Home Topics in Depth Foreign Affairs UN's Rima Khalaf quits over report accusing Israel of apartheid

  • Jefferson23 (2371 posts)
    Profile photo of Jefferson23

    UN's Rima Khalaf quits over report accusing Israel of apartheid

    * Yea, nothing to see, no apartheid…look somewhere else..anywhere..just not here.

    3 hours ago
    From the section Middle East

    A UN official has resigned after saying the UN had pressured her to withdraw a report accusing Israel of apartheid over its treatment of Palestinians.

    The report was published by the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA), led by Under Secretary General Rima Khalaf.

    She had said it was the first to conclude Israel was a racist state.

    UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres had distanced himself from the report, saying it reflected its authors’ views.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39310154

    Ex-U.N. Official John Dugard: Israel’s Crimes are “Infinitely Worse” Than in Apartheid South Africa
    Web ExclusiveMay 06, 2015

    https://www.democracynow.org/2015/5/6/ex_un_official_john_dugard_israel

    DesertRat2015, Doremus Jessup like this

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

▼ Hide Reply Index
30 replies
  • 1 week ago #1
    • Mosby (187 posts)
      Profile photo of Mosby

      1. Good.

      This obsession the Arab states have with Israel needs to be dialed back at the UN, the ESCWA* should focus on real, not imagined problems in the ME, like economic and social rights for women in the Arab world. If they can’t do that they should be disbanded.

       

      * ESCWA Member States
      Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, The Sudan, The Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, The United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

      • jdpriestly (4382 posts)
        Profile photo of jdpriestly Donor

        4. The facts — Israel is important but a distraction from even more serious

        issues.

        The PCBS said 2.7 million Palestinians live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and 1.7 million live in the Gaza Strip. According to Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, Israel’s population at the end of 2012 stands at nearly 8 million, of whom 5.9 million are Jews and 1.4 million are Arabs.Jan 1, 2013.

        https://www.google.com/?client=safari&channel=mac_bm#channel=mac_bm&q=israel+population+palestine+population&*

        Compare that combined population of under 13 million with the population of Syria at 22.85 million where an ongoing, brutal war has killed an estimated 400,000 people and made refugees of 4.8 million people with an additional 6.5 million displaced in Syria.

        https://www.google.com/?client=safari&channel=mac_bm#channel=mac_bm&q=Syria+population&*

        (Estimates of deaths in the Syrian Civil War, per opposition activist groups, vary between 321,358[1] and 470,000.[2] On 23 April 2016, the United Nations and Arab League Envoy to Syria put out an estimate of 400,000 that had died in the war.[3])

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War

        (13.5 million people in Syria need humanitarian assistance due to a violent civil war. 4.8 million Syrians are refugees, and 6.5 million are displaced within Syria; half of those affected are children. Children affected by the Syrian conflict are at risk of becoming ill, malnourished, abused, or exploited.Aug 18, 2016.)

        https://www.google.com/?client=safari&channel=mac_bm#channel=mac_bm&q=Syrian+refugees&*

        The Palestinians are not dying and are not refugees by the millions.  The focus should be on negotiating peace between the Israelis and Palestinians and bringing peace to Syria.  Anything that does not serve the purpose of peace in the Middle East is sheer folly and will lead to the loss of human life.

        When Israel opened the border to Palestinians, the Palestinians brought terror to the Israelis.

        “According to the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism, 887 (78 percent) of the 1,137 Israelis killed in attacks from September 2000 – 2005 were civilians.[1] Another 8,341 Israelis were wounded during this period, and 5,676 were civilians while 2,665 were security forces.[2] The majority of casualties have been caused by suicide bombings, though Israelis have been killed by planted bombs, shootings, stonings, stabbings, lynchings, rockets, and other methods of attack.[2] A 2007 study of Palestinian suicide bombings that took place from September 2000 through August 2005 found that 39.9 percent of the suicide attacks were carried out by Hamas, 25.7 percent by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), 26.4 percent by Fatah, 5.4 percent by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and 2.7 percent by other organizations.[3] The youngest victim of the Second Intifada was an Israeli infant who was nine hours old and had not yet been named, though several pregnant women have also been killed.[4][5]”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_Second_Intifada

        Netanyahu is an elected leader.  If Israelis feel safe, he will probably not be elected.  It’s up to the Palestinians to resolve to live in peace with their neighbor.

