Gaza and Israel VIII

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
M. Spector M. Spector's picture
Gaza and Israel VIII

The [url=previous">http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/gaza-and-israel-... thread-chunk[/url] has hit 100 posts. This is a powerful disincentive for anybody who wants to continue a serious discussion to make any more posts in that particular thread-chunk, which will soon be consigned to babble cut-out limbo by the thread-nazis.

Besides, that thread-chunk has been invaded by a particularly obnoxious anti-semite.

And so I am continuing the discussion here.

Tom Vouloumanos wrote:

Norman Finkelstein wrote:
The law is very clear. July 2004, the highest judicial body in the world, the International Court of Justice, ruled Israel has no title to any of the West Bank and any of Gaza. They have no title to Jerusalem. Arab East Jerusalem, according to the highest judicial body in the world, is occupied Palestinian territory. The International Court of Justice ruled all the settlements, all the settlements in the West Bank, are illegal under international law.

What is Finkelstein referring to? Well, the ICJ was asked by the General Assembly to give an advisory opinion on the legality of the construction of the "apartheid wall" in the occupied territories. The decision of the ICJ, [url=which">http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/icjruling.pdf][=m... you can read for yourself[/][/url], was that construction of the wall was contrary to international law, and should be stopped. The court did not pronounce on the location of the borders of the Israeli state, nor was it asked to do so. It did not pronounce on whether Israel had "title" to any particular land, nor was it asked to do so.

Finkelstein does not claim, as you do, that the June, 1967 "borders" of Israel are mandated by international law or judicial decree. I see no reason why progressives who defend the Palestinians should proclaim Israel's borders at any particular location, because the consequences could include conferring an unwarranted legitimacy to the concept of a separate, racist Israeli state, and placing legal roadblocks in the way of a single-state solution. Not to mention conceding the legitimacy of the United Nations Partition Resolution of 1947. There is no reason why we should declare these questions closed.

These are questions that are for the Palestinians to take positions on - not to be dictated to them by "world opinion" - and they should be regarded as always subject to negotiation. To go around proclaiming that "there is no controversy" over the legal borders of Israel is like saying that there is no controversy over Darwin's theory of evolution. It's wishful thinking.

Moreover, the fact that the leaders of Palestinian organizations and the Arab League may argue for a "two-state solution" is not determinative. They are taking negotiating positions that may be in their own class interests, and not necessarily in the best interests of the majority of Palestinians. I have [url=already">http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/31970/most_palestinians_reject_two_... linked[/url] to evidence that most Palestinians reject the two-state "solution". There is also [url=good">http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/forget-two-state... reason for progressives to agree with the Palestinian majority.[/url]

Quote:
Norman Finkelstein along with Uri Avnery is one of the key proponents, on our side, of the bankrupt two-state solution. Many other prominent Jews on the Palestinian side, from secularists like Ilan Pappe to religious Jews like the Neturei Karta, acknowledge that the two-state solution is unjust and unfeasible and point to a single-state solution where Arabs and Jews would live together in peace in a racist-free democratic state. For us who identify Zionism as a racist ideology, a solution that leaves a zionist racist state in place is not a solution but a prevailing problem in need of solution - its like suggesting that rather than ending apartheid in South Africa it should have been split in to two states, one of which should be left to continue practicing racist apartheid! Imam Achmad Cassiem, a veteran of the armed struggle against apartheid in South Africa, put it more eloquently when he said "even if the Zionist State is the size of a postage stamp it has no right to exist". Racism has no right to exist. - [url=Source[/url]
">http://www.inminds.co.uk/article.php?id=10223][=mediumblue][u]Sourc...

"No controversy?" Bullshit.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Quote:
Israel is testing a new “extremely nasty” type of weapon in Gaza, two medics charged as they returned home to Norway on Monday after spending 10 days working at a hospital in the war-torn Palestinian territory.

“There’s a very strong suspicion I think that Gaza is now being used as a test laboratory for new weapons,” Mads Gilbert told reporters at Oslo’s Gardermoen airport, commenting on the kinds of injuries he and his colleague Erik Fosse had seen while working at the Al Shifa Hospital in Gaza.

The two medics, who were sent into the war zone by the pro-Palestinian aid organisation NORWAC on Dec 31, said they had seen clear signs that [url=Dense">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense_Inert_Metal_Explosive][=mediumbl... Inert Metal Explosives (DIME)[/][/url], an experimental kind of explosive, were being used in Gaza.

“This is a new generation of very powerful small explosives that detonates with an extreme power and dissipates its power within a range of five to 10 metres,” said Gilbert, 61.

“We have not seen the casualties affected directly by the bomb because they are normally torn to pieces and do not survive, but we have seen a number of very brutal amputations... without shrapnel injuries which we strongly suspect must have been caused by the DIME weapons,” he added.

