Ireland asks Israel to allow ship to Gaza

[scipio337]

Much like once a land is occupied, the then inhabitants displaced and made landless and homeless and declared a jewish homeland, it will always be a jewish homeland.

I would say that the pullouts of Sinai and Gaza would point to evidence of “No”.

There are several examples of population exchanges in a post-colonial reformation. Modern India and Pakistan are the most relevant to this issue, with 10X the amount of ethnic and religious minorities displaced. The difference being the Arab League refused accepting Palestinian Arab refugees, where they still sit in UNWRA tents, 60 years later.

 

[donsnow]

The way I heard it, in '48 after declaring Independence, Israelis granted same rights and liberties to non-Jews in Israel. All Israel did, was declare a nation of the land they had bought and worked. They didn’t steal it. They bought it. And, at first, Israelis and non-Jews got along. Then, Jordan, Syrian and other nations started pumping Muslim immigrants into Palestine areas. Those people didn’t have to go to the Palestinian areas. They came in looking for trouble.
So, why is every body complaining when if they didn’t find trouble, they made trouble, then blamed the Jews?

Time and again, Israel has made concession after concession and time after time Hamas and Hezbollah have broken the truce, cease-fire and/or existing peace.
No, man, Hamas, Hezbollah and all those other terrorists outfits are all liars with no credibility in my book. Just a bunch of lying murderers, that hate Jews, just like Satan. They hate the Jews because they are hateful people, not because of what Jews may have done.
Like I say, until you live with your and your neighbors’ very existence threatened just for being who you are, you should not judge Israel. Hamas and Hezbollah have bragged, and Iran, too, how they will push the Jews into the sea. I can’t believe the naivete of Europeans who don’t realize that’s what the Muslims mean to do.

 

[donsnow]

I still haven’t found that law saying because of what happened to the Jews in WWII Israel has an unlimited amount of get away with massacres and war crimes cards.

Well, I just don’t read the playbook that says Muslims have an unlimited amount of massacring Jews and committing war crimes on people who refuse to convert, but if a Jew lifts one finger in self defense then he’s committed a massacre or war crime, sir.

There’s an old European saying about “…the pot calling the kettle black…”. Anybody who hates a Jew is far from an innocent. And, don’t forget this next. Anybody who hates any other human is in no way innocent.

Maybe, Kadaveri, if the Muslims didn’t have such a good international PR for their propaganda, I would not have grown tired of hearing it all, before you ever tried to tell me. It’s not your fault, really.

 

[donsnow]

Much like once a land is occupied, the then inhabitants displaced and made landless and homeless and declared a jewish homeland, it will always be a jewish homeland.

No comparison. The Jews bought the land they had been evicted from by Emperor Hadrian of Rome somewhere around 168AD. The same thing happened then that the Muslims did in the '50’s. Only, Hadrian gave them the idea. He shipped all the Jews out of Samaria, Galilee and Judea. He brought in immigrants from Syria, Jordan and all other surrounding Roman satraps to fill up the vacant land and changed the name of that territory to Palestine.

All the Muslims have is a copycat of a dead pagan Emperor’s decree.

But, the Jews, in the 1800’s and early 1900’s bought the land they had been evicted from almost 1,700 years before, to settle it. Israel extended her borders to what the Almighty promised Abraham and his seed (as recorded in the Holy Bible), and no further.

Spain never belonged to Islam. It was Christian. The Moors conquered it, stole it just like Europeans later stole the Americas from the natives. Only, in time, Spain pushed the Moors back into Africa. That was war.

No comparison to modern Israel, bought and paid for by Jewish settlers who then had to defend it from hate filled Muslims who wanted to do another genocide.

Your propaganda doesnt’ work on me. I’m allowed to read the histories of both sides. Islam is a johnny come lately religion, still very young as religions go. And the Wahhabi are a very young sect of Islam. And, until Islam learns to teach the Wahhabi their place in history, and to respect the older religions, the Wahhabi will be the problem, not the Jews.
That Islam fails or refuses to rein in the Wahhabi is the problem, not the Jews.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Time and again, Israel has made concession after concession and time after time.

