman's visa was extended before November 1 and was not stamped with "Judea and Samaria only." The man's visa was extended after November 1 and did bear that stamp.

Another difference is that three and a half years ago the restricting stamp was applied to passports at the Allenby Bridge crossing from Jordan to the Jericho area by a border official answerable to the Interior Ministry. But the new stamps appear to be employed only when passports are brought in for visa renewal. Bearers bring their passport to the Palestinian Interior Ministry, which passes it on to the Palestinian Ministry of Civil Affairs, which passes it on to the Civil Administration, based at Beit El.

Beyond the restriction itself and the discrimination it represents, the prohibition against leaving the West Bank creates other problems for foreign nationals. It limits academics' access to archives and research institutions in Israel. Foreigners cannot drive cars with PA license plates, and the "Judea and Samaria only" restriction bars them from maintaining vehicles with Israeli license plates. Foreign citizens are also unable to reach their consulates in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. Israel also retains the power not to grant such individuals work visas, but rather only tourist visa, although the authorities know full well that many of these individuals have come to the PA to work, either as business people, academics or in various civil organizations. The people with whom Haaretz spoke complained about ambiguity, lack of transparency and difficulty in obtaining information from the authorities.

Haaretz was unable to obtain a response from the coordinator of government activities in the territories and the Population Registration Authority to questions such as whether the visa is multiple-entry or not, whether foreign citizens must request an entry permit to Israel - as required of Palestinians - through Palestinian coordinating committees; whether business people are exempt from the restriction; and why work permits are not being issued.

An American woman living in Ramallah told Haaretz that a member of the U.S. consular staff in Jerusalem "indicated that the U.S. is irritated because three years ago, the Israelis promised that they would not restrict the visas to PA only and now "they think they can get around it by putting 'Judea and Samaria only." The woman said the consular official also told her that the U.S. Consulate is collecting information on everyone who had received similar visas, with an eye toward issuing an official American response.

The American Consulate in Jerusalem neither confirmed nor denied the information in this report. However, it told Haaretz: "The U.S. Government takes seriously the concerns of American citizens living and traveling anywhere in the world," and that "The U.S. Government continues to engage with the Government of Israel on this issue, noting the necessity of fair and equal treatment of all U.S. citizens regardless of national origin or ethnicity."

[Lar Naparka]

BDB,
You mentioned to an earlier reply to me that the Israelis feel the weight of international opinion is largely against them; they have a siege mentality (or something to that effect.)
Undoubtedly, the former is true.
I believe that the Jewish struggle to establish a state was widely supported by people all over the world in the aftermath of WWII. Jews had built up an enormous fund of goodwill, arising out of sympathy people everywhere felt for them as the true extent of the atrocities they suffered at the hands of Hitler and Stalin became evident.
This is what my father told me and others of his generation said the same and I see no reason to doubt what I was told.
County Mayo at any rate, backed the Jewish attempts to establish a homeland of their own!
I think it's equally fair to say that most, if not all, of this sympathy has now disappeared.
From what I can gather, this in the main is due to the Israeli policy of establishing settlements on disputed territories.
There are other reasons of course but this is a central issue and it's  one with which Irish people can readily identify. Forceful eviction and being dumped on the roadside was an all too common occurrence down the ages for our ancestors.
I'd like to have your thoughts on the subject.
Do you feel that all of those forceful occupations are legal and justified?
Is the Israeli agenda  in this case being driven by religious zealots or is it considered government policy?
Do you agree that this encroachment on lands regarded as Palestinian by most of the international community is a reason for the loss of sympathy and support?
Finally, have you any idea of the extent to which the Israelis intend to go when establishing those settlements? In other words, what is the minimum amount of territory they are prepared to leave in Palestinian hands?
Once again, my questions are genuine and I'd very much like to find out what your  opinions on the subject may be.

Bit of a stretch to include Stalin in the same bracket as Hitler. Many different groups were persecuted under Stalin's reign. I don't make the point to lessen acknowledgement of what happened to the Jews in Russia but phrases like "Stalin and Hitler" is used by the Western media as an attempt to deflect from the actions of the West and create a school of thought that antisemitism only existed "over there" in the typical baddies Russia and Germany. Hitler clearly took it a step further but most of the Western countries were as antisemitic as Russia (if not more) pre-1939. A clearly deranged and aging Stalin did persecute a section of the Jews towards the end of his life but I think ranking Hitler and Stalin in the same bracket ignores the degree of antisemitism in the West.

Bear in mind that I was referring to the way the general public felt at the end of WWII and not expressing any personal opinion. I'd say most people were absolutely scared by the mere mention of Stalin''s name and he and his "Bolshies" were put on a par with the devil. Not surprising really because the Russians were communists and  in the public perception, communists were the antithesis of all Catholic Ireland stood for.

There was no way of verifying any reports reaching Ireland from Russia and with Church leaders leading the way, Ireland waited in fear for a Russian invasion. I think it's fair to say that the majority believed that Stalin had killed at least 6 million Jews.