        To put the deaths during the Second Intifada (which took place over a period of 5 years and the deaths in Syria into context, please note that Brazil, which has a high murder rate has a population of 200.4 million, and a murder rate of  “25.2 (or 24.6 per another Wikipedia article) per 100,000 population.[6] There were a total of 50,108 murders in Brazil in 2015.[6] Another study has the 2015 murder rate at 32.4 per 100,000, with 64,357 homicides.[7]”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Brazil

        The murder rate in the US 3.9 per 100,000 people.  In Venezuela it is 62 per 100,000.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

        In Palestine it is 7.4 per 100,000 people.

        There are very serious problems in the world.  Palestine is a problem, but there are far more serious ones that need more attention.  And I did not even discuss Africa.

        When it comes to violence, Palestine and Israel are not at the top of the list.  And we need to end the violence.  Palestine and Israel can achieve peace if they want to.  It is a matter of will on both sides.  Neither side alone can make peace.  We used to say, “it takes two to tango,” and it does.

        No Truth!  No Trust!  Bernie or Bust!
        • Jefferson23 (2371 posts)
          Profile photo of Jefferson23

          6. You know what's its like to live under occupation?

          • jdpriestly (4382 posts)
            Profile photo of jdpriestly Donor

            8. It has been 70 years since the formation of Israel.

            The people who now live in Palestine for the most part never lived in what the UN designated and has become Israel.

            After 70 years, they need to agree to live in peace.

            After 70 years, it’s crazy not to agree to live in peace.

            After 70 years, how do you define an occupation?

            We have troops all over the world.  Are we occupying the world?

            The Palestinians need to resolve their differences with Israel through negotiation.  There is worldwide support for that, and no excuse for not coming to agreements.

            I can’t claim to understand what is going on in Syria, but here is some alarming information that is getting little attention relatively in left-oriented media and chat sites  compared to the issues in Palestine/Israel:

            A new report from a United Nations-sanctioned human rights group finds that Russian airstrikes have killed more Syrian civilians than ISIS.

            Over a span of 305 days, beginning September 30, 2015 and lasting until July 31, 2016, Russia’s campaign in Syria “has killed no less than 2,704 civilians including 746 children and 514 women.”

            By contrast, since ISIS emerged on April 9, 2013, the extremist terror group is responsible for the deaths of “no less than 2,686 civilians including 368 children.”

            http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-isis-civilian-deaths-united-nations-syria-2016-8

            Syria is one huge human rights violation.  The killing goes on and on.

            There are so many serious problems in the world.  After 70 years, the Palestinians and Israelis should be able to get along like grown-ups and stop the fighting and arguing.

            No Truth!  No Trust!  Bernie or Bust!
            • Jefferson23 (2371 posts)
              Profile photo of Jefferson23

              9. You have no idea what living under occupation is like. If you want to understand

              it you can inform yourself. Asking how does one define occupation as you do is insulting.

              Topics

              Accountability
              Area C
              Planning and building
              Settlements
              The Gaza Strip
              Torture
              Use of fire arms
              Attacks on Israeli civilians by Palestinians
              Violence by settlers
              Separation Barrier
              East Jerusalem
              Administrative detention
              Demonstrations
              More topics

              http://www.btselem.org/topic/accountability

              • jdpriestly (4382 posts)
                Profile photo of jdpriestly Donor

                10. So, they should negotiate a settlement.

                The reason Israelis vote for Netanyahu is that he keeps them safe from the kinds of killings that occurred during the Second Intifada.  The Palestinians do not have to live as they do.  They just have to enforce a peace agreement and agreed-upon borders for their country and decide to live in peace.  All the problems that exist can be worked out if both sides agree to live in peace.  The Second Intifada was a direct assault on Israelis.