Well, I guess if you call not getting what you want a concession then perhaps.

Artilce 49 - 4th Geneva Convention - it is illegal for any occupying force to transfer its population to occupied territories. Simple, short and sweet. Fact. International Law. No disputing it and no excemptions.

And yet the Palestinians were willing to concede 50% of the settlements in the West Bank.

Again under international law it’s illegal to acquire territory by virtue of war.

And yet the Palestinians were willing to make concessions on the borders issues regarding Gaza and the West Bank.

The Permanent Court of International Justice has ruled Jerusalem as occupied Palestinian land. Israel has no legal claim on Jerusalem whatsoever.

And yet the Palestinians were willing to agree to it being divided roughly in half - a Jewish and Arab territory.

And once more under international law, every single refugee has the right to return to their homeland - Israel,

And again, Palestinians have never demanded the return of 6 million refugees. Figures vary from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands but not even one millon of the six million with with full legal entitlement of return.

Giving up what you ‘‘want’’ is not a concession.

The only measure is what in law are you entitled to.

And the Palestinians were willing to give up hugh chunks of what they were lawfully entitled to for peace.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Your propaganda doesnt’ work on me. .

My propaganda??

Im not remotely interested in ‘‘working’’ on you.

Im interested in the ‘‘facts’’ of the situation in the region.

I have several friends there.

I had friends murdered there. (I am using the term murdered in the correct sense here , not emotively).

Ive been there.

I dont buy either Arab or Israeli propaganda.

I DO buy the assessments of the International humanitarian organisations, the rulings of the International Courts, and the life experience of my freinds.

Your comments on Islam are interesting, in so far as they are utterly irrelevant to whats being discussed, but I think lay at the heart of the issue for many people here:

The Muslim religion.

 

[Darryl1958]

…

Time and again, Israel has made concession after concession and time after time Hamas and Hezbollah have broken the truce, cease-fire and/or existing peace.
No, man, Hamas, Hezbollah and all those other terrorists outfits are all liars with no credibility in my book. Just a bunch of lying murderers, that hate Jews, just like Satan. They hate the Jews because they are hateful people, not because of what Jews may have done.
Like I say, until you live with your and your neighbors’ very existence threatened just for being who you are, you should not judge Israel. Hamas and Hezbollah have bragged, and Iran, too, how they will push the Jews into the sea. I can’t believe the naivete of Europeans who don’t realize that’s what the Muslims mean to do.

It was a mistake of course for Israel to make any concessions at all. The Israeli left was always under the illusion that peace would result from the concessions. In reality, every concession only allowed enemies to propagandize their subjects that victory was at hand, that Israel was caving once again.

Europeans that you refer to and Americans too, truth be told, are not so naive as to not realize that the Muslims mean what they say and say what they mean when it comes to the Jews. We have to realize that the leftist enablers of Hamas etal must share the same goals. They really are not fools; they have access to the same information as the rest of us do. They just don’t much care if Israel is defeated. It is really just too much of a bother anyway for these people too.

With walls and now blockades, the Israelis are in control. They have effectively contained the hate. They fully understand that this is the only way that is possible for them to respond to the hate.

to the extent that the left now focuses on Palestinian children not having toys to play with on account of the blockade, they make themselves into veritable laughingstocks.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

No comparison. The Jews bought the land they had been evicted from by Emperor Hadrian of Rome somewhere around 168AD.

Are you seriously saying that jews have purchased all the land they occupy in Israel

Are you seriously saying jews had bought all the land of Israel before it was brought into existence in 1948??

If you are, well, ok.

I wont take up any more of your time.

I’ll just leave you with this - research for yourself what happened to the land deeds of the displaced palestinians. And what’s happening to the land deeds now of those living in occupied territories.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

to the extent that the left now focuses on Palestinian children not having toys to play with on account of the blockade, they make themselves into veritable laughingstocks.

I dont know where you take your information from, but ‘toys’ are not a ‘‘focus’’ of any serious critiques I read of the situation in Gaza.

