"The Israeli army must not stop the operation before breaking the will of Palestinians"
A rare moment of honesty from the criminal thugs.
I've always been uncomfortable about boycotts and the like but increasingly I think it's the only way.
I agree it's good to see the Dept. of Foreign Affairs come out stronly against the carnage, but more is needed.
The sick criminal Zion Evrony and his staff should be expelled from Ireland.
I agree JG
I'm curious Mr Gaskin, do you oppose Israel's right to exist? I would appreciate it if I wasn't accused of being a Zionist, for while I do support Israel's right to exist and defend itself, I do not by any means support its actions towards the Palestinians. My natural sympathies lie with the Palestinians, and I see much to support in Hamas (though also much to oppose), but I am not blind to the fact that this conflict harms Israel as well as the Palestinians. Your repeated use of the word "Zionist" as a substitute for Israeli is, you must be aware, a trick used by such contemptible figures as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who oppose Israel's right to exist without wishing to be seen as anti-Semitic, a position which is as hypocritical as it is false and contemptible. The Israelis are a nation as much as any other, and for one thing, they would not all identify themselves as Zionists. You are right though about how Palestinians are being used as fodder for Israeli politics, and about that quisling Abbas.
"I'm curious Mr Gaskin, do you oppose Israel's right to exist?"
Israel has no right therefore there I am not opposing any right. I support the right of the Palestinians to their land.
"I would appreciate it if I wasn't accused of being a Zionist, for while I do support Israel's right to exist and defend itself"
Please check to see what Modern Zionism is about. You support and defend the state of Israel ergo you are a Zionist!
"Your repeated use of the word "Zionist" as a substitute for Israeli is, you must be aware, a trick used by such contemptible figures as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who oppose Israel's right to exist without wishing to be seen as anti-Semitic, a position which is as hypocritical as it is false and contemptible."
My opposition to Israel does not make me anti-Semitic, do you even know what that word means?
"Israelis are a nation as much as any other"
Any nation that builds itself on the back of land grabs, blood shed and attempted genocide of the rightfull inhabitents is destined to fall.
Israel has NO right to exist? Not even within the pre-1967 borders?
Israel and the land squatters should be brushed into the meditteranean, and let the tide wash the filth away finally.
"Israel has NO right to exist? Not even within the pre-1967 borders?"
I support the establishment of a United and Secular Palestine where all of the inhabitents, both Jewish and Arab would be equal citizens.
Failing that a return to the pre-67 borders would have to be agreed by the Palestinian people
I support the establishment of a United and Secular Palestine where all of the inhabitents, both Jewish and Arab would be equal citizens.
This is the crux of the matter. An exclusively Jewish state in the holy land is as unjust as an exclusively Christian or Muslim state in the holy land would be, in that it is not just at all.
I think the one state solution is the most likely to succeed but the least likely to actually come about, unfortunately.
The two state solution could work if based strictly on the pre-1967 borders but Israel has refused to do this, despite the Arab League promise of full recognition it if does so. Israel wants to enforce peace on its own terms but that cannot happen, Israel must compromise.
Chris, thanks for the reply. Here's the philosophical problem I'm struggling with: the problem of trying to remedy a past injustice without in the process creating an even worse injustice.
I like your proposed solution because it doesn't call for the expulsion of the current inhabitants of Israel, many of whom have now lived there for generations. The fear that drives on many Israelis and motivates them to fight brutally against all enemies is the fear of yet another mass pogrom/holocaust if and when Israeli statehood came to a close. Soild assurance that an end to Israel wouldn't mean extinction or expulsion of its inhabitants -- and the creation of a secular constitutional order that enforces equal rights and due process for all [take a look at the US Constitution 14th Amendment, passed after the US Civil War] -- would reduce the incentive for endless war and would help bring this chapter of history to a close.
NCM,
the problem of trying to remedy a past injustice without in the process creating an even worse injustice
That's the problem alright. I consider the creation of Israel as a historic injustice. I'm not a fan of ethnic cleansing. But that said, trying to undo all those wrongs now would lead to an even greater catastrophe. What is needed is peace with justice. Over 70% of Palestinians support a two state solution based on the pre-1967 borders. Once Israel is ready to compromise that process can start.
By the way, Chris, I read that article in the Observer. Interesting indeed!