                Human rights violations always occur in wars.  Only when people agree to live in peace can they decide together to handle human rights violations so as to end them.  Peace is the first priority.

                The Israelis opened their borders to Palestinians.  There was an attempt at peace, and then the Second Intifadah ruined it.  That’s the problem.  I remember that time very well.

                No Truth!  No Trust!  Bernie or Bust!
                • Jefferson23 (2371 posts)
                  Profile photo of Jefferson23

                  11. Nonsense. The Kerry plan was going to require NO concessions from the

                  Israeli side..none. A non viable state is not about peace, it is about domination and a shit hole for the Palestinians to live in.

                  No one knows what Trump’s plan will be, I’m guessing it won’t be fair…or do you find him an honest broker?

                  • jdpriestly (4382 posts)
                    Profile photo of jdpriestly Donor

                    12. Well. If the Palestinians don't make peace and make no effort to make peace,

                    then nothing will change.  It’s the Palestinians who want change the most, so they have to propose the peace terms.

                    No Truth!  No Trust!  Bernie or Bust!
                    • Jefferson23 (2371 posts)
                      Profile photo of Jefferson23

                      13. They've made every effort for a just settlement. The historical record is

                      clear on this….the Israeli propaganda you perpetuate is another thing entirely. What makes you believe all these individuals who have no history of lying would do so when it comes to the Israeli Palestinian conflict? Numerous human rights groups, academic scholars who are not held in suspect with respect to their intellect, character, motives on other subjects concerning human rights around the world..but somehow, they, not you, are all wrong.

                      May 5, 2016
                      Ilan Pappe: Israel Is the Last Remaining, Active Settler-Colonialist Project
                      Ilan Pappe discusses Noam Chomsky, Bernie Sanders and the post-Zionist movement.

                      In the 1990s, a movement was growing in Israel that questioned the country’s foundational myths. Among those leading the charge of what was later dubbed the “post-Zionist” movement were the Israeli “New Historians” who acknowledged the existence of Palestinians and readily admitted mass atrocities were committed in establishing a Jewish state. Like the post-Zionist movement itself, the Israeli New Historians reflected a broad spectrum of ideological thought ranging from so-called liberal Zionists like Benny Morris to anti-Zionists like Ilan Pappe.

                      Pappe is most well-known for The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, which garnered him notoriety, but also convincingly argued the Jewish state was established through the concerted ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population, the Palestinians. In 2007 Pappe relocated to the UK, where he currently teaches at the University of Exeter, after receiving death threats for his outspoken Palestinian solidarity work and his endorsement of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement.

                      One of Pappe’s latest books, now out in paperback, The Idea of Israel, is a remarkable historiographical account of modern Zionism. Pappe tackles the foundational myths of Israel, the post-Zionist movement and the “neo-Zionist” backlash, all while offering commentary and history on trailblazing anti-Zionist figures, Israel’s representation of Palestinians and Mizrahi, or Arab, Jews. As the subtitle suggests (A History of Power and Knowledge), Pappe uses the methods propounded in Edward Said’s Orientalism to examine Zionism, the Jewish state’s raison d’être, dissecting the ideology and inspecting each element for what they reveal about Israel.

                      Pappe and I talked about the post-Zionist movement, Noam Chomsky and Bernie Sanders’s politics, and trailblazing anti-Zionists.

                      http://inthesetimes.com/article/19107/ilan-pappe-Bernie-Sanders-Noam-Chomsky-BDS-Israel-Palestine

                      • jdpriestly (4382 posts)
                        Profile photo of jdpriestly Donor

                        14. How can anyone say that Israel is settling the territory of "another state" if

                        neither Israel nor the other state has a territory defined by a border.

                        The first step in ending the ongoing conflict is to define the borders of Israel and Palestine.  Then the transgression of those borders by the people on either side of the borders can be dealt with.  But until borders exist, and in this case, we can say borders agreed upon by both sides and the world, then neither side can be blamed.

