Define Israel.Quote:
Also the Palestinians who live in Israel are thriving, weirdest ethnic cleansing ever.
Printable View
Define Israel.Quote:
Also the Palestinians who live in Israel are thriving, weirdest ethnic cleansing ever.
The part we call Israel, more than a million Arabs live in it, whole districts in Tel Aviv. Weirdest ethnic cleaning everQuote:
Originally Posted by Hax
I wonder, have you seen Jaffa?
No, but it's on my wishlistQuote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Ethnic cleansing is a much broader term than genocide. It also includes expelling people from their land based on their identity, i.e. what happened in 1948.
Nowadays Israel does evict people from their lands and colonises their land with settlers. Allthough repugnant I would not use the label "ethnic cleansing" in this case.
But the label is neither here nor there because nobody used the term in this thread until Frag came up with it.
Fragony, Fragony, Fragony... in 1947 there were less than 2 million people in the whole country. Populations have boomed across the world. Talking in terms of absolute population, rather than relative, is beyond incorrect, and well over the statistical foul line. Less than a million Palestinians were displaced in 1948. But this amounted to almost half the population of the country at that time. Those 700,000 odd are now 6 million plus in "refugee camps" (essentially towns populated by displaced people with no right of return and an expectation from Israel that they will just all go elsewhere and forget.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
A reasonable population overview:
http://www.palestineremembered.com/A.../Story574.html
I would't really call displaced, a lot fled because of the war, and a lot were driven out by jewish militia's. But that happens in every war. Not a war Israel asked for. A whole lot of Palestinians are also really from Libanon mind you
Fled or driven out by militias, then not allowed back while Jewish families were given their houses, farms and land. Could you imagine how you would feel if you lived in a crappy suburb of Antwerp, unable to go back to the country your family came from, to the house your parents were born in, in Holland?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Having to live in Antwerp would sure make me feel bad, but there's a whole lot more going on there. The palestinians are playball of radical islam, it's the radical islam that doesn't want this to end because that's inconvenient to their cause. Who attacked who, with what they thought was an absolute guarenty for succes, just about the entire arab world bringing in brute force. Failed miserably, and they even now refuse to relieve the situation and taking the 'Palestians' back, and leave feeding them to the West making them the most obese and fastgrowing population in just about the whole world because of the billions of aid they get. Sorry, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
There is so much wrong with that, that I don't know where to begin.
Back on topic...
Israel has formally committed itself to a two-state solution in the Oslo accords. The current government is filled mostly with parties who oppose the idea, but in their capacity as the government they've not put it off the table. Frankly, it shouldn't be that hard. The border would still be in dispute after you recognise them as an independant state, and would still have to be negotiated.
Getting their status upgrade is largely a symbolic move. Israel's position is apparently that self-determination, sovereign territory and international recognition thereof is not necessarily something that all people should deserve, and blocking it for the Palestinians is a legitimate strategy.
I don't see any reasonable argument in favour of such a view. I don't think the rest of the world does, either. The reason why the US voted no, and most of Europe abstained, is that it would harm the peace progress. Why does it harm the peace process? Because Israel is annoyed by the move. We should not show (or feign) understanding to someone when it's crystal clear that his objections are utterly wrong and immoral.
One objection I've heard is that with their new status under UN law they could refer Israel's actions to the ICC, and apparently one condition that France asked in return for a yes-vote was that Palestine would not do so. I personally wouldn't see anything wrong with that (referring acts of Israel to the ICC, that is), but it's at least an argument with practical substance.
Sorry, but as an American I have no particular stake in the future of the Palestinian people, and I am all done with our onetime ally, Israel. I'm with Sully on this one:
From the Iron Dome out, Obama has had Israel's back for the last two months—and, to any fair observer, for the past four years. But again and again, Netanyahu's treatment of Obama (and Americans) is best described as contempt. At what point has Israel asked how it can help its chief ally these past few years? Never. [...] Israel is no longer an ally, it seems to me. It is, at best, a subsidized, spoiled child that cannot resist acting out.
Israel at this point is nothing but a political liability for us.