The weapon “causes the tissue to be torn from the flesh. It looks very different (from a shrapnel injury). I have seen and treated a lot of different injuries for the last 30 years in different war zones, and this looks completely different,” said Fosse, 58.

“If you are in the immediate (vicinity of) a DIME weapon, it’s like your legs get torn off. It’s an enormous pressure wave and there is no shrapnel,” he explained.

Gilbert also accused Israel of having used the weapon in the 2006 Lebanon war and previously in Gaza, and referred to studies showing wounds from the explosive could cause lethal forms of cancer within just four to six months.

[url=Source[/url]">http://www.dawn.com/2009/01/13/top1.htm][=mediumblue]Source[...

oldgoat

Spector, thank you for graciously starting a new thread, and saving your clearly overworked and under loved moderators the extra work.  How thoughtful.  Let me reciprocate by offering the helpful hint that we have an entire section called rabble reactions for just this sort of editorializing, in which you take such clear delight.

Ta very much. Smile

Slumberjack

Oldgoat, have you ever entertained the idea of going into standup comedy?  You're quite good at it you know.

Tom Vouloumanos

Mr. Spector may you please provide a single UN resolution that advocates any single-state settlement, please provide one.

If you cannot provide a single one, this means that the other one, the UN242 which everyone (-2) votes is the only single global consensus on the matter, now here is the text:

 

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
2. Affirms further the necessity
(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

This references article 2 of the UN Charter which states:

 To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

As for the court decision on the wall Mr. Spector, in order to determine wherre Israel can or cannot build a wall, the Court has to decide where Israel has jurisdiction, so yes, the Court requested that Israel dismantle the wall from the areas it has not legal title to, namely the Occupied Territories and these OT are what is on the other side of the 1967 boder. 

Furthermore, the court's press release summarizes:

The Court concludes by stating that the construction of the wall must be placed in a more general context.  In this regard, the Court notes that Israel and Palestine are “under an obligation scrupulously to observe the rules of international humanitarian law”.  In the Court’s view, the tragic situation in the region can be brought to an end only through implementation in good faith of all relevant Security Council resolutions.  The Court further draws the attention of the General Assembly to the “need for . . . efforts to be encouraged with a view to achieving as soon as possible, on the basis of international law, a negotiated solution to the outstanding problems and the establishment of a Palestinian State, existing side by side with Israel and its other neighbours, with peace and security for all in the region”.

Legal conclusions:

- Israel has the according to 242 the right to its terrritorial integrity (see 1(ii) and 29c)

-Palestinians have a right to self determination according to article 2 of the UN charter

 - Israel has no title to the Occupied territories.

- No other country or people have any legal title to either the OT or Israel, there is no legal statement contrary to this

 - The UN court openly states the establishment of the State of Palestine and the State of Israel existing side by side (see Press release summary).

So from this, we know that Israel can't be broken up, we also know that Israel has no title to the OT and no other State either, we also know that Palestinians have the right to self determination.

So the OT belongs to no other state in the region and the Palestinians who have a right to self determination live on the OT....and that is the State the Court refers as well as all resolutions.

There is no controversy: politically, the Palestinian leadership has accepted this and so has every other country. There is no controversy legally.

The only controversy seems to be in people's heads.

I ask for one UN resolution that advocates anything other than what is said above as well as one international decision on anything other than what is stated above, not opinions, legal decisions and political votes on the matter.

...again no controversy, we unambigious clarity...and all that is being done here is changing the subject to some other matter rather than the real pressing matter of freeing Palestine in accordance with international law and consensus.

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Tom Vouloumanos wrote:

Mr. Spector may you please provide a single UN resolution that advocates any single-state settlement, please provide one.

You are taking a purely legalistic approach to the Palestinian problem. Political conflicts are not resolved by UN resolutions. They are resolved through the actual struggles going on outside the rarefied atmosphere of the General Assembly and the Security Council. I don't accept the right of the UN to dictate to the Palestinians what form of state they are to have. Do you?

I can turn your challenge around and ask you to produce a single UN resolution that mandates a two-state "solution". And I'm not talking about a resolution that requires your spin-doctoring to make it say what you wish it said. Show me in Resolution 242 where a two-state solution is mandated. You can't because it isn't.

The ICJ press release you refer to (which, by the way, does not supersede the court's actual decision) does not mention the June 1967 "borders", so it does not support your assertion.

Quote:
So from this, we know that Israel can't be broken up, we also know that Israel has no title to the OT and no other State either, we also know that Palestinians have the right to self determination.

What you are presenting is an argument based on your interpretation of what others have said. I agree with part of your argument. But you are trying to present it as unalterable and indisputable fact (and even claiming that it is undisputed by anybody in the whole world outside of the USA and Israel), which I have already indicated is demonstrably false.

Quote:
The only controversy seems to be in people's heads.

This is the location of pretty well all controversies that have ever been, IMHO.