                        That is what the Palestinians need to ask for:  defined borders.  What do they need to offer for it:  recognizing Israel’s borders and national existence and punishing anyone who commits crimes or acts of terror within the area defined as Israel, within Israel’s borders.  In exchange, the Palestinians get defined borders and peace, and Israel has to agree to punish any Israeli who does not respect the borders.

                        Until the two sides agree on appropriate borders, they are virtually at war.  Good fences make good neighbors.

                        It is my understanding that a couple of European countries, Scandinavian countries are thinking of recognizing specific borders for Palestine.  That might get the process of defining borders started.

                        It was the Palestinians who, for decades, refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist as a nation.  It was the Palestinians who insisted on the “right to return.”  In exchange for peaceful borders, Palestinians have to give on on that right of return concept and agree to borders that protect Israelis.  Palestinians should request the return of some land, but certainly by no means all of Israel in return.  And then the Palestinians should agree to punish any of their citizens that break the agreement.  Same for the Israelis.

                        That is how I see a path to peace.

                        This was done in Strasbourg, in Alsace-Lorraine, France (a part of the treaty ending WWII I believe) and has been done elsewhere.  Exchanging land for peace and agreeing to respect borders.  It’s rather basic.  Each side wins.  Each side gives up something.  Makes sense to me.

                        No Truth!  No Trust!  Bernie or Bust!
                      • Jefferson23 (2371 posts)
                        Profile photo of Jefferson23

                        15. Israel's borders defined by Israel? Do you recognize international law?

                        You’ve been offered documents which counter your claims before on each and every one of those false statements. As I have said, why would numerous human rights groups, including academic scholars who are respected for their work on issues unrelated to Israel and NO ONE other than the host country doubts the veracity of their collective works except when the subject is the Israeli Palestinian conflict…funny that.

                      • TwilightSporkle (1507 posts)
                        Profile photo of TwilightSporkle

                        17. I've already corrected this before, JD.

                        How can anyone say that Israel is settling the territory of “another state” if
                        neither Israel nor the other state has a territory defined by a border.

                        Israel has a border. it declared its borders on the same day it declared independence. Those borders mirror the suggested borders of the 1947 partition plan. These borders were recognized by most of the world in 1948, and reaffirmed in 1949 when Israel joined the United Nations.

                        Israel has absolutely no claim to anything outside those borders. Frankly its claims to the territory within those borders is pretty tenuous as well (mostly owing to the legitimacy of British rule, gaining territory through ethnocide, and the sort), but an argument can be made either way. No such argument can be had for territory beyond those bounds.

                        Now, as I noted to you, I corrected this claim of yours a few weeks ago. I’m going to guess that you just forgot? The myth of a borderless Israel is a pervasive one.

                        But let’s put it this way. if Israel does not have defined borders, it’s not just an illegitimate state, it’s not a state at all. Without borders, Israel simply isn’t a thing. Israel either has a defined border, or Israel is a bunch of stateless, heavily-armed land pirates.

                        What if I want to tell you to leave me and my beloved ones in peace

                        But you only understand the language of the sword

                        I let the blade do the talking

                        So my tongue shall become iron

                        And my words the mighty roar of war

                      • jdpriestly (4382 posts)
                        Profile photo of jdpriestly Donor

                        18. By the same token, Palestinians have no claim to any land outside those

                        borders, yet the Palestinians refused for decades and still refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist within any borders.  The argument in your post would be a great one if Palestine recognized Israel’s right to exist and defined its own borders as those allowing Israel to exist.

                        Most people agree that the borders after the 1967 war would be appropriate.  I won’t argue about which borders would be best.  And Israel and Palestine could negotiate other borders, but they need to agree between themselves on borders.  Because if Palestinians do not recognize Israel’s right to exist, then there are no enforced or enforceable borders.

                        They have to agree, which means that Palestine has to agree to Israel’s existence within safe borders, and Palestine and Israel then have to enforce any agreement they enter into.

                        Do you know whether Israel has compensated any Palestinian citizens for any land outside the originally mandated borders?

                        I don’t know whether it has.

