Palestinians vs. Tibetans

[M.Dancer]

And so it goes.

Indeed. So it is pointless to hold Israel to a resolution demanding they comply when Syria, Lebanon, Saudia arabia still have not found any reason to comply.

Easily stated as:

I think most folks who support a Palestinian State would be happy if the Arab Worldl were to live up to its obligations under UN Resolution 242, which it ratified, and the Camp David Accords, in which re-affirmed its committment to that resolution.

[Black Dog]

OP sez:

Why is it OK for China to continue a brutal occupation they started in 1959, against harmless Tibetans, while Israel is pressured almost daily to return to highly dangerous 1967 borders?

Who says it is OK for China to occupy Tibet?

The point is not whether Tibet has oil, but an issue many people duck; the rights of Tibetan and now Burmese monks (link) will get far less sustained attention than "Palestinian" thugs.

Well, the Chinese and Myanmar regimes will certainly see to that. It's hard to maintain any kind of sustained p.r. campaign in the face of mass imprionments, curfews, media clampdowns and executions. Surely you're not implying that Israel needs to be more like China and Myanmar, are you?

I guess that they aren't "indigineous" enough, or the fact that they aren't hostile to Western interests doesn't qualify them for special UN help.

The UN scapegoating always makes me laugh. What about those entities with actual power to change things (versus the toothless UN)? Like your freedom-lovin' "anglosphere" for example?

Or else why doesn't the UN provide for Tibetans to strap bombs on themselves and blow themselves up in Beijing?

Are you saying the UN is providing for Palestinians to conduct suicide bombings? Thats a pretty heavy statement: got any prof?

[buffycat]

Are you saying the UN is providing for Palestinians to conduct suicide bombings? Thats a pretty heavy statement: got any prof?

Indeed.

[Higgly]

Who says it is OK for China to occupy Tibet?

Good point!

[Higgly]

Indeed. So it is pointless to hold Israel to a resolution demanding they comply when Syria, Lebanon, Saudia arabia still have not found any reason to comply.

Let's take these one by one, shall we?

Seems to me that the most recent dust-up between Syria and Israel involved an unprovoked attack by Israel on a Syrian port, no? As I recall, M.Dancer, you said that this was just fine because there exists a state of war between Israel and Syria. What's sauce for the goose...

As far as Lebanon is concerned, is there any nation that has suffered more at the hands of Israel (and this was before Hezbollah came into existence)? In any case, at the time of the Camp David accords, what fault can you find against Lebanon on grounds of hostility towards Israel?

Saudi Arabia. When was the last time Saudo Arabia attacked Israel? If Saudi provides support in some way to Israel, any Arab could say the same thing about the US, Canada, AUstralia....

[M.Dancer]

Any Arab could say that and lets face it, Arabs say alot of things that are somewhat moonbeamish.....that's their perogative. WHat they can't say is that there is a legal state of war between the US, Canada etc etc and whomever.

Lets not even bother talking about a formal end to the war between Syria, Saudi and Israel.....how about them formally recognising Israel.

You know, baby steps........

The recent attack by Israel on Syria is irrelevant, lebanon's history of provoking attackm and inability to defend itself is irrelevant as well as the last time Saudia arabi lost a battle.......

[Higgly]

Any Arab could say that and lets face it, Arabs say alot of things that are somewhat moonbeamish.....that's their perogative. WHat they can't say is that there is a legal state of war between the US, Canada etc etc and whomever.

Lets not even bother talking about a formal end to the war between Syria, Saudi and Israel.....how about them formally recognising Israel.

You know, baby steps........

The recent attack by Israel on Syria is irrelevant, lebanon's history of provoking attackm and inability to defend itself is irrelevant as well as the last time Saudia arabi lost a battle.......

First you talk violence and now you talk politics. Baby steps, my eye. You are faulting Lebanon for not being able to defend itself? Well maybe if they didn't have to deal with a massive refugee crisis - hundreds of thousands of Palestinians flooding across the border after having been expelled by Ben Gurion and Irgun. Lebanon did little after the 1948 war to provoke Israel, and in fact went out of its way to accommodate her. When Israel complained that Palestinian refugees were sneaking into Israel from their camps along the border, Lebanon helpfully moved the camps to Beirut. Anything that has happened with respect to Lebanon since the late 1980s has been from Hezbollah and it was Israel's behaviour during the first invasion of Lebanon that gave birth the Hezbollah.