 

[Kadaveri]

The way I heard it, in '48 after declaring Independence, Israelis granted same rights and liberties to non-Jews in Israel.

Well you obviously heard it wrong. After declaring independence Israel placed its Arab population under military rule with practically no rights at all until 1966.

All Israel did, was declare a nation of the land they had bought and worked. They didn’t steal it. They bought it.

No they didn’t. The British mandate surveyed Palestine in 1946 and found 7% of the land was owned by Jews. They got the vast majority of the land through forcing out the indigneous population, because creating a Jewish state in a land with an overwhelming Arab population is obviously problematic.

And, at first, Israelis and non-Jews got along. Then, Jordan, Syrian and other nations started pumping Muslim immigrants into Palestine areas. Those people didn’t have to go to the Palestinian areas. They came in looking for trouble.

You really ought to at least cite some evidence before making such totally outlandish claims. Besides this is the old Joan Peters theory and has long been discredited as a total fraud.

Time and again, Israel has made concession after concession and time after time Hamas and Hezbollah have broken the truce, cease-fire and/or existing peace.
No, man, Hamas, Hezbollah and all those other terrorists outfits are all liars with no credibility in my book. Just a bunch of lying murderers, that hate Jews, just like Satan. They hate the Jews because they are hateful people, not because of what Jews may have done.
Like I say, until you live with your and your neighbors’ very existence threatened just for being who you are, you should not judge Israel. Hamas and Hezbollah have bragged, and Iran, too, how they will push the Jews into the sea. I can’t believe the naivete of Europeans who don’t realize that’s what the Muslims mean to do.

Israel has never made any real concessions, at most it has only agreed to abide by laws it had no right to break in the first place, and only when it was forced into doing so. And on Hamas breaking ceasefires, you mean how when Israel and Hamas agreed a ceasefire in June 2008 if Israel would lift the siege Hamas would stop firing rockets at Israel? And Hamas (according to the Israelis) was ‘careful to maintain the ceasefire’ despite the fact that Israel totally reneged on its part of the agreement and refused to lift the siege, and that it was Israel which then broke the ceasefire on November 4th while the rest of the world was busy with the American election results, provoking Hamas to fire rockets ‘in retaliation’ (the Israelis’ words).

You really shouldn’t be accusing people of spreading propaganda, that post was appalling.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

they make themselves into veritable laughingstocks.

There’s nothing funny about having shortages of food, medicine, water, and the means to provide shelter.

Theres nothing funny about widows and children living in bombed out homes, or on the street.

Theres nothing funny about watching your child die from malnutrician related illnesses.

You wont see humanitarian organisations, the people of Gaza, or many commentators laughing.

Im sorry you feel the need to put a little smilie in there.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Then, Jordan, Syrian and other nations started pumping Muslim immigrants into Palestine areas. Those people didn’t have to go to the Palestinian areas. They came in looking for trouble.
So, why is every body complaining when if they didn’t find trouble, they made trouble, then blamed the Jews?.

You didnt know I guess that Norman Finkelstein spent 3 months in the New York Public Library researching every single footnote that Joan Peter’s referenced in From Time Immemorial - from where the idea of Palestine being basically empty apart from a few Jews and when Israel was created these hard working jews turned a desert into an oasis of productivity only to have a bunch of freeloading Muslims barge in and start causing trouble comes from - and he exposed the whole work as a fraud. And he wasn’t the only one - here’s what Paul Blair had to say on her/your theory:

Conclusion

From Time Immemorial is work of propaganda, with all the bad connotations that term carries. Peters’ case rests upon distortion and fabrication. Time and again, she misconstrues sources in a tendentious manner. She cribs uncritically from partisan works. She conceals crucial calculations, and draws hard conclusions from tenuous evidence. She speculates wildly and without ground. She exaggerates figures and selects numbers to suit her thesis. She adduces evidence that in no way supports her claims, sometimes even omitting “inconvenient” portions of the citation. She invents contradictions in sources she wishes to discredit by quoting them out of context. She “forgets” undesirable numbers in her calculations. She ignores sources that cast doubt on her conclusions, even when she herself uses those sources for other purposes. She makes baseless insinuations and misleading claims.