                        No Truth!  No Trust!  Bernie or Bust!
                      • TwilightSporkle (1507 posts)
                        Profile photo of TwilightSporkle

                        19. Well, you're wrong again

                        In the same thread where I explained to you the importance of borders, someone pointed out to you that Palestine recognized Israel back in 1988. What’s really funny? Israel has not returned the favor. That’s right, Israel has never extended any formal recognition towards the state of Palestine in any capacity. Israel demands – on a weekly basis almost – that Palestine, whom Israel formally regards as a non-entity, extend recognition to Israel. Recognition that was given thirty fucking years ago.

                        Israel is basically the crazy ex-girlfriend of international politics.

                        Most people agree that the borders after the 1967 war would be appropriate.

                        Ah… No. When people talk about the “67 borders,” they’re shorthanding the phrase “pre-1967 borders” Which are not actually borders, but rather the armistice lines of 1949. After 1967, the Palestinian territories are basically annexed by Israel, along with Golan and Sinai. I can understand you might get confused by the terminology… But really? You’re displaying a lack of basic knowledge about the subject.

                        Because if Palestinians do not recognize Israel’s right to exist, then there are no enforced or enforceable borders.

                        Of course, Palestine already extended this recognition. And note that the problem is Israel violating its own declared borders. Israel’s territroial violations are not Palestine’s responsibility, nor is Palestine at fault for what Israel is allowing – encouraging, actually – its citizens to do.

                        They have to agree, which means that Palestine has to agree to Israel’s existence within safe borders

                        Does Palestine get “safe borders” too? What, exactly, does a “safe border” look like?

                        and Palestine and Israel then have to enforce any agreement they enter into.

                        Let’s have a dry run first. Let’s see if Israel can actually enforce its current laws and treaties, before we go adding new ones to the mix.

                        Do you know whether Israel has compensated any Palestinian citizens for any land outside the originally mandated borders?

                        I don’t know whether it has.

                        I believe there was a court case in 2014 that ruled in favor of some Palestinians who had been evicted to make way for a settlement. I don’t know if the government actually paid it though. In macro scale though? Nope. It’s been a history of Israel taking what it wants, as it wants, and brutalizing those who resist.

                        Which is what puzzles me when self-declared progressives rally so tight around Israel. But hey, I guess you can find sociopaths in any grouping of human beings, huh?

                         

                        What if I want to tell you to leave me and my beloved ones in peace

                        But you only understand the language of the sword

                        I let the blade do the talking

                        So my tongue shall become iron

                        And my words the mighty roar of war

                      • Jefferson23 (2371 posts)
                        Profile photo of Jefferson23

                        20. Progressive with the exception of Palestine….its an alternative narrative

                        I’ve seen rationalized to death.

                      • jdpriestly (4382 posts)
                        Profile photo of jdpriestly Donor

                        21. The 1967 borders are those that were established after the attacks on Israel

                        in the 1967 war.

                        I was alive at the time and remember those events.  In fact, I was alive in 1947.  My family supported, and by that I mean was sympathetic to and raised money for, the Palestinians.  The Palestinians have not done for themselves what they should have done.  I wish them well.

                        Arafat did not recognize the post-1967 war borders of Israel.

                        No Truth!  No Trust!  Bernie or Bust!
                      • TwilightSporkle (1507 posts)
                        Profile photo of TwilightSporkle

                        22. And you keep being wrong…

                        This are the map lines you are thinking of, correct? As you will notice, there at the bottom, it says “1949 Armistice lines,” because that is what that map represent. These were the de facto bounds between Israel and the Palestinian territories of Gaza and the west bank from 1949 to 1967. After 1967, the cease-fire lines looked like this

                        I’m absolutely certain that in your head, you are thinking about that first map, and not the second.

                        after the attacks on Israel in the 1967 war.

                        You know that Israel started that war by attacking Egypt, right? This isn’t a matter of debate. The 1967 war started when Israel launched an attack on Egyptian forces in the Sinai. This triggered the defense pact Egypt had with Jordan and Syria, leading to a regional war, and Israel’s invasion of Golan and the West Bank.