Many of the Arabs say, and rightly so, that Israel has consistently stalled discussions on all fronts in order to give itself time to grab land. It is not only the Arabs who claim this - a number of historians say the same thing, as do knowledgable observers like Jimmy Carter.

Edited October 11, 2007 by Higgly

[DogOnPorch]

Higgly: Lebanon did little after the 1948 war to provoke Israel, and in fact went out of its way to accommodate her.

I have to disagree. The PLO used to occuply the very same border region in south Lebanon that Hezbollah now does...forming a similar quasi-state. Continuous raids into Israel especially after 1967 were not stopped by the government of Lebanon...not that they could, realistically. So in a sense you might be correct...but the PLO and Abu Nidal made up for what balls the Lebanese lacked. This all led to the two Lebanese wars (78 and 82). Heck...it led to the latest one too. Does it never end with these guys...lol.

My 'favorite' part of the war was when 150 Syrian MiGs looking for trouble engaged the Israeli airforce loseing over 80 to the IAF's zero. One of the largest and most lopsided dogfights of all time. Whadda buncha Maroons...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Without peace and without the overwhelming majority of people that believe in peace defending it, working for it, believing in it, security can never really be a reality.

---King Hussein I

Edited October 11, 2007 by DogOnPorch

[jbg]

How about this?

China is to Tibet as Israel is to the Palestinians. The difference is that the Palestinians are fighting back.

In addition to the points made by the learned M. Dancer one post below yours, it's easy to "fight" a packed commuter bus or pizzeria. MAybe most people have moral scruples, and won't attack "soft targets" even if that, as a practical matter, means not fighting.

[jbg]

I think most folks who support a Palestinian State would be happy if Israel were to live up to its obligations under UN Resolution 242, which it ratified, and the Camp David Accords, in which re-affirmed its committment to that resolution.

And where is this said in Arabic and in public? The Palestinians' English words are propaganda for the press; what they say in public, and in Arabic, is operative. Even during the "Golden Age" between the Oslo Accords and Rabin's assassination the Palestinian leaders refused to publicly, in Arabic, denounce and renounce terrorism, and to amend the Charter to cancel the calls for Israel's destruction.

[jbg]

Are you saying the UN is providing for Palestinians to conduct suicide bombings? Thats a pretty heavy statement: got any prof?

This, from UNWRA's home page, contains language that is hardly free from ideological fervor, and is hardly neutral (link):

PRESS RELEASE

5 October 2007

UNITED NATIONS DAY OF THE TEACHER

East Jerusalem, October 5, 2007: Violence, occupation, closures and poverty are having a dire effect on the schooling of Palestinian refugee children according to a new study of regional exam results undertaken by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, UNRWA.

*****

John Ging, Director of UNRWA operations in Gaza added: “Among other things, the cumulative impact of years of violence and closures, of disrupted schooling and endemic poverty is clear from the stark exam results of Gaza’s schoolchildren. In spite of the challenging environment, we are determined to ensure that our reforms and our drive for excellence in UNRWA schools will be successful.”

The tie to violence is indirect, of course. But even their website is not neural. The "news" section is similarly activist in tone (link):

Will refugees support a Palestinian government that relinquishes the right of return?

"Before everything else, at the very least, the right of return must be acknowledged. That it is their right. They may make another choice but they have the right to return. That's very important to Gazans."

Do you identify a desire, on the part of refugees in neighboring Arab states, to move to the Palestinian state that would be established in the territories?

"I think a lot of them still have that dream, and a lot of them still have land in the West Bank. So they would have somewhere to come. They will have a very difficult choice. They've made their lives there fairly comfortable."

You say that refugees should have the right to choose where they go, but Israel has already decided for them that they will not come to Israel.

"I think that it's very difficult to begin discussing with refugees that they don't have that part of the choice to return to their homes, which is so important to them. But then there are other choices, either to stay where they are, or to come to a Palestinian state once that's agreed upon, as a viable state, and the other choice is going to a third country, which has been mooted before for, perhaps, those in Lebanon, for example.