Peters’ distortions apply, not simply to minor issues, but to the central pieces of evidence for the principal contentions of her book. Her claim that the majority of Arabs in pre-state Israel were recent arrivals is false, as is her related assertion about the vast majority of Palestinian refugees. Her contention that Arab immigrants were filling the places Jews had cleared for other Jews is untrue. Her view that the League of Nations Mandate was intended to make Palestine into a Jewish state has no valid basis, nor is is true that the British created the Transjordan in violation of the Mandate. Peters’ claim of a nineteenth-century Jewish majority is misleading at best; her thesis that the first Jewish settlements lured significant numbers of Arabs into Palestine is fiction.

As with all successful disinformation, the distortions are placed within a wider context of truth; not everything Peters says is a lie. Palestine was in fact sparsely populated when Jewish colonization began. Arab nationalism did not yet exist, let alone Palestinian nationalism. When the British took over they unjustly restricted Jewish immigration into Palestine while Arabs immigrated into the territory. After the Arab violence of the late 1930s, British appeasement slowed Jewish immigration to a trickle. Ultimately, Jews who sought to escape the Holocaust were turned away from the Jewish National Home, even while “emergency arrangements” were taken to bring in Arab immigrant laborers. Had Peters let the facts speak for themselves, she would have had a dramatic, compelling story to tell.

But Peters wishes to do more; she wants to destroy, definitively, the claims of Palestinian nationalism–and she wishes to do so without rejecting Jewish nationalism. Thus her focus on demography; the essence of her case is: “The Arabs are latecomers to Palestine and so have less right to be there than the Jews.” But torture the numbers as she will, she cannot escape the fact that the Arabs in Palestine in the late nineteenth century outnumbered the Jews. Hence, she contends that those Arabs had no national “identity,” that they considered themselves Ottoman subjects or Southern Syrians, but certainly not Palestinians. And if today’s Arabs wish to live in a Palestinian state, they should move to Jordan.

Peters’ fundamental premise, then, is ethnic nationalism. Why else waste ink trying to show, in essence, that the Palestinians are not the descendants of the Canaanites, who inhabited the land before the Israelites arrived? Such arguments are utterly pointless. Ethnicity entitles no one to a state–not Arabs, and not Jews either. The right of sovereignty does not reside in numerical superiority or “peoplehood” or a “continuous presence in the land” or “ethnic self-determination”; it rests on a government’s respect for individual rights. Once such a government exists, no ethnic separatist has any valid claim against it.

Peters’ book does not simply distort the facts, then; it is a philosophically repugnant enterprise from the start. Ethnic nationalism has produced most of the wars in the last half century; Arab opposition to Israel rests largely on the same foundation. The doctrine of ethnic self-determination has no valid intellectual basis; given the bloodshed it has caused it deserves not respect but unequivocal repudiation.

capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=2140

And to see her entire work torn to shreds and she exposed for her intellectual dishonesty and total lack of credibility see here:

scribd.com/doc/23984629/Review-Palestine-Joan-Peters-Book-From-Time-Immemorial

 

[scipio337]

There are several examples of population exchanges in a post-colonial reformation. Modern India and Pakistan are the most relevant to this issue, with 10X the amount of ethnic and religious minorities displaced. The difference being the Arab League refused accepting Palestinian Arab refugees, where they still sit in UNWRA tents, 60 years later.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Man, the Israelis are fighting for their survival as a nation against people who want to do genocide to Jews.

Puleeze! Israel can defeat any and all of its Arab neighbors one by one or in concert. The only possible chance those countries would have would be if Egypt joined them, and that won’t happen.

The Jews are NOT fighting for their survival!

 

[scipio337]

Puleeze! Israel can defeat any and all of its Arab neighbors one by one or in concert. The only possible chance those countries would have would be if Egypt joined them, and that won’t happen.

The Jews are NOT fighting for their survival!