KenS

I fail to see what a lefty dispute over whether a one state or two state solution is the best ["only"] way to go has a lot of relevance just at the moment.

Let me put that more positively: how/where does that choice impact on what is to be done now?

Bearing in mind that the back and forth over the question quickly takes over all other discussion and losses most people along the way.

How about moving it to the thread so titled, or explaining the specific relevance to what is to be done now.

Tom Vouloumanos

You are taking a purely legalistic approach to the Palestinian problem

 No, I am taking a political one as well.  UN 242 has been accepted by all.  UN 242 explicitely names Israel and it explicitely states that it should withdraw from the territories it acquired recently through war, it is referring to 1967. That means, that Israel goes back to its 1967 borders.  The resolution refers to a state called Israel. Now what about the part that's left, the occupied territories that is not part of Israel, and not part of any country. Hence, defacto, we have a legal seperation between the two countries.

Palestinians probably want all their land back, much like Armenians want Mount Ararat. But in politics, we deal with the feasible not the principled. My personal position is the No-State solution, a solution for the whole world in facr based on a free association of federated autonomous self gonverning communities, but in the meantime, we have readily available solutions.

This readily available solution is the two-state settelement that the Arab League and the Palestinians leadership and everyone has accepted.  Yes, the judgement refers to the 1967 borders BECAUSE th term OCCUPIED TERRITORIES means that...occupied since june 1967!!! The resolutions and the law both talk about the OT, the OT are the Wst Bank and Gaza....I can't believe we are even discussing this...what is occupied? the West Bank and Gaza, since when? 1967...Israel has to do what?...withdraw? from where? the OT....that means it goes where?..to where it was before june 1967...who has title to the land of WB+G? no other country only the people living there.

Everyone supports this its what the resolution means defacto.

So instead of the best solution in my view which is the no-state solution, I pick the worst one, the two-stae solution, because this is the only one that is politically and legally available. There is no consensus on any other solution. So I pick the worst solution,  except of course for the continued enslavement of these 4 miliion suffering people.

Therefore, it is a waste of our time to advocate without regard to realism (i.e. the fate of suffering people). There is a readily available solution, the two-state settlement, the record is unambiguously clear. Discussions of other "solutions" are as useful as an academic debate by disengaded intellectuals on some other planet.  There is a real emergency to deal with and we have overwhelmig consensus on how to deal with it...unless we place abstract virtue above the lives of 4 million suffering human beings.

Tom Vouloumanos

Let me put that more positively: how/where does that choice impact on what is to be done now?

 

- We don't have world support for any other solution

- We don't have international legal support for any other solution

- We can't impose on people to live together in one country

- If we think Israelis are going to support in this lifetime one country in which they will be the minority or a binational state (rejected previously by both Israel and the PLO)...we are dreaming in technicolour...and as we dream poeole will continue to live under the boot waiting for the world to act.

- By focusing on other "solutions" rather than the overwhelming international political and legal consensus we waste time on irrelevancies if of course the immediate fate of 4 million human beings is relevant...if some sort of abstract principle (like the No-state solution that I sincerely advocate)...is more important then fine, let's focus on that

 

 

martin dufresne

From Z Magazine - January

Special Update: Gaza Crisis Q&A
by Stephen Shalom

 

On December 27, 2008, Israel launched its assault on Gaza: Operation Cast Lead.

ZCom/ZNet has been has been addressing the rapidly worsening conditions by publishing numerous articles each day from diverse international writers. However, by far the most extensive piece so far is the very important Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) by Z's own Stephen Shalom.

Shalom's FAQ is an exhaustive analysis that collects in one place the most frequently asked questions about Israel's war on Gaza, along with succinct answers, including extensive footnotes and sources. All told Shalom includes 34 questions and answers.

Below are five randomly selected questions and their answers to indicate the type of treatment Shalom provides. We also list the 34 questions (without answers) - to show the full range of concerns Shalom addresses. We provide only this summary here, by email, because the total FAQ is too long to send.

You can access the whole FAQ online including all questions, answers, and extensive footnotes and references. You can navigate the FAQ by viewing only questions that interest you in any order you like, by assessing questions grouped by topic, or by simply reading through the whole thing, sequentially which we very highly recommend.

Click here to go straight to the full Q/A: http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/20269


Brief Sample from Question and Answer on Gaza
By Stephen Shalom


1. Doesn't Israel have the right to defend itself and its population from rocket attacks?

Rockets from Gaza aimed at Israeli civilians violate international law.

But any assessment of whether Israeli military actions constitute lawful self-defense has to take account of the context and the question of proportionality.

The broad context is that the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories is illegal and unjust and Israel can't claim self-defense when Palestinians struggle by legitimate means to end the occupation. (In the same way, Japanese troops couldn't claim self-defense when they were attacked by guerrillas in occupied China or the occupied Philippines during World War II.)

The proper Israeli response to such Palestinian actions is not "self-defense," but full withdrawal from the occupied territories.