Gaskin, on what basis exactly do you make your claim that Israel has no right to exist? Because it has acted wrongly towards the Palestinians? That will not suffice. The Arabs are really in no position to be making grandiose condemnations of Israel given their own records of human rights abuses and religious intolerance. The State of Israel has a much stronger historical basis for existing than any Palestinian state. A two-state solution for Jews and Arabs (recognised as the only possible sane solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict) was first offered in 1937. The Arabs rejected it and condemned the Palestinians in doing so. A coalition of Arabs attempted to destroy Israel in 1967 and failed disastrously, doing no favours for their Palestinian "brothers". You might also try reading up about something called "the Holocaust" if you want more information on why the State of Israel was founded, and what the word "genocide" really means, and perhaps on how the Islamic Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was an ardent supporter of the Holocaust.
What I support and defend is an equaninimous two-state solution, mainly because it is the only option in the realm of remote possibility. If that makes me a "Zionist" in your book, I can live with it. The fact is that the State of Israel will most probably maintain its Jewish identity indefinitely, it won't be abandoning it in our lifetime. Take the blinkers off and join the real world Gaskin, there are no angels or demons in this story.
No state has a right to exist.
Hugh Green: "No state has a right to exist."
A zero state solution would at least end the fighting once and for all, I suppose.
"A zero state solution would at least end the fighting once and for all I suppose."
Ever hear of something called the British Mandate of Palestine?
Shane
The State of Israel has a much stronger historical basis for existing than any Palestinian state.
Clearly it does, since it has existed for 60 years and no Palestinian state has existed in this time.
But I fail to see how a historical basis, whatever that might be, can be translated into moral justification.
The state of Israel was established through ethnic cleansing. So what you appear to be saying, if you see the expulsion of 750000 Palestinians from their homes as a necessary act in the establishment of a 'strong historical basis' is that ethnic cleansing is permissible, provided you can hold on to the land you have conquered for long enough.
In essence, your position differs little from that articulated by South Armaghlite above, only whereas he applies it to Israelis in the present, you apply it retrospectively to Palestinians.
Hugh, when I referred to historical basis, I was actually thinking much further back than a mere 60 years. If you are too obtuse to grasp what I thought was a rather obvious point, then I might just have to give up on you. My position on the historical basis of the State of Israel has little to do with the Palestinians. I would appreciate it, if at all possible, if you didn't compare me to that other fella. I'm far too civil for the comparison to work.
If the "historical basis" is that the Jewish people lived in Israel 2,000 years ago, well, that's hardly germane at this point.
"If the "historical basis" is that the Jewish people lived in Israel 2,000 years ago, well, that's hardly germane at this point."
That's very convenient isn't it? What it infact means is that the Jews or Israelis have as much claim to that land as do the Palestinians, especially since there was a Jewish community in Palestine long before the establishment of the State of Israel. It defies the offensive notion, held to by Chris Gaskin and others that the Israelis or Jews or "Zionists" as he would no doubt call them, are nothing more than "squatters" in that benighted land.
In any event, any solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict will, I'm sure you would agree, ultimately depend on the Israelis and the Palestinians finding some way to live beside and indeed with each other in an absence of conflict if not peace.
I'm honestly a bit surprised, and disappointed, that republicans haven't taken up the argument that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is another fine legacy of British imperialism, like Ireland. Come on guys, the British played the primary role in making this mess. Shouldn't republicans be screaming this from the rooftops?
Shane,
Most of the original Jewish settlers were Europeans who had never set foot in the Middle East before. Therefore, they were not native to that land, regardless of the religion they happened to subscribe to. They ended up ethnically cleansing vast areas of land and displacing the indigenous people, ie Palestinian Arabs. That is what is offensive.
It defies the offensive notion, held to by Chris Gaskin and others that the Israelis or Jews or "Zionists" as he would no doubt call them, are nothing more than "squatters" in that benighted land
You're wrong. Many are squatters. Even today any Jew on earth has the "right to return", in other words he/she can move to Israel and become a citizen before leaving the airport.
So you have, for example, Russian Jews who have never been to the Middle East and have no family connections there, enjoying full rights while Palestinians (the indigenous people) are treated like animals: their movement restricted, humilated at checkpoints, and stuck inside one of the various West Bank cantons or in the open-air prison of Gaza. That is what is offensive.
