naomiglover

It is/was more than just land grabbing. There was also murder of Palestinians, torture, imprisonment, taking away their resources and controlling almost all aspect of their lives. Your "so what?" reply has no weight. What's nonsense? The fact that the Likud party, to this day, has vowed to never allow a Palestinian state or The PLO would not have engaged in violent response to Israel's occupation and treatment of Palestinians, if Israel was not occupying the Palestinians and treating them the way they have been? Nobody has won.

You're making it sound like if PLO had not engaged in violence, everything would have been dandy for the Palestinians. Any rational person, would recognize that Israel would continue to annex more land, because that has been their agenda from the very beginning. Israel has never officially accepted a state for the Palestinians. Even the current government has it in their charter, to never allow a Palestinian state. The violence would not have happened if Israel was not annexing land and leaving the Palestinians in the situation they were in. It was to drive the occupier off their land. PLO's terrorist activities were in the same par as the Jewish terrorist organizations that helped create Israel. Leaders from both sides who used terrorism eventually became the accepted leaders of each state/organization.

It's Israel's stranglehold on the Palestinians on their land. The controlled roads, borders, air and water and the illegal settlements both in the West Bank and East Jerusalem have created discriminatory conditions for Palestinians that the blacks experienced from the Apartheid government.

It used to be that violence was the only answer to violent states and empires. The results were usually the same. You either die or die defending. The effects of World War 2 had far-reaching implications and India's independence set a president in non-violent movement. It has taken a while, but the world can no longer sit idle, while our governments continue to support a violent state like Israel, while condemning those who are defending their land against them. The fate of the Zionist government will be the same as that of Apartheid South Africa.

Thanks for the information.

A beautiful poem. I truly hope that the Palestinians can all come together and continue this movement of non-violence. The movement seems to be growing stronger. We're seeing more and more militant groups abandoning violence. Israel will soon have to abandon its violent nature as well, as they are being heavily pressured internationally, specifically by Jews living abroad.

Do you understand these Jews dancing and celebrating Israel's attack on Gaza and the killing of 1000 civilians which include 300 children? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZNypPQdU70

Since when did Israel suddenly care about borders and the rule of law? Oh wait, it's not themselves who seem to have violated international law and agreements.

I still have not been able to form a personal conclusion on these incidents. Part of me understands that there seemed to be no other solution to end the bloodshed, but the other part cannot accept it as justification for vapourizing hundreds of thousand of people.

I explained to her what I had been taught in school: that the reason for the bombing was to end the war quickly and thus save lives, both Japanese and American. Her response was outrage. She looked at me and asked, “How can there be a reason to kill thousands and thousands of people, men, women, and children, in an instant?” I didn’t know how to answer that. We may have our reasons to kill an individual, or even a group of individuals, whom we perceive to be a threat to ourselves. But were the people in Hiroshima a threat to the United States at that time? The Japanese Air Force had been destroyed, and there was already talk of surrender. And then another nuclear bomb was dropped three days later on Nagasaki. How could the Japanese government have had time to surrender in three days? NYT

Any challenge to the establishment by a powerful individual is a threat to the system

Poor American Woman. Everyone is on her case for supporting those who do not want to build a mosque based on their bigoted views of Muslims, but, uhm, she's not really supporting bigotry. It's all empathy. I think Abe Foxman, from Anti Defamation League, has summarized American Woman's position well, in a recent New York Times article: When the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) announced its opposition to the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” last week, Director Abraham Foxman said that “Building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain – unnecessarily – and that is not right.” In an interview with The New York Times, he acknowledged that such a position might seem to run counter to his group’s stated goal of combating bigotry. “Survivors of the Holocaust,” he retorted, “are entitled to feelings that are irrational.” In its coverage of the controversy, the Times offered a bold and perhaps somewhat unsurprising prediction. “The unexpected move” by the “influential Jewish organization,” wrote Michael Barbaro, “could well be a turning point in the battle,” causing public sentiment to turn decisively against the project. Surprising backlash By the end of the day, however, something remarkable had happened. The venerable ADL – with its 97-year record of “defend[ing] democratic ideals and protect[ing] civil rights” – found itself under siege, attacked by progressives and establishment figures alike. Nobel laureate Paul Krugman called the statement “shocking,” “shameful – and stupid.” By the ADL’s reasoning, he argued, Jews shouldn’t write for national publications and shouldn’t serve on the Supreme Court because this might be painful for some people. Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution assailed the group for making common cause with “bigots and demagogues.” “Scary Arabs ... want to kill you, all of you, because that is their nature,” blogged Alex Pareene at Salon sarcastically. Contrary to Mr. Foxman’s remarks, it is not “survivors of the Holocaust” who are raving mad about the “Ground Zero mosque.” Nor, for the most part, is it the families of the Sept. 11 victims. The entire controversy has in large part been fabricated and perpetuated by Islamophobic extremists who make money by fomenting suspicion and intolerance toward the “other.” CSM