13. How can Israel be accused of terrorism since it doesn't intentionally kill civilians, and views all civilian deaths that it causes as regrettable accidents?

Keep in mind the official U.S. definition of terrorism: "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets."[36]Three points need to be noted here.

First, inflicting pain on civilians for political purposes has long been official Israeli policy. When Hamas kidnapped an Israeli soldier in June 2006, Israel responded by destroying Gaza's only power plant, causing massive suffering.[37] Israeli leaders have openly acknowledged that they intended to cripple Gaza's economy as a way to undermine support for Hamas. (That this is a foolish policy makes it no less immoral. That the governments of the United States, the European Union, and Egypt are complicit in the policy likewise makes it no less immoral.) Gazans have seen poverty and unemployment soar and their health and welfare decline as Israel has closed their borders, cut fuel and power supplies, and denied them their own tax revenues. Human rights groups[38] and United Nations officials[39] have condemned this policy of economic strangulation, deeming it "collective punishment."

When New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman writes that he hopes Israel is pursuing a strategy in Gaza of trying to inflict "heavy pain on Gaza civilians," he is endorsing a policy that is indistinguishable from the above-cited official U.S. government definition of terrorism.[40]

Second, over the years Israel has intentionally killed civilians. Among other instances, it has used lethal fire against demonstrators who posed no serious threat.[41] It has targeted and killed medical personnel and journalists.[42] And now it has targeted and killed civilian police and non-military government personnel in Gaza (as will be discussed below).

Third, even when civilians have not been specifically targeted, Israel has shown reckless disregard for the welfare of civilians, killing many. These are not "unfortunate accidents," but the result of willful, criminal negligence. It is true that in domestic law we distinguish between intentional and unintentional killing, with the former being a much more serious offense than the latter. But domestic law also recognizes that sometimes criminal negligence can be as condemnable as premeditation. As the Palestinian human rights organization Al Haq correctly puts it, "the choice of targeted areas, methods of attack and the number of civilians killed and injured clearly indicate a reckless disregard for civilian life synonymous with intent."[43]

Consider the record before the current Israeli attack on Gaza. According to statistics from the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, from the beginning of the second Intifada on September 29, 2000, until November 30, 2008, 2,990 Palestinians in Gaza were killed by Israeli security forces. Of these, 1,382 were known not to be taking part in hostilities.[44] (During this same seven year period, Palestinian rockets or mortars from Gaza killed a grand total of 22 Israeli civilians.[45]) If these Palestinian rockets constituted terrorism and war crimes -- and they do -- how much greater were the crimes of the Israeli government?

And this is so whether Israeli officials express pro forma regret or instead declare, as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon did in March 2002, "The Palestinians must be hit and it must be painful. We must cause them losses, victims, so they feel the heavy price."[46]

(...)

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

KenS wrote:

I fail to see what a lefty dispute over whether a one state or two state solution is the best ["only"] way to go has a lot of relevance just at the moment.

Let me put that more positively: how/where does that choice impact on what is to be done now?

Bearing in mind that the back and forth over the question quickly takes over all other discussion and losses most people along the way.

How about moving it to the thread so titled, or explaining the specific relevance to what is to be done now.

We all know what is to be done now. The Israelis must end their occupation of Gaza.

Tom and I have not been discussing whether a one-state or two-state solution is best. Tom hasn't even made any arguments in favour of a two state solution, because he maintains that it's a done deal: "everyone" wants it, and there is "no disagreement" - end of story. If it were up to him the political elites of the world in the International Court of Justice and the UN General Assembly would be deciding the fate of Israelis and Palestinians alike, and anybody who disagreed would just have to lump it. It's simplistic and formalistic, and it takes no account of what the Palestinians themselves want. 

 

Tom Vouloumanos

Mr. Spector: If it were up to him the political elites of the world in the International Court of Justice and the UN General Assembly would be deciding the fate of Israelis and Palestinians alike, and anybody who disagreed would just have to lump it. It's simplistic and formalistic, and it takes no account of what the Palestinians themselves want. 

No if it were up to me, we would abolish states all together (my no-state solution) and govern ourselves in a more civilized manner of federated self managed direct democracy communities organized together by nested delegate's councils. Every X number of people (say 25 to 100) would form an neighborhood council  and they would elect a delegate to second level assembly, this second level assembly would elect a delegate to a third level and so on until we get to a world council, this would take 4 to 6 levels. Delegates would be recallable by each of their respective lower councils. So if it were up to me we would have this type of libertarian communist arrangement. But it's not. So I make due with readily available solutions. Especially, for issues where the fate of millions lies in the balance.