[seafoid]

Did you even read my post? We may have to get Itchy to up your medication.

Everything is in your last posts. You are just another jewish supremacist fruitcake. Yesha isn't worth the loss of the Jewish state. Israel still has time to be saved but it has to be run by buberites and not bibis.

[Lar Naparka]

BDB,
You mentioned to an earlier reply to me that the Israelis feel the weight of international opinion is largely against them; they have a siege mentality (or something to that effect.)
Undoubtedly, the former is true.
I believe that the Jewish struggle to establish a state was widely supported by people all over the world in the aftermath of WWII. Jews had built up an enormous fund of goodwill, arising out of sympathy people everywhere felt for them as the true extent of the atrocities they suffered at the hands of Hitler and Stalin became evident.
This is what my father told me and others of his generation said the same and I see no reason to doubt what I was told.

While the formation of what most would call modern Israel did indeed come about as an act of sympathy (blood money) in the aftermath of ww11. But in reality it's modern birth started long before, with the British (Balfour) intention of giving jews their own home in "British Mandate of Palestine."  This BMoP included modern day Jordan, which should be described as a "palestinian homeland." The original Land was to be from the Jordan river to the Med, but this was eventually halved by 1947.

County Mayo at any rate, backed the Jewish attempts to establish a homeland of their own!
I think it's equally fair to say that most, if not all, of this sympathy has now disappeared.
From what I can gather, this in the main is due to the Israeli policy of establishing settlements on disputed territories.
There are other reasons of course but this is a central issue and it's  one with which Irish people can readily identify. Forceful eviction and being dumped on the roadside was an all too common occurrence down the ages for our ancestors.

That is the difference you see, the Israelis believe that the settlements have been established in "disputed territories," and are therefore not illegal. Personally I don't believe the vast majority of them are needed or warranted, although some of them are.
When you feel sympathy for the palestinians you say have been "dumped on the roadside" are you forgetting who's land it was in the first place? Any Irish man will tell you that this island we live on is irish soil, and always has been. We are still trying to regain 6 counties back from the British, after over 300 years of settlements, plantation and murder. Try looking at it from an Israeli point of view. They were forced from their land many centuries ago, and now want to reclaim it. Who are we to deny them what was taken from them by invaders, as rightfully theirs?

I'd like to have your thoughts on the subject.
Do you feel that all of those forceful occupations are legal and justified?

If by "forcefull occupations" you mean settlements, then no. I believe many of them are driven by religious zealots who have no regard for anyone's wishes but their own. Many of these settlements are sited on Israeli owned land, state lands and land bought by Israelis. Very many of the disputed sites are ones that were vacant, but taken over by pals, who claimed it as being in their families hands for generations, when in fact aeriel photographs have proved there had been no buildings on the site until recently. Others, I believe, are justified. As in Jerusalem.

Is the Israeli agenda  in this case being driven by religious zealots or is it considered government policy?

Some settlements are part of Israeli government policy, but many aren't, and are being torn down by Israeli army/contractors on a regular basis.

Do you agree that this encroachment on lands regarded as Palestinian by most of the international community is a reason for the loss of sympathy and support?

Yes, partially. But then again, up until recently, there was a large part of this island regarded by the world as British, but this too is changing.

Finally, have you any idea of the extent to which the Israelis intend to go when establishing those settlements? In other words, what is the minimum amount of territory they are prepared to leave in Palestinian hands?
Once again, my questions are genuine and I'd very much like to find out what your  opinions on the subject may be.

Israel dismantled all it's settlements in Gaza as part of a peace agreement which was supposed to bring peace to the south of the country. All that happened was it gave the militants a secure base to attack Israel from.
I believe that if and when there is an eventual settlement (no pun intended), that the Israelis will withdraw behind the seperation wall, which runs roughly along the 1967 armistice line. It's worth noting that there has never been a defined agreement on what the exact Israeli border is, as the arabs refused to negotiate it in 1948.

Thanks once again for your prompt and comprehensive reply.
I have just a few comments to pass on what you say.

If by "forcefull occupations" you mean settlements, then no. I believe many of them are driven by religious zealots who have no regard for anyone's wishes but their own.

That's what I had thought alright. I presume you are referring to Zionists here. I understood that Palestinian activists resented every settlement on land they regarded as theirs and that armed guards were employed to protect all of those  so I used the term, "forceful occupation, " but I may well be wrong.

When you feel sympathy for the palestinians you say have been "dumped on the roadside" are you forgetting who's land it was in the first place?

No, I'm not but 2,000 or so years is a long time to go back to reclaim ancestral territory.
(I know it's hard to pinpoint an exact date as has there were many mass dispersions down throughout Jewish history but I think 2,000 is as good a reference point as any.)
I accept that the Jewish race suffered more down the centuries than any other one I know of and deserve a place they can call 'home' but the present  conflict could well go on for centuries to come.
It's going to have to be settled by compromise some day.