So basically, a UN body is saying that destruction of Israel (the code word is "right of return") is the only option. Just sickening.

[Higgly]

I have to disagree. The PLO used to occuply the very same border region in south Lebanon that Hezbollah now does...forming a similar quasi-state. Continuous raids into Israel especially after 1967 were not stopped by the government of Lebanon...not that they could, realistically. So in a sense you might be correct...but the PLO and Abu Nidal made up for what balls the Lebanese lacked. This all led to the two Lebanese wars (78 and 82). Heck...it led to the latest one too. Does it never end with these guys...lol.

So you disagree but you agree that Lebanon could do nothing to stop it? A pretty circular argument.

Yes there were raids by Palestinians into Israel - in a period of some 10 years, those raids killed 105 Israelis. Israel's response (Ariel Sharon, Defence Minister) was to invade Lebanon and kill well over 10,000 people.

This thing can go around in circles forever so I am going to get to the heart of the matter and respond to the implied question here, which is a popular theme with pro-Israeli voices: why Israel, why don't you leave us alone and go get upset about Tibet? Here is my answer...

First of all, nobody is going to blow up the world over Tibet. While there are nuclear-armed countries which could conceivably come to Tibet's rescue, nobody has shown any inclination in that regard. A very large Tibetan refugee population has found a home in India, including the Dalai Lama, but India has shown little interest in getting involved. Russia and Pakistan are similarly disinterested. The US could never do anything except perhaps launsh a publicity and diplomacy campaign. The sad truth about Tibet is that there is little that can be done other than the standard tools - a boycott of the Chinese Olympics or Walmart, for instance. Fat chance that will happen. Tibet is a very tragic and very good cause, and it is one just about everybody in the west agrees on: debate in these fora would probably consist largely of everybody patting each other on the back and saying "ain't it a pity?". If you have any ideas, go ahead and post them, I don't have anything new to say.

Sadly, the same is true of Burma. I have been posting about Burma because it is happening right now an that is what this forum is about IMHO - current political issues. Yes there is historical debate here but generally as it relates to what is happening right now. Anybody wants to debate Stalingrad or Napoleon would more than likely be somewhere else.

And so we come to Israel. This is a conflict which has been on the front page of our news media for 50 years. Nearly every day. Day in and day out. The Middle East. Can you recall a period of time when it wasn't on the front pages? It is constant. Like it or not, this is going to produce controversy and controversy means debate.

Secondly we have the situation itself. We have a group of people - the Jews - who have been persecuted and murdered throughout the centuries, and here we have them conducting what is essentially an ethnic cleansing operation in Palestine to replace the resident population of Arabs with an imported population of Jews, and playing fast and loose with international law to do so. Whether you like that description or not, that is exactly what is happening. There is something about this that makes me ask how a people like the Jews could do something like this to somebody else.

Thirdly, we have the deadly mix of nuclear weapons in a region that is by definition very unstable and run by leaders who are, quite frankly, a little crazy. Yes Ahmedinejad is crazy, but guys like Sharon are no better. One only has to look at Sharon's complete military record to come to the conclusion that the guy was a sociopath. There are too many guys like this in the Middle East, and they all want nuclear weapons. The main reason they want them is because Israel has them and the idea of nuclear weapons in the hands of a guy like Sharon or Netenyahu or Ahmedinijad or Assad is the stuff nightmares are made of.

Fourthly, there is the massive PR campaign conducted in the west by the US and by the Jewish population. You can call me an anti-semite for bringing this up, but when people like Christian Ammanpour document it on national television, then maybe it's time to think again. Many have commented here about the number of posts I put up that could be considered friendly to the Arab side or hostile to Israel. If you were keeping track you might have noticed that a lot of them were responses to posts by pro-Israel members who, quite frankly, tend to play 'spin the facts' with history and geography, which in itself is worth debate. You might have noticed that I always quote well-reviewed and widely published works by accredited historians and journalists - many of them Israeli Jews. There is more than one side to this story.

Finally. I don't care if you call me names, and I am willing to be convinced by arguments better than mine. But at the end of the day, democracy is about free speech, and that is more important than any issue we can discuss here, so don't expect me to shut up.