As for what Palestinians want, at this point its what options are available to them.  Palestinians have every moral right to say that all the land of Palestine is theirs.  This may be a moral national right. But there is a reality that 5+ million Jews live on that land as well.  States are not moral agents, they are all violent creations, so their very existence is an injustice. Unfortunately, its how we earhtlings are organized, with of course many horrible concequences.  Given this reality, state arrangements are debatable freedom from enslavement isn't. Therefore we deal with the latter asap and allow the two peoples in the region to settle a new type of arrangmenet if they so wish. I don't see them politically doing this in the next 40 years...but who knows.. 

We should remember though, that if one of the two peoples isn't in agreement with the other it can't impose its will on it. Therefore we have belligerence. This needs to be settled by third party structures. In a state base system that is the UN and ICJ, in my preferred no-state proposal that would be settled by the councils themselves with ratification from below and decision making power in proportion to how much the decision affects them. We don't have the latter, so I settle for the former, because unfortunately a dispute between two peoples on borders and jurisdiction without recourse to other mutlilateral third party tribunals, not only leads to war but to eventual domination of one of the two peoples' by the other to impose their will by force if not by agreement ...and we get straight back to where we started from. 

Taa Daaaa

Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister and her US counterpart, Condoleezza Rice, have signed an agreement aimed at preventing arms smuggling into Gaza for the Palestinian group Hamas.


Livni, who travelled to Washington DC, the US capital, on Friday for the signing, said both sides had agreed on a "series of actions" in the memorandum of understanding to halt weapons smuggling.


Rice said at the signing ceremony that the move, coupled with other current international diplomatic efforts, would "contribute to a durable ceasefire".


Livni said that the memorandum was "a vital component for the cessation of hostilities" and that Israel had shown restraint for years under Hamas
rocket attacks.


However, she said Hamas had held "Gaza hostage" and had to pay "a high price for terror".


More than 1,100 Palestinians and 13 Israelis have died since the Israeli offensive began on December 27.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/01/2009116164457134763.html

 

Well isn't that odd, the link reads right and goes wrong.  I dunno.

pogge

Taa Daaaa wrote:
...the link reads right and goes wrong.  I dunno.

Try [url=that[/url]">http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/01/2009116164457134763.h....

 

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Quote:

Four demonstrators were arrested tonight at London Conservative MP
Ed Holder's office after a sit-in protest calling for the end of the
violence in Gaza

 

 Police bust sit-in at MP's office

saga saga's picture

Taa Daaaa wrote:


However, she said Hamas had held "Gaza hostage" and had to pay "a high price for terror".


More than 1,100 Palestinians and 13 Israelis have died since the Israeli offensive began on December 27.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/01/2009116164457134763.html

Well ... isn't that a sicko thing to say.

That's Israel 'saving face'. 

Unilateral withdrawl to the 1967 borders.

Despite vehement protestations by M. Spector, I agree with Tom that the best immediate solution is the legal solution. That's what I've been told at rallies: The law is acceptable for peace to occur ... for now.

I also think the long term solutions M. Spector and others are talking about have to come from the people.

I'm not sure this is enough, if "Israeli troops would remain inside the
territory for an unspecified period",
but it is a start.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jZV6BpYAlKVaHedxHmfVu...
Israel poised to call unilateral halt to Gaza offensive

GAZA CITY (AFP) — Israel was poised on Saturday to call a unilateral
halt to its three-week-old offensive on Gaza after winning pledges from
the United States and Egypt to help prevent arms smuggling into the
Hamas-run enclave.

A senior government official said Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert's security cabinet is expected to vote in favour
of a proposal at a meeting Saturday night under which Israel would
silence its guns even without a reciprocal agreement from the
Palestinian group which has controlled Gaza since mid 2007.

Under
the terms of the proposal, Israeli troops would remain inside the
territory for an unspecified period, the official told AFP on condition
of anonymity

The Jewish state expected Hamas to halt its attacks
as well, the official said, but warned that "if it decides to open
fire, we will not hesitate to respond and resume our offensive."

"The
security cabinet is expected to vote in favour of a unilateral
ceasefire at tomorrow's meeting following the signing of the memorandum
in Washington and significant progress made in Cairo," the official
said.

 

saga saga's picture

[url=http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/CityandRegion/2009/01/16/8052346.html]Police bust sit-in at MP's office[/url]

 

Hmm I can't get your link to work, so here it is again.

Good for them!!

Keep the pressure up until Israel withdraws, I say.

 

 

Fidel

I dont think US-backed Israelis will back off soon. Canadian Michel Chossudovsky mentioned recently that the current meltdown of capitalism and events in Gaza are somewhat linked. Gaza has offshore natural gas rights which are recognized by Israel's supreme court. This could be an economic conquest of Palestinian lands in the interests of Anglo-American energy transnationals.

Winnifred
Cueball Cueball's picture

Yes, if I was dyed in the wool Zionist, I would love that. Jack again values Palestinian life to Israeli life at 100 to 1.  No need to discuss 40 years of occupation or even resolution 242. But I guess if you are a craven populist sychophant that is afraid of your own shadow then it is just marvelous.

oldgoat

I thought this was an interesting editorial from what for me is an unexpected corner of the MSM, The Sudbury Star.

