Phanerothyme Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Originally posted by Zamo Sorry, how does this link explain why Israel should make more concessions/give up more land? The information on the website you link to is also somewhat out of date (the "history" only goes as far as 1998). But is no secret that the Israelis illegally occupy land is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siân Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Sorry, how does this link explain why Israel should make more concessions/give up more land? I was referring to No.7 on that page - Israeli Occupation. · Illegal Acquisition of Land After the occupation, Israel, the occupying Power, immediately proceeded to take control of as much of the Palestinian land as possible. In the process, Israel applied complex measures for illegal land acquisition, ranging from the control of all state and communal lands, the application of the British Mandatory Defense (Emergency) Regulations of 1945 and of the absentee property procedures, the change of laws related to the expropriation of land, to the direct confiscation of privately owned land. The illegally acquired land could become either "closed areas," "security zones," "green areas," "nature reserves," or could be used for the building of settlements. More than 50% of the land of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, is now under Israeli control and approximately 7% of the Occupied Territory, including more than 1/3 of East Jerusalem, has been used for settlement building No doubt there are more up to date links. This was just the first I came across Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidla Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Originally posted by Phanerothyme In a sense it is 'political correctness' gone mad, (not a phrase I am given to using) because it is now almost impossible in British politics to explcitly or implicitly condone terrorism. But she wasn't condoneing it in any way. She merely said she understands why people go to those lengths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Originally posted by The Cycleracer Give over Max. Thats there excuse for getting rid, we all know that if we say the wrong word these days the racial brigade want to hang draw and quarter you. Unless its a white man onj the recieving end then it does'nt matter. Miss Tonge does not support suicide bombers, no one in there right mind would she mearly explained why they do it. They do it for a reason, maybe money maybe because they just have no brains, what ever there reason she just pointed one possibility out. I was merely challenging your assumption that this was a race issue. As has been pointed out in other posts one of the reasons for her sacking was to do with the impossibility of discussing these issues openly. The same problem occurs, for instance, in the debate on cannabis. If you support the de-criminalisation then you are automatically assumed to be a user. Again, it was nothing to do with race and if anybody were to be offended then it would be the families of the victims of the suicide bombers, Israeli and Palestinian alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Phan/Sian, Israel occupies some land, which may be deemed "illegal" but it really depends on your point of view and how far back into history you want to go. It also depends on what you consider "Palestine" to be. Prior to WW1 Palestine was controlled by the Ottaman Empire and consisted of the land now know as Israel (including the "occupied" territories) and Jordan. When the British took control after WW1 they "split" Palestine into two administrative districts. The first district was named Trans-Jordan (across the Jordan), which accounted for 3/4 of the land. Trans-Jordan (later re-named Jordan) was "given" over to Arab control. Jews were only allowed in the other 1/4, the other side of the river Jordan. Todays troubles stem from the fact that many arabs remained in the "jewish district" now know as Israel. It is these Palestinian arabs that claim to have lost their homeland to Israel. Israel has alreaady given up the West Bank, Gazza Strip and Golan Heights for a Palestinian state, which is more than Egypt, Syria or Jordan ever did when they occupied these lands. Some say this is still not enough but I say it will never be enough (for arab/muslim nations) because it is the existance of a Jewish state that really bothers them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Originally posted by Zamo Phan/Sian, Israel occupies some land, which may be deemed "illegal" but it really depends on your point of view and how far back into history you want to go. It also depends on what you consider "Palestine" to be. Prior to WW1 Palestine was controlled by the Ottaman Empire and consisted of the land now know as Israel (including the "occupied" territories) and Jordan. When the British took control after WW1 they "split" Palestine into two administrative districts. The first district was named Trans-Jordan (across the Jordan), which accounted for 3/4 of the land. Trans-Jordan (later re-named Jordan) was "given" over to Arab control. Jews were only allowed in the other 1/4, the other side of the river Jordan. Todays troubles stem from the fact that many arabs remained in the "jewish district" now know as Israel. It is these Palestinian arabs that claim to have lost their homeland to