I suppose you’d have a similar outlook, if Loyalists were launching missles into the US from Canada?

Still waiting for your solution to the problems in the Middle East. You’ve been emphatic that you’re “no fan” of Israel, but can’t seem to separate yourself from Helen Thomas’ views.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I suppose you’d have a similar outlook, if Loyalists were launching missles into the US from Canada?

No, I would not think that the United States would then be “fighting for its survival.”

Still waiting for your solution to the problems in the Middle East.

That I have little use for Israel doesn’t mean that I have a solution for the problems in the Middle East. As I said in another post, I didn’t like the Soviet Union when it existed, but I had no solutions on how to deal with them either.

You’ve been emphatic that you’re “no fan” of Israel, but can’t seem to separate yourself from Helen Thomas’ views.

I’ve never attached myself to her, so “separation” doesn’t apply.

 

[scipio337]

No, I would not think that the United States would then be “fighting for its survival.”

That I have little use for Israel doesn’t mean that I have a solution for the problems in the Middle East. As I said in another post, I didn’t like the Soviet Union when it existed, but I had no solutions on how to deal with them either.

I’ve never attached myself to her, so “separation” doesn’t apply.Non-answers. Is it because you truly have no opinion for solutions for the problems, or that you don’t want to reveal them?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Non-answers. Is it because you truly have no opinion for solutions for the problems, or that you don’t want to reveal them?

I don’t know what you do for a living, but I’m an attorney. I’ve got enough on my plate with the law, without the extra luxury of sitting down and formulating a solution to the problems of the Middle East.

Please note, however, that even those infatuated with Israel on these threads are only commenting, they aren’t putting forth their own solutions. Why not ask them for theirs?

 

[scipio337]

I don’t know what you do for a living, but I’m an attorney. I’ve got enough on my plate with the law, without the extra luxury of sitting down and formulating a solution to the problems of the Middle East.

Please note, however, that even those infatuated with Israel on these threads are only commenting, they aren’t putting forth their own solutions. Why not ask them for theirs?

I’m a risk manager with a JD (Washington University, 96), so I’m used to non-answers.

I’ll go first. I support a two state solution with Jerusalem (East and West) under international UN mandate. The Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary would remain under control of the Waqf, with equal access to all faiths. Palestinian Arab refugees to be given compensation by Israel for property lost, and repatriated into the Palestinian State, or Arab League states, with no right of return to Israel proper. Arab nations to recognize and normalize relations with Israel, and the Palestinian government (whether Hamas of Fatah) to do the same.

Unfortunately, I doube either side would go for it.

Sorry, but the “I’ve got enough on my plate” excuse rings a little hollow, given the amount of criticism given lately for those saying “NO”, but not offering alternative solutions.

On a side note, as a fellow flyover slob, I live minutes from SIUE, and spent last weekend canoeing the beautiful Buffalo River in AR.

 

[scipio337]

Bumping this one up for ya.
Rich Olszewski:

I don’t know what you do for a living, but I’m an attorney. I’ve got enough on my plate with the law, without the extra luxury of sitting down and formulating a solution to the problems of the Middle East.

Please note, however, that even those infatuated with Israel on these threads are only commenting, they aren’t putting forth their own solutions. Why not ask them for theirs?

I’m a risk manager with a JD (Washington University, 96), so I’m used to non-answers.

I’ll go first. I support a two state solution with Jerusalem (East and West) under international UN mandate. The Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary would remain under control of the Waqf, with equal access to all faiths. Palestinian Arab refugees to be given compensation by Israel for property lost, and repatriated into the Palestinian State, or Arab League states, with no right of return to Israel proper. Arab nations to recognize and normalize relations with Israel, and the Palestinian government (whether Hamas of Fatah) to do the same.

Unfortunately, I doubt either side would go for it.

Sorry, but the “I’ve got enough on my plate” excuse rings a little hollow, given the amount of criticism given lately for those saying “NO”, but not offering alternative solutions.

On a side note, as a fellow flyover slob, I live minutes from SIUE, and spent last weekend canoeing the beautiful Buffalo River in AR.