They're ahead of thier Toronto namesake, anyway.

 

martin dufresne
Loretta

From that article:

Quote:

The military invasion of the Gaza Strip by Israeli Forces bears a direct relation to the control and ownership of strategic offshore gas reserves. 

This is a war of conquest. Discovered in 2000, there are extensive gas reserves off the Gaza coastline. 

See, somehow I'm not surprised to learn about this connection. Those of you who are more knowledgeable about this situation and the history, can you tell us how the situation may have changed upon the discovery of these gas reserves? I realize that the occupation has been going on for many years but, was there a noticeable shift in the intensity of Israel's response in Gaza around this time?

Unionist

Layton's statement shows not a hint of sympathy for the Palestinian people's quest for freedom. In "normal" times, it would be sad. In the face of today's slaughter, it is infuriating.

Unionist

I don't understand Chossudovsky's thesis at all. Why did Israel withdraw from Gaza in 2005???

 

KenS

If Chossudovsky has a thesis, it isn't presented here.

But all he ever does is point out a bunch of events that he claims are causally connected. He just forgot this time to make explicit the claim they are causally connected.

The events he talks about just show that Israel has been trying to get its hands on the gas and/or royalties by endrunning Palestinian ownership. There is no real reason to see a shift from this Israeli approach.

And even if they have decided to move to outright seizure of the resource, they already control everything about above abd around Gaza...  actually fully/formally occupying would not add anything to whether the a seizure of the resources could be effected in practice.

Cueball Cueball's picture

We don't actually have any statement from Chossudovsky here, so for all we know Fidel is just applying his one size fits all, all roads lead the Washington and the big oil cartel thesis, randomly, and reffering to Chossudovsky because he has some intitials after his name, even though Chossudovsky said nothing specific about the Gaza natural gas reserves and the one state solution.

Conveniently, this also adds a whiff of justification to supporting Layton's bizzarre position, and his support for the latter day expanded partition plan of 1948. Partition +++, but lets pretend its fair for the Palestinians, and call it the "two state solution."

Fidel

KenS wrote:

And even if they have decided to move to outright seizure of the resource, they already control everything about above abd around Gaza...  actually fully/formally occupying would not add anything to whether the a seizure of the resources could be effected in practice.

Apparently they dont control everything they'd like to. He's saying that talks broke down between Israelis and British Gas over drilling rights a few years ago. Israelis didnt want any royalties or money going to Hamas or Palestinians at all. The gas was discovered in 2000 after a PA exploration project initiative under Arafat and operation cast lead initiated a year later. I think it was Ariel Sharon's government which mounted a legal challenge to whatever Palestinian offshore claims, but even Israeli supreme court recognized Palestinian ownership of, I think 35% or more. 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Regardless he says nothing about how that bears on the "single state solution" or the "two state solution", except what you infer from what he says, and what you think supports Jack Layton's moist statement on the issue.

The powers that be in Israel are not interested in either solution. They want full control. Allowing for a Palestinian state, as in the two state solution would only give vailidity to the national claims of Palestinians, over whateever resources.

That is why the two state solution is a chimera.

Fidel

I get the strong impression Chossudovsky has been studying the Israeli situation, as well as maneuvering by energy transnationals in the larger regions of Middle East and Central Asia with the US military forging the way, for quite a bit more than Layton and the NDP have.

And, Chimerica's economic relationship seems to be breaking down at the moment with the Chinese aggressively seeking energy deals in Africa and around the world. I think the competition between Anglo-American energy transnationals and the rest of the world for energy resources is real, and that natural gas reserves off the coast of Israel and Palestine is part of it.

Cueball Cueball's picture

He may very have been. But he has not issued any statements regarding how that bears on wether the so called "two state solutution" or a single bi-national state is a better means of resolving the issue, and you are misrepresting him if you are saying so.

All that he has indicated is that there are material benifits to Israel if it does not allow a second state, with national resource rights, and so on, to come into existance. Pointing this out, does not indicate support for the Two state solution, it merely shows one of the many reasons why Israel will not let it happen.

Please find for me the exact quote where Chusudovsky assert the superiority of the two state solution over the creation of a single bi-nation state.

Fidel

I'm not sure why you've setup an argumentative strawman , but  Chossudovsky is saying that right now there is little attempt by Israelis to recognize Palestinian sovereignty at all except to destroy it.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Right, so that has no bearing at all on the issue of the "two State solution" per se, in terms of it desirability and Jack's statement, in comparison to a bi-national state. All it does, in fact, is underscore why such calls for a two state solution are fanciful, at the very least, in the context of Israeli intransigence.

And this is why an explicit call for the implimentation of resolution 242 is essntial, so that the Palestinians can manage their own affairs.