Israel. Israel has alreaady given up the West Bank, Gazza Strip and Golan Heights for a Palestinian state, which is more than Egypt, Syria or Jordan ever did when they occupied these lands. Some say this is still not enough but I say it will never be enough (for arab/muslim nations) because it is the existance of a Jewish state that really bothers them. If Israel is so big on honouring agreements (and I am not implying that 'Palestine' does either) then why will it not: Declare its WMD and sign up to the NPT and an inspection regime? Return to 1967 borders as originally proposed? Stop using military weapons on civilians? -- for balance I should also ask - When will the palestinians: Give up the right to return for the refugees that fled in 1948? Rein in their paramilitary divisions and unify into an entity that can be engaged with politically? One thing is required. A mass paradigm shift in the mind of the population of the whole Levant. this may be brought about by the following: A complete embargo on the movement of firearms or anything involved in their production procurement or manufacture into the region. And complete financial ostracism, no defence grants or aid for weapons, or gifts of nuclear weapons technology, no foreign currency for suicide bombers, no foreign fundraising for intifadas. (none of these will be 100% effective, but if applied strenuously a sizeable impact will be made. People who think they can win will always carry on fighting. Make it clear to all the parties concerned that they cannot win, by radical means if necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Originally posted by Phanerothyme If Israel is so big on honouring agreements (and I am not implying that 'Palestine' does either) then why will it not: Declare its WMD and sign up to the NPT and an inspection regime? Return to 1967 borders as originally proposed? Stop using military weapons on civilians? I suppose they do not want to sign up to the NPT because they feel under threat from their Arab neighbours and believe maintaining and developing their nuclear weapons programme is crucial to the existence. Their fears are not without some basis given the ongoing hostility and the fact that their Arab neighbours have attempted to wipe them out on more than one occasion. I think things in the region need to stabilise a lot more before Israel will sign up to it. Return to pre 1967 borders? When Egypt, Jordan and Syria attempted to destroy Israel in 1967 they lost territory, which is now the disputed "Palestinian land” in question. Israel has agreed to give most of this up for a Palestinian homeland. Interesting though that Egypt, Jordan and Syria never offered this land to the Palestinians when they had it don't you think? I agree the use of military weapons on civilians is terrible and is only perpetuating the terrible cycle of hatred. The dilemma is what does Israel do to stop the suicide bombers and terrorist groups hiding within civilian communities, when the Palestinian authorities fail to control or stop them? Their solution is to build a wall to keep them out, which has received equal condemnation. The cycle of hatred needs to be broken but, with extremists on both sides willing to do whatever it takes to prevent peace, I'm not sure how this is going to be achieved. Anyway, I'll try and bring this back on topic before I get told off again... Whilst Dr Tonge may have felt she was doing nothing more than empathising with the Palestinians plight, her comments do nothing to help their situation. The fact is that suicide bombers harder the Israeli position rather than weaken it. Unless Israel is given good reason to stop building it's wall (i.e. suicide bombings stop) then soon the West Bank will be cut off with devastating economic and social consequences. Any kind of talk that implies there is some legitimacy in suicide bombing (even from relative nobodies like Tongue) only adds fuel to the fire. She was given an opportunity to correct any "misunderstanding" but instead decided the best thing to do was to stand by her comments. She showed a distinct lack of political savvy (twice) and was rightly sacked from her frontbench position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Originally posted by Zamo I suppose they do not want to sign up to the NPT because they feel under threat from their Arab neighbours and believe maintaining and developing their nuclear weapons programme is crucial to the existence. Their fears are not without some basis given the ongoing hostility and the fact that their Arab neighbours have attempted to wipe them out on more than one occasion. I think things in the region need to stabilise a lot more before Israel will sign up to it. ] forgive an OT digression, but as signatories to the NPT in possession of nuclear weapons technology, the NPT would bind them not to sell or give it away to anyone. It would not compromise their strategic deterrent in any way. Israel would have to declare all her nuclear facilities and submit to international inspections. No disarmament involved. But they are pathologically secretive when it comes to the NBC weapons they possess, and refuse to even acknowledge, let alone divulge, their existence. The same goes for her arab neighbours, naturally, their WMD are thought to be largely limited to Biochems which are actually banned by international treaty to which they are all signatories. What