Palestinian and Hezbollah do receive criticism. No one here defends Hamas' illegal attacks. In fact, Canada and US both have designated Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations. So my point still stands. The west has failed to give the same treatment to Israel as they would to any other state or organization. Killing civilians by suicide attacks (which have not happened in years or even rockets (which has happened only a few times in the past few years) are wrong. There is no question that it's a violation of international law. But then it's also wrong to kill civilians by guns, rockets and missiles when they could be avoided. Wearing a uniform does not give a pass to those to commit war crimes. So if you add the numbers of civilian casualties (ex: 1000 civilians were killed in Israel's attack on Gaza), you are wrong to say that Palestinians deserve more criticism (even though they are receiving more criticism in the West). How am I presenting one sided argument when I say all sides should be condemned for their violations of international law? Surprise me and for once show me how you are not one-sided like Israeli Woman, and condemn Israel for its many violations of international law. Lets see some objectivity. Empty criticism by people like Israeli Woman, who has done nothing but to justify every Israeli action, only helps to prove my point.

Of course. I want the west to stop supporting a state that has repeatedly violated the rights of people, just like it finally stopped supporting Apartheid South Africa. No one here has a problem condemning the criminals in Congo or Somalia, why should we stop at condemning the Israeli government?

How would that stop the illegal settlements from increasing?

Before Hamas came into the picture, Fatah/PLO had recognized Israel's right to exist. In fact, Arafat did this officially in 1988. What has come about since then? Hundreds of thousands of illegal settlers + more land grab by Israel. Hamas' charter says otherwise, but they have stated that they're willing to accept resolution 242. Bibi has said he wants a Palestinian state, but the Likud charter says otherwise.

I would agree that the Palestinians would better without Hamas. However, Israel has full control over whether they want to follow international law or not. The settlements are illegal and Israel is the only one who has power over stopping them. Somehow trying to equate Hamas' responsibility to Israel's responsibility doesn't add up.

I'm sure there is a reason why you two are so worried about criticism of Israel and are always there to justify anything Israel does.

Really, Bonam. This is the funniest part of this thread: There is nothing inherently moral or good about governments imposing themselves upon people who do not want them, who would rather be independent and form their own state. Maintaining rulership of populations and regions who do not want to be ruled by that power is imperialism, nothing else. Way to stand up for morality.

Why are you pretending that there isn't a very large elephant sitting in the room, on your head?

It's like a Turkish MP saying: "I support a Kurdish state if they live in this tiny little territory that we have drawn for them. They will not have access to their airspace and will have to do their imports and exports through us and they can never have a military. Oh and we'll be controlling all the main roads." That's not a fair comparison though, because the difference would be that the future Palestinian state already has been given an internationally recognized border. If you don't support the formation of a Palestinian State as according to international law, then you're as fake as Bibi who also says he supports the formation of a Palestinian state.

You're a troll.

Bonam: Should you really be the person who should be rallying for the rights of the Kurds to have their own state when you try to justify the actions of the country who has been denying the Palestinians from having their own fair and just state? A future state that already has its borders established under international law?

Seriously, where else in the world? Haaretz Continuing the construction freeze in West Bank settlements after it expires on September 26 would be impossible politically and would bring down the coalition, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos in Jerusalem on Wednesday. Perhaps a collapse of the Israeli government is needed to be able to move forward.

double post.