                        Arafat did not recognize the post-1967 war borders of Israel.

                        Well, as the maps I just provided show, that would mean no Palestine at all.  You’re simply mistaken about the terms in use. He did extend formal recognition of Israel in 1988, and the whole point of Oslo was to set a process that would draft a treaty that would create two states on the bounds of the 1949 armistice lines, with some niggling about Jerusalem. That’s what the entire “road map” process in the 90’s and early naughts was about, achieving that treaty. it never materialized, obviously.

                        What if I want to tell you to leave me and my beloved ones in peace

                        But you only understand the language of the sword

                        I let the blade do the talking

                        So my tongue shall become iron

                        And my words the mighty roar of war

                      • Mosby (187 posts)
                        Profile photo of Mosby

                        23. Per international law the WB is disputed territory

                        and Israel has no western border and won’t until the Palestinians decide to negotiate a permanent agreement and the Syrians end their war with Israel.  In the meantime the Oslo Accords is in full force.  Further, the legality of the WB settlements are in dispute, many experts don’t think Geneva 4 applies to the WB because there is no “government transfer” of citizens into the occupied areas.  Compare the situation in Judea and Samaria to Northern Cyprus which has been forcefully taken over by the Turks, population transfers continue even today.   THAT violates Geneva 4 because the government is coordinating, financing and providing the means to transfer Turks into a foreign country.  Unlike Judea and Samaria, which are areas where Jews have lived continuously for thousands of years and are considered by international law to be indigenous, the Turks invaded Cyprus, just like the British, Ottomans and Arabs invaded Israel and the West Bank.

                        Finally, Israel had legal Casus belli to defend itself in 1967, the vast majority of historians etc. agree on that.

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                      • Jefferson23 (2371 posts)
                        Profile photo of Jefferson23

                        24. Settled law, that it was an advisory ruling does not change the findings in fact

                        The Court notes that the route of the wall as fixed by the Israeli Government includes within
                        the “Closed Area” (i.e. the part of the West Bank lying between the Green Line and the wall) some
                        80 per cent of the settlers living in the Occupied
                        Palestinian Territory, and has been traced in such a way as to include within that area the great majority of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem). The information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment
                        of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49,
                        paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention which provides: “The Occupying Power shall not
                        deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” The Security Council has taken the view that such policy and practices “have no legal validity” and constitute a “flagrant violation” of the Convention. The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including EastJerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.

                        http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

                      • TwilightSporkle (1507 posts)
                        Profile photo of TwilightSporkle

                        26. See, Jdpriestly has the fallback excuse of just not knowing things.

                        You though Mosby, you straight-up know better.

                        The West Bank is occupied territory. That’s not disputed territory. You know the difference.

                        If Israel lacks a border, it is not a state. Borders are the defining feature of a nation-state. Fortunately for the people of Israel, they are not stateless because Israel does have borders. These borders were declared in 1948 and affirmed in the UN in 1949.

                        There is no dispute on the legality of the West Bank colonies. even Israel’s good buddy the Untied States calls them illegal. because they are without a doubt Israeli annexes on territory outside Israel’s borders.

                        The occupation of Northern Cyprus and the occupation of the West Bank are in fact 100% comparable. And it’s telling that the only nation on earth that extends recognition to “North Cyprus” is Turkey. Geneva 4 applies to Israel just the same, for the same reasons you just noted it applies to Turkey. The settlement enterprise is very much a state-supported activity.

                        Bronze-age religious demographics have no bearing on the modern system of nation-states. Israel declared its borders in 1948, and in so doing formally denied any legal claim to any territory outside those borders.

                        And no, Israel had no legitimate claim to self-defense. Invoking self-defense requires you to first be attacked. Israel was not attacked, and thus there is no valid claim of self-defense.