[M.Dancer]

First you talk violence and now you talk politics. Baby steps, my eye. You are faulting Lebanon for not being able to defend itself? Well maybe if they didn't have to deal with a massive refugee crisis -

Nations that can't defend themselves shouldn't start wars then they won't have to deal with a crisis they helped create.

[myata]

Why is it OK for China to continue a brutal occupation they started in 1959, against harmless Tibetans,

It's not OK for China to "occupy" Tibet, although the validity of the term in this particular case is less than obvious. I recall watching a documentary on Tibet couple of years back (simpathetic to the cause of Tibet) where it was acknowledged that Tibet never really assumed independence using Chinese as protection on multiple instances.

I agree that indigenous population must be given a chance to decide their future for themselves.

while Israel is pressured almost daily to return to highly dangerous 1967 borders?

You're quite correct in putting both cases in the same context. Both involve illegal occupation and settlement of other peoples land. Both are morally reprehensible and should have no excuse.

From the practical perspective, I would like to see some modern day liberator (G.Bush? T.Blair? - hello-o) to at least make a public statement on that matter. However it appears that their courage extends only as far as supremacy of their military, as their moral superiority - to starting unnecessary wars they're guaranteed to win.

[Black Dog]

jbg:

Thanks for not addressing any substantive points. Should I repeat my earlier post, or will you do me the courtesy of responding properly?

The tie to violence is indirect, of course. But even their website is not neural. The "news" section is similarly activist in tone (link):

You implied a direct connection between the UN and violence. Not one-sided press releases. (And really, can you indicate where the advocation of violence is implied? 'Cause I can't see it.)

So basically, a UN body is saying that destruction of Israel (the code word is "right of return") is the only option. Just sickening.

Regardless, bias and advocacy of violence are not the same thing.

Now, then, back to you...

[jbg]

You implied a direct connection between the UN and violence. Not one-sided press releases. (And really, can you indicate where the advocation of violence is implied? 'Cause I can't see it.) Regardless, bias and advocacy of violence are not the same thing.

If I were a Palestinian leader I'd see those press releases as UN sanction for violence.

[Bonam]

We have a group of people - the Jews - who have been persecuted and murdered throughout the centuries, and here we have them conducting what is essentially an ethnic cleansing operation in Palestine

See, this is where your argument falls apart, because this one statement, which you base everything else on, is completely wrong. No ethnic cleansing is going on. Palestinians are not being slaughtered in mass. No programs are in place with the intent of depopulating Gaza and the West Bank of Arabs. In fact, the Palestinian population in these areas is increasing at one of the fastest rates of any country in the world.

While it is true that Israeli military actions periodically kill various numbers of Palestinians (both militant and civilian), these are casualties of war, not victims of genocide or ethnic cleansing.

The reason many people accuse you of being imbalanced and unreasonable in your views regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict is because you repeatedely make this accusation (that Israeli is conducting ethnic cleansing), which you present without backup, and which any person educated in the history of the conflict and willing to regard it with an open mind can clearly see is false.

One can debate Israel's specific methods, the effectiveness of specific military campaigns, incidents in which particular civilians were killed unnecessarily due to malfunction or error, but to call the overall situation one of genocide or ethnic cleansing is the sure mark of someone that is trying to spin anti-Israeli propaganda for their own purposes.

[Higgly]

See, this is where your argument falls apart, because this one statement, which you base everything else on, is completely wrong. No ethnic cleansing is going on. Palestinians are not being slaughtered in mass. No programs are in place with the intent of depopulating Gaza and the West Bank of Arabs. In fact, the Palestinian population in these areas is increasing at one of the fastest rates of any country in the world.

While it is true that Israeli military actions periodically kill various numbers of Palestinians (both militant and civilian), these are casualties of war, not victims of genocide or ethnic cleansing.

The reason many people accuse you of being imbalanced and unreasonable in your views regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict is because you repeatedely make this accusation (that Israeli is conducting ethnic cleansing), which you present without backup, and which any person educated in the history of the conflict and willing to regard it with an open mind can clearly see is false.

One can debate Israel's specific methods, the effectiveness of specific military campaigns, incidents in which particular civilians were killed unnecessarily due to malfunction or error, but to call the overall situation one of genocide or ethnic cleansing is the sure mark of someone that is trying to spin anti-Israeli propaganda for their own purposes.