Jack statement, infers that if it were not for the "violence" "on both sides" the evolution of a two state solution would be possible. Nothing could be further from the truth, Israel instigates the violence in order to  prevent any kind of solution from coming into being, in order that it can maintain control over the vital resources of the land under dispute.

Fidel

So how many are in favour of binational as opposed to two state resolution? 

Meanwhile, Jack is calling for an end to Israeli military aggression and humanitarian aid delivered to Gazans.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Fidel wrote:

So how many are in favour of binational as opposed to two state resolution? 

It's irrelevant actually. That is all theoretical.

What is clear is that Jack fails to put the onus where it lies, right where your source Chosudovsky would put it, with the Israeli establishment, not the Palestinian resistance.

Properly to avoid this pitfall, is to make it clear that Israel must end the occupation, in accordance with Resolution 242.

Fidel wrote:

Meanwhile, Jack is calling for an end to Israeli military aggression and humanitarian aid delivered to Gazans.

No he is not. He is putting equal onus upon each side.

Fidel

Cueball wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Meanwhile, Jack is calling for an end to Israeli military aggression and humanitarian aid delivered to Gazans.

No he is not. He is putting equal onus upon each side.

This is what Jack said: "The use of force in Gaza must cease; so too must rocket attacks on Israel."

So, yes, what I said is true, and your counter-statement about onus applied equally is not true. Because all that Hamas has to do to fullfill its obligation is to stop killing approximately 10 Israelis. Actually, it would be half that many due to reports of Israeli deaths by friendly fire. Easy enough.

 But in order to fulfill their end of the NDP's  proposed (and British and French etc) propsals for peace immediately, Israelis must end the attack on Gaza, which Jack realizes, as we all do through body counts reported by international news media, is not equal to Palestinian losses. 

So you're attempting to state some crazy things on the NDP's behalf, like you've attempted to deliberately mislead and misinform babblers before in your petty partisan attacks on the fourth party in Ottawa.

Fidel

Your boy Harper is still a meathead and has to go

Fidel

Where does it say this thread is limited to "news only" in the thread title? Here's an idea, why dont you go get stuffed

Cueball Cueball's picture

Fidel wrote:
Cueball wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Meanwhile, Jack is calling for an end to Israeli military aggression and humanitarian aid delivered to Gazans.

No he is not. He is putting equal onus upon each side.

This is what Jack said: "The use of force in Gaza must cease; so too must rocket attacks on Israel."

Right and that is not a call for Israel to end its agression. Its agression begins and ends with the end of the occupation. Period.

 Sorry Saga. 

saga saga's picture

Since it's buried  here, I'll start a new thread.

 

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/israel-annou...

 

saga saga's picture
saga saga's picture

Is it not up to Israel and Palestine to decide what solutions will work for them, and why and when?

I do find this discussion of what 'they' 'should' do to be rather 'colonial' in nature. We are not the ones with the right to choose, nor to judge their decisions, nor to live with the consequences.We cannot possibly know all of the factors involved.

Fidel

Cueball wrote:
Fidel wrote:
Cueball wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Meanwhile, Jack is calling for an end to Israeli military aggression and humanitarian aid delivered to Gazans.

No he is not. He is putting equal onus upon each side.

This is what Jack said: "The use of force in Gaza must cease; so too must rocket attacks on Israel."

Right and that is not a call for Israel to end its agression. Its agression begins and ends with the end of the occupation. Period.

But even before your own highly unlikely conditions are met in totality, "the use of force in Gaza must cease"

It could even be inferred from you are actually saying that Israeli use of force is legit as long as either side doesnt agree to a ceasfire. However in this case, the Israelis are now sensing diplomatic pressure from the international community and are about to. But I'm not sure what you're saying really other than, it's another lame attempt to put Layton's statements in the same category of those made by our two pro-USA, pro-Israeli big business party leaders in days past. Sorry, the NDP have not said in so many equal words that "Israel has a right to defend itself" No they have not been the same vicious toadies to the USSA and its frontline state of Israel.

 

saga saga's picture

Fidel wrote:

Your boy Harper is still a meathead and has to go

offs

Take the stupid politics to a stupid politics thread please. This is for NEWS!

Israel's security cabinet has voted to cease fire in the Gaza Strip,

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5537391.e...

 

 

saga saga's picture

Right back at ya, Fidel!Tongue out

When you have three talking heads saying the same thing ... what's to discuss?

The colour of their navel lint? YellWink

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Quote:
The implication -- one with which Israel is presumably delighted -- is that the rest are Palestinian fighters, or "terrorists" as Israel would prefer us to call them. It also suggests that every man in Gaza over the age of 16 is being defined as a non-civilian -- as a combatant and, again by implication, as a terrorist. In short, all Gaza's men are legitimate targets for Israeli attack.

This is not very far from the position recently attributed to Israeli policymakers by the daily Jerusalem Post. The newspaper reported that officials had come to the view that "it would be pointless for Israel to topple Hamas because the population [of Gaza] is Hamas".