                        What if I want to tell you to leave me and my beloved ones in peace

                        But you only understand the language of the sword

                        I let the blade do the talking

                        So my tongue shall become iron

                        And my words the mighty roar of war

                      • jdpriestly (4382 posts)
                        Profile photo of jdpriestly Donor

                        25. I was paying attention in 1967. Egypt and Palestine started the conflict or war

                        Egypt amassed troups.  I was paying a lot of attention because I knew that war was being prepared.  It was completely unnecessary.  As was the Second Intifada.

                        People have to choose to respect each other and live in peace.

                        Egypt has chosen peace for many years now.  Palestine and Israel need to come to terms.  There can be no excuses.  The alternative to peace is war.  Choosing war is a curse on the children of future generations.

                        No Truth!  No Trust!  Bernie or Bust!
                      • TwilightSporkle (1507 posts)
                        Profile photo of TwilightSporkle

                        27. You must have been paying attention to sources with bad information then.

                        Egypt did maneuver troops into the Sinai. But no further. It sat them there for a week, not once doing anything to Israel. Egypt also created a mutual defense pact with Syria and Jordan at the time.

                        It doesn’t take a military genius to see that Egypt was setting up defenses.

                        What was probably unknown to you at the time was the Russian angle. The Soviets had provided information to Egypt that Israel was planning to launch an invasion of Egypt. Egypt, having already been invaded by Israel before in 1956, took the warning seriously and set up defensive lines and alliances.

                        Common opinion is that the Soviet intelligence was wrong, and that Israel got spooked nad launched a preemptive assault. Could also be that the Soviets were right and Israel decided to go ahead with it anyway. In either case, it was Israel that attacked Egypt, not the other way around. Doing so triggered the defense pact between Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.

                        Israel shot first. Israel started the war. It was the Han Solo to Egypt’s Greedo.

                        What if I want to tell you to leave me and my beloved ones in peace

                        But you only understand the language of the sword

                        I let the blade do the talking

                        So my tongue shall become iron

                        And my words the mighty roar of war

                      • jdpriestly (4382 posts)
                        Profile photo of jdpriestly Donor

                        28. The sabre rattling against Israel began long before the build-up of troops on

                        the border of Israel.  I read the news and followed this issue at the time.   It was very clear that Israel was in grave danger.  Remember.  Israelis have vowed never to be victims of another Holocaust.  No one should have to fear that.

                        No Truth!  No Trust!  Bernie or Bust!
                      • TwilightSporkle (1507 posts)
                        Profile photo of TwilightSporkle

                        29. Saber rattling is not an attack

                        And the point here is that Israel was not attacked in 1967.

                        And sorry chief, invoking the Holocaust doesn’t make your misinformation valid. it makes you look exploitative AND ill-informed.

                        What if I want to tell you to leave me and my beloved ones in peace

                        But you only understand the language of the sword

                        I let the blade do the talking

                        So my tongue shall become iron

                        And my words the mighty roar of war

                      • jdpriestly (4382 posts)
                        Profile photo of jdpriestly Donor

                        30. I'm well informed. I remember discussing the fact that there was going to be

                        war in Israel/Palestine back then quite some time before the war began. It was very obvious from news reports.  Israel was attacked.

                        The Second Intifada is, however, the most egregious act of war that the Palestinians were responsible for — and at a time when Israel had opened its borders.

                        Of course, a country will try to keep out attackers and if building a wall is what is required, that is what a country will do.  It’s far less brutal than simply attacking the attackers right back.

                        As for the settlements, the Palestinians can negotiate with Israel over them.

                        No Truth!  No Trust!  Bernie or Bust!
      • Jefferson23 (2371 posts)
        Profile photo of Jefferson23

        5. Hi Mosby.

        Although I can appreciate we do not agree on the subject of Israeli policy, nothing you have stated changes the reality on the ground within Israel. I wasn’t aware you’re a Sanders supporter, that is nice to know we agree on that.

      • TwilightSporkle (1507 posts)
        Profile photo of TwilightSporkle

        16. Or, Israel could actually obey international laws.

        You guys seem to really struggle with the notion that the problem is the oppression and violence committed by Israel, and instead believe that the real problem is that people notice and talk about that violence and oppression.

        What’s really funny about this perspective… is that it’s identical to defenses of South Africa’s apartheid regime.