Any Irish man will tell you that this island we live on is irish soil, and always has been. We are still trying to regain 6 counties back from the British, after over 300 years of settlements, plantation and murder.

This is a lead on from what I've said above as military force seldom achieves anything of a long term nature. The state of Northern Ireland* has been in existence for 90 years and God knows enough force was used to keep it the way its founders wanted it to be. Unsurprisingly, this was not possible to achieve and compromise or accommodation if you prefer, has had to be reached.
On the other hand, the Nationalists can't expect the whole Unionist population of 1 million plus to feck off to somewhere else. They're stuck with each other.
Sooner or later Israelis and Palestinians will have to have meaningful talks aimed at a lasting settlement. This won't happen soon but I see no other way to end the conflict.

[Ball DeBeaver]

The difference between there and here, is that the palestinians do expect the Israelis to feck off somewhere else. The conflict they have there makes ours look like a squbble in a primary school playground. We have learned to live with each other, and hopefully someday we will be united, but the situation there looks like it can only worsen.

[muppet]

The difference between there and here, is that the palestinians do expect the Israelis to feck off somewhere else. The conflict they have there makes ours look like a squbble in a primary school playground. We have learned to live with each other, and hopefully someday we will be united, but the situation there looks like it can only worsen.

The irony is that if, because of us, you had to live with what you are defending, you would shoot everyone one of us on sight.

[Ball DeBeaver]

The difference between there and here, is that the palestinians do expect the Israelis to feck off somewhere else. The conflict they have there makes ours look like a squbble in a primary school playground. We have learned to live with each other, and hopefully someday we will be united, but the situation there looks like it can only worsen.

The irony is that if, because of us, you had to live with what you are defending, you would shoot everyone one of us on sight.

I can see the words, but I can only assume you have them in the wrong order. What are you trying to say?

[Ball DeBeaver]

That's what I had thought alright. I presume you are referring to Zionists here.

The thing about zionism is that the word is now being used to attack Israel. Those out to delegitimise Israel use it to try to evoke hatred in much the same as calling someone a nazi. Zionism is the word for jewish nationalism, which while many people don't like it, is a legitimate view to have. It's like Irish nationalism, or republicanism with different strands and both militant and moderate parts. The settlers you read about being evicted or attacking palestinians would be the zionist equivelant to the dissidents. Nut jobs.

[Ball DeBeaver]

Poll Shows 'Two-State Solution' Losing Steam Among Israelis

A poll released Thursday shows that, for the first time, a plurality of Israelis now oppose the "two-state solution."



By David Lev
First Publish: 1/3/2013, 10:30 AM

Samaria

President Shimon Peres, who in a speech on Sunday claimed that a large majority of Israelis supported setting up a Palestinian Authority state in land liberated by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War, is apparently behind the times. A poll released Thursday shows that, for the first time, a plurality of Israelis now oppose the "two-state solution."


The poll, by the highly respected Geocartographia organization, 45% of Israelis are against the idea of setting up a PA state in Judea and Samaria. Forty percent said they support it, and 14% did not respond to the question.


The question was asked as a part of the latest poll by the organization on whom voters plan to choose on Election Day. The poll showed that the Likud-Yisrael Beiteinu list continued to weaken, while the Bayit Yehudi party continued to strengthen. In a defining speech at Bar Ilan University three years ago, Likud leader Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu expressed his solid support for the establishment of a PA state in parts of Judea and Samaria.


In his speech Sunday, IPeres said that Israel had "no choice" but to pursue the "two state solution with Abu Mazen (PA chief Mahmoud Abbs) representing the Palestinians, because he is the only Palestinian leader that agrees with many of the basic thing Israel seeks in a settlement." Peres added that a "final status settlement with the Palestinians must be completed without delay. There is clear majority among Israelis for the two state solution. I know Abu Mazen for 30 years. We do not support every word he has said and we have some criticism, but I know the reality, and the reality is that Abu Mazen is the one and only Arab leader who has said that he is in favor of peace and against terror," Peres said.


Peres was slammed by the Likud and others on the right for expressing a political position on such a sensitive issue, since as President he is supposed to be non-partisan.


http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/163836

[muppet]

The difference between there and here, is that the palestinians do expect the Israelis to feck off somewhere else. The conflict they have there makes ours look like a squbble in a primary school playground. We have learned to live with each other, and hopefully someday we will be united, but the situation there looks like it can only worsen.

The irony is that if, because of us, you had to live with what you are defending, you would shoot everyone one of us on sight.

I can see the words, but I can only assume you have them in the wrong order. What are you trying to say?

If you were remotely bothered about what anyone else has to say you would understand. But looking at this thread you aren't bothered. You are trying to provoke reactions so yourself (or some fool like Mikey Sheehy) can jump up and down shouting 'anti-semite' claim some pathetic victory for yourself.