On this thinking, Israel is at war with every single man, woman and child in Gaza, which is very much how it looks. Maybe we should be glad that the category of "women and children" is still being recognized -- at least, for now.

Israeli Assault Injures 1.5 Million Gazans

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Fidel wrote:

Sorry, the NDP have not said in so many equal words that "Israel has a right to defend itself"

 

Quote:
Notwithstanding every nation's right to self-defence the Israeli government's response is disproportionate, and the use of rockets against Israeli civilians must be rejected.

[url=Jack">http://www.cjpac.ca/statements/read/23/439][u]Jack Layton, March 2, 2008[/url]

Fidel

M. Spector wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Sorry, the NDP have not said in so many equal words that "Israel has a right to defend itself"

 

Notwithstanding every nation's right to self-defence the Israeli government's response is disproportionate, and the use of rockets against Israeli civilians must be rejected.

And that was said last March without any reference to what's happened over the last several days.And this is what Jack said last March:

Quote:

Whether Hamas rocket attacks on Israel OR Israeli military campaigns in Gaza, violence against innocent civilians must stop. Notwithstanding every nation’s right to self-defence the Israeli government's response is disproportionate, and the use of rockets against Israeli civilians must be rejected. New Democrats condemn the massive loss of civilian life that is resulting from this escalation.

The Conservative government's response to yesterday's tragic loss of civilian life demonstrates an unbalanced approach to foreign policy. Such a position does not offer a pathway towards peace. The NDP condemns the failure of the Conservative Government to use its diplomatic offices at the United Nations and in its bilateral relations with Israel and the Palestinian Authority to work towards a constructive and lasting solution.

Israelis and Palestinians want a negotiated resolution. New Democrats are encouraged by the results of a public opinion research published in the Israeli daily newspaper Ha’aretz indicating that a significant majority of Israelis want their government to negotiate a ceasefire with Hamas.

Now, how in hell you guys see that as the equivalent of our two big business parties' and their vicious toadying to Crazy-Crazy George II and the Israel lobby is beyond me. Back in March and in the context provided by Jack at the time, he could have been referring to Cuba's right to defend itself or any other country. In fact, that's exactly what Jack was referring to last March.

But our two old line party klowns were specifically referring to Israel's right to commit genocide this week and in exactly those words and in the context of what the Israeli army has perpetrated over the last two or three weeks: the slaughter of several hundred Palestinians and massive destruction of public property.

 You guys certainly have made the NDP out to be exactly like the vicious toadies to US empire and its minions, but that flimsy case is still not made.

Ignatieff: Israel has right to defend itself  - 01-09-09

“I am deeply honoured to be recognized for helping improve western relations with Israel,” Harper, the snivelling lowlife groveller to Crazy-Crazy George II that he is

saga saga's picture

Interesting ... Layton made a stronger statement last March than he has made during the massacre.

What does that tell you? 

Fidel

saga wrote:

Interesting ... Layton made a stronger statement last March than he has made during the massacre.

What does that tell you? 

It tells me that the situation last March is not what it is today?

And Layton was still saying that Harper was as much the thundering nit-wit then as he is now wrt Israeli aggression against Palestinians. "...the blockade is pushing the civilian health system of Gaza to the brink of collapse, and is running the risk of contravening the prohibition against “collective punishment”. - Jack Layton, 3/08 

Harper is still in need of a brain and central nervous system in general

al-Qa'bong

From the previous thread-chunk on this issue:

 

Quote:

 

"Whenever someone blathers on about "innocent" Israeli citizens, pleaseremember that racist, bloodthirsty drivel by "David", and keep in mindthat that is the dominant mindset. Remember that Israelis go to watchthe genocide in Gaza from a hilltop as a spectator sport, cheering onevery explosion. Remember the pro-Israeli demonstrators who call outfor the elimination of every Arab from Palestine.

No Israeli is innocent."

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

THAT is easily just about the most blatantly hateful and racist comment I think I've ever seen anyone post on babble. If anyone wrote the same thing and substituted the word "Arab" for Israeli - they would be instantly banned for life. So goes the double standard.

 

Well, this individual has been banned, so the standard remains singular.

 

Nevertheless, his assertion that "no Israeli is innocent" is 9.4-tenths correct:

 Overwhelming Israeli support of Gaza op

 

Quote:

The  operation against Hamas in Gaza enjoys the overwhelming support of Israeli Jews despite the loss of civilian life in the Hamas-run territory, a survey released Wednesday showed.

A whopping 94% of the public support or strongly support the operation while 92% think it benefits Israel's security, according to the Tel Aviv University survey.

The poll found that 92% of Israeli Jews justify the air force's attacks in Gaza despite the suffering of the civilian population in the Strip and the damage they cause to infrastructure

 

Pages

Topic locked