        Of one thing he may be sure. The hostility of the non-white world can be explained without reference to the merits of the apartheid program. Indeed, for Afro-Asians the possibility that it has any merits can scarcely arise. It is the policy of white men governing black; and the only good thing that white men still wielding authority in Africa can do is to abdicate in favor of the non-white majority. Anything else they may think to do is by definition bad. In the eyes of the Bandung confraternity, South Africa ought never to have existed and ought now no longer to exist. It is not a question of whether she is meeting her responsibilities with humanity, wisdom, even a measure of self-abnegation. What in their eyes is wrong is not what South Africa may do, but the fact that she should continue in a position to do anything at all.

        That’s Charles Manning, writing a defense of Apartheid in 1964. It is, proper nouns aside, a word-for-word mirror of every argument presented to defend Israel’s oppressive, violent, racist policies. I would bring up the full article, but, alas, I’m not going to spend six bucks for this argument.

        You’ve also got arguments like this article mentions:

        One was to repudiate comparisons of the United States with South Africa. “Racial conditions in the U.S.,” huffed the Wall Street Journal in a September 29, 1967, editorial, “have about as much to do with apartheid as they do with the craters of the moon.” The other, and more frequent, position was to depict blacks as innately inferior to whites and to laud South Africa’s efforts on behalf of the black population.

        Sound familiar? Israel’s racial-based, oppressive, violent system is totally not Apartheid, becuase well golly it’s just not, right? And those Arabs are all hateful antisemtiic bastards anyway, really it’s Israel doing a favor ruling them, right?

        “It is not a solution to assert that South Africa belongs to the blacks (who, as it happens, moved into the region after the whites),” the editors said, “any more than it is proper to say that the American South ‘belongs’ to the white man.” Moving along from the question of whom South Africa belonged to, the editors contended, “the whites are entitled, we believe, to pre-eminence in South Africa.”

        Another mirror! “Well, we claim they don’t deserve to be here (nevermind the ethnic cleansing we conducted) so it’s okay to oppress them!

        After traveling through South Africa for several weeks, he wrote that “there has never been any reason to doubt Verwoerd’s own sincerity. He means to help the blacks.” Buckley went on to depict the homelands policy as a possible remedy to the ills of South Africa: “it is an unorthodox idea, but not intrinsically preposterous, to suppose that nationhood could draw together in a meaningful political entity all the black splotches on a piebald area.” Buckley pleaded for sympathy for the South African dilemma, observing that “we should try at least to understand what it is they are trying to do, and deny ourselves that unearned smugness that the bigot shows.” Similarly, National Review editorialized on December 31, 1963, that “quite apart from whether” the homelands “policy is ultimately feasible, a great deal depends . . . on whether there is a sincerity of purpose there.” And on January 10, 1967, Priscilla L. Buckley wrote that “one has to concede the sincerity of thousands of South African men and women who are working for apartheid.”

        Two nations for two peoples, right? Of course, one nation is scattered, disjointed, without resources, and totally in thrall to the other nation, but hey a nation is a nation, right guys?

        Seriously, read articles from the period defending Apartheid. Research Reagan policy regarding Apartheid South Africa. hell, have a look at Israel’s eager support for Apartheid in South Africa. It sounds exactly like the stuff we hear pouring out of apologists for Israel’s abuses and oppression nowadays.

        What if I want to tell you to leave me and my beloved ones in peace

        But you only understand the language of the sword

        I let the blade do the talking

        So my tongue shall become iron

        And my words the mighty roar of war

    • pinduck (1084 posts)
      Profile photo of pinduck Donor

      2. Looks like a martyr to the truth.

      "Sometimes I feel like Fletcher Christian..."
    • Doremus Jessup (1981 posts)
      Profile photo of Doremus Jessup Donor

      3. I agree with Dugard.

      The situation appears to get worse every year.

      Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity. End ALL occupations and bring the troops home.
      • Jefferson23 (2371 posts)
        Profile photo of Jefferson23

        7. It does and has for decades.