Where are the words genocide and mass slaughter in my post? The Israeli government is pushing them out by various administrative and military means that take their land. I have put up a link to an article in the Independent a couple of times which cites figures released by the Israeli organization "Peace Now" showing that 40% of the land under Israeli settlements is legally owned by Palestinians. In addition to this are administrative and security zones, roads, what have you, that Palestinians are forbidden from entering. And then there is the Sharon Wall that cuts them off from their own land. The Palestinians weren't killed - perhaps unless they tried to resist their forced evacuation, but they were cleansed from the land nonetheless.

Edited October 12, 2007 by Higgly

[myata]

The reason many people accuse you of being imbalanced and unreasonable in your views regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict is because you repeatedely make this accusation (that Israeli is conducting ethnic cleansing), which you present without backup, and which any person educated in the history of the conflict and willing to regard it with an open mind can clearly see is false.

No, eh? Mass immigration and acquisition of land - forced creation of independent state - mass expulsion of native population - speedy recognition by the US (see above) - all never happened?

Which version of history (with backup) do you want to present?

[Black Dog]

If I were a Palestinian leader I'd see those press releases as UN sanction for violence.

Which part? Be specific, now.

[Peter F]

...to call the overall situation one of genocide or ethnic cleansing is the sure mark of someone that is trying to spin anti-Israeli propaganda for their own purposes.

I would agee with that. jbg's statement

So basically, a UN body is saying that destruction of Israel (the code word is "right of return") is the only option. Just sickening.

also falls within the same parameter of propaganda for its own purpose.

[Higgly]

I would agee with that. jbg's statement also falls within the same parameter of propaganda for its own purpose.

Unfortunately, ethinic cleansing is equated with genocide. In my mind, and the intention of my post, was that ethnic cleansing means clearing a particular ethnic group from a particular geographic area. There are a number of ways to do it. In this case, it is being done by administrative fiat supported by miltary action. AtT the end of the day, the fact reamains that much of the land under Israeli settlements, roads, security cordons, what have you, is rightfully owned by Palestinian Arabs in the same way that you might own your home because you have paid off your mortgage.

[DogOnPorch]

At the end of the day, the fact reamains that much of the land under Israeli settlements, roads, security cordons, what have you, is rightfully owned by Palestinian Arabs in the same way that you might own your home because you have paid off your mortgage.

Really? Why is it rightfully theirs?

If the Arabs won the '6 Day War' would you be calling for the return of Jewish lands 'rightfully theirs'? Be honest now...lol.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whenever I hear the word "culture", I reach for my Browning.

---Hermann Goering

[Higgly]

Really? Why is it rightfully theirs?

If the Arabs won the '6 Day War' would you be calling for the return of Jewish lands 'rightfully theirs'? Be honest now...lol.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whenever I hear the word "culture", I reach for my Browning.

---Hermann Goering

Thanks Hermann.

The Geneva Conventions call for the respect of the exisgent land registry by the occupying power. If somebody were to conquer Canada, would you still think you had a right to house you paid the mortgage on? The US seems to think so because it made (through NATO) the Serbs give back the houses they had taken from the Moslems.

Would you happily give up a house you owned because an invader had conquered your army?

[DogOnPorch]

Thanks Hermann.

Not my name. But you're welcome.

The Geneva Conventions call for the respect of the exisgent land registry by the occupying power. If somebody were to conquer Canada, would you still think you had a right to house you paid the mortgage on? The US seems to think so because it made (through NATO) the Serbs give back the houses they had taken from the Moslems.

Surely you must know what happened during the 6 Day War. Arab armies massed on the Israeli border(s) while Nasser called for the destruction of Israel. Your Jordani...er Palestinian chums were not innocent victims. They played their part in the war as well. They lost...as did all the other enemies of Israel that tried to drive it into the sea that June back in 1967.

As for your analogy: Little old Canada isn't threatening its' neighbors...so if we were 'conquered' (to use your terms) I suppose I'd be in the Partisans. However, if we were conducting a terror campaign against our neighbors I imagine we'd get bombed back to the age of sticks and stones rather quickly.

Now...try to answer this question if you could:

If the Arabs had won the '6 Day War' would you be calling for the return of Jewish lands 'rightfully theirs'?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.

---Sir Winston Churchill