should be remembered is that there have been 51 Security Council resolutions that have been or still are being openly flouted by Israel. That makes the conduct of Iraq seem positively angelic by comparison. When other countries flout Security Council Resolutions in such military matters, the collective response is to take action. But not in Israel's case. This shady set of double standards seriously weakens the western rhetoric on the middle east, when Israel so obviously enjoys the massive and continued support of the USA, despite the cold war having ended and the wholesale import of Soviet weapon systems having dried up. Return to pre 1967 borders? When Egypt, Jordan and Syria attempted to destroy Israel in 1967 they lost territory, which is now the disputed "Palestinian land” in question. Or to put it another way, when the Soviets supported Syria in its plan to divert water from the Sea of Galilee, Israeli artillery began firing on the tractors doing the work. Convinced by the USSR that Israel was preparing troops on the border, Syria appealed to egypt with help against the escalating conflict. Then Israel attacked egypt in mid 67. Israel has agreed to give most of this up for a Palestinian homeland. Interesting though that Egypt, Jordan and Syria never offered this land to the Palestinians when they had it don't you think? Israel has to give it up because she agreed to abide by resolution committing her to return to borders established after the 6 day war, which in themselves are slightly larger than the mandate territories allocated to Jews and Arabs. Egypt Syria and Jordan never displaced the millions of palestinians already living peacefully in the region. That's why they have no obligation. They all took refugees of course. I agree the use of military weapons on civilians is terrible and is only perpetuating the terrible cycle of hatred. The dilemma is what does Israel do to stop the suicide bombers and terrorist groups hiding within civilian communities, when the Palestinian authorities fail to control or stop them? Their solution is to build a wall to keep them out, which has received equal condemnation. The cycle of hatred needs to be broken but, with extremists on both sides willing to do whatever it takes to prevent peace, I'm not sure how this is going to be achieved. Anyway, I'll try and bring this back on topic before I get told off again... Me too Whilst Dr Tonge may have felt she was doing nothing more than empathising with the Palestinians plight, her comments do nothing to help their situation. The fact is that suicide bombers harder the Israeli position rather than weaken it. Unless Israel is given good reason to stop building it's wall (i.e. suicide bombings stop) then soon the West Bank will be cut off with devastating economic and social consequences. Any kind of talk that implies there is some legitimacy in suicide bombing (even from relative nobodies like Tongue) only adds fuel to the fire. She was given an opportunity to correct any "misunderstanding" but instead decided the best thing to do was to stand by her comments. She showed a distinct lack of political savvy (twice) and was rightly sacked from her frontbench position. Absolutely right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abdul Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Thank you Zamo, you make some interesting points, but I don't think it's as simple as 'If the Palestinians stop bombing Israel, they'll get some land back, some sovereignty and Israel will give up WMD' Do not forget that last summer, there were no suicide bombings in Israel for a couple of months. What did the Israelis do? Call a truce? Start peace talks? Move the military out of the occupied territories? No - they called this a 'deceptive lull' and continued with their policy of killing Palestinian civilians (and news reporters and peace protesters). Perhaps if the Israeli miltary stopped bulldozing Palestinian homes to make way for Jewish settlements, while the world sits by and either does nothing or supplies the Israeli military with weapons and support, Palestinians would not feel so embittered and betrayed that suicide was the only way out. If you read the reports, I believe Tonge and Cherie Booth made their points on this subject very tactfully...sadly, for some people, any expression of empathy of behalf of the Palestinians is immediately answered with the slur of Anti-Semite. http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,1130163,00.html "This particular brand of terrorism, the suicide bomber, is truly born out of desperation. Many many people criticise, many many people say it is just another form of terrorism, but I can understand and I am a fairly emotional person and I am a mother and a grandmother. I think if I had to live in that situation, and I say this advisedly, I might just consider becoming one myself. And that is a terrible thing to say." "That doesn't mean to say I condone suicide bombers, I don't. I think it's appalling and loathsome. But we have to try and understand where they are coming from and understand the situation in which they live." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Originally posted by Abdul ...sadly, for some people, any expression of empathy of behalf of the Palestinians is immediately answered with the slur of Anti-Semite. Aren't palestinians also semitic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.