In any event, any solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict will, I'm sure you would agree, ultimately depend on the Israelis and the Palestinians finding some way to live beside and indeed with each other in an absence of conflict if not peace.
I think we will all agree on that.
You have a point JG, but the territory of the State of Israel is nonetheless the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people, whether or not most of the Jews who populated the State of Israel came from outside the Middle East. The Jews, rather like the Irish, are a diaspora people, spread across the world, who nonetheless cleave (by and large)to their ancestral homeland. But that doesn't, in my opinion, negate the right of the Palestinians to a nation-state of their own in "the holy land".
Shane
Is Palestine/The holy land really the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people though. I would argue that most have genes that would not be out of place in Eastern Europe. Descendants of the converted Khazari people. Thus if it is all about roots pay Ukraines gas bill and perhaps they will give a nice bit of real estate beside the Black sea, much bigger than the present Israel.
Problem solved! 
Yes. Israel/Palestine is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people, just as Ireland is the ancestral homeland of the Irish. You won't get anywhere by saying otherwise so enough said.
On another point, relating to the territorial rights of each group, since when exactly did the Palestinians become a group distinct from the all the other Arab peoples of the Middle East, as the Jews are? Was it when they first rejected the opportunity of a state for themselves in 1937? Was it when the Arab coalition failed to destroy Israel in 1967? Was it when the PLO was established? Or was it when Yasser Arafat denied the Palestinian people their chance to have their own state at Oslo in 1993, because he couldn't secure East Jerusalem as its capital? The Palestinians should blame the failures of their so-called "leaders" and Arab "brothers" in the rest of the Middle East for their problems as much as the Israelis.
I always feel disappointed when Irish Republicans take such a blinkered and one-sided view of the Arab-Israeli conflict as displayed by the likes of Chris Gaskin. Of course we all feel a great deal of solidarity for the Palestinians given the terrible situation thay they have been in for the past sixty years, and given the fact that they have always been the definite underdogs in this conflict. But, for Irish Republicans, solidarity for Palestinians should not simply equate with an ideological hostility to the Israelis. Israel was not always the great military power of the Middle East. Up until 1967 at least, it was a nation surrounded by enemies and in almost constant threat of destruction. Israel IS the homeland of the Jews, a people we should feel a great deal of sympathy and fellow feeling for given the enormous suffering that they have experienced throughout their history, something that we Irish can and should identify with. Israel wasn't established out of hatred of the Palestinians, but so that the Jewish people would no longer have to be a suffering and downtrodden people, but a nation of their own instead. Zionism was a force for liberation for the Jews of the world after the Holocaust, it was never just a mere force for reaction, nor is it a monolith. Can Irish Republicans really not feel ANY sympathy for a tiny nation-state, born out of suffering and hope, that in its short and embattled life, surrounded by enemies, has fought off all attempts to destroy it? Must our solidarity with the Palestinians really equate with a loathing for the Israelis?
"I support the establishment of a United and Secular Palestine where all of the inhabitents, both Jewish and Arab would be equal citizens.
Failing that a return to the pre-67 borders would have to be agreed by the Palestinian people."
And the Israelis would have no say in the matter?
"Israel wants to enforce peace on its own terms but that cannot happen, Israel must compromise."
The Palestinians and Arabs have shown themselves to be as incapable of compromising as the Israelis. Yasser Arafat scuppered any chance the Palestinians had of securing their own state at Oslo simply because he couldn't secure East Jerusalem as its capital. Hamas does itself no favours at all by its expressed determination to destroy Israel.
Shane
Squatters dont have rights in my book. It is their land therfore if they wish to share it that is up to them.
Chris, do the millions of Mexican illegal immigrants who came to live in the US illegally have rights, or are they also "squatters" fairly subject to inhumane treatment and having their property expropriated and returned to "real Americans" without compensation? How do you distinguish illegal immigrant "squatters" from Israeli "squatters"?
NCM
When ever the Mexicans enter the US and Annex half of Texas for themselves, remove the original inhabitents and take parts of North Carolina and New Mexico, call it their "ancestral home" and send missiles into Northern Texas killing refugees then you can come back to me.
That would be an apt comparison.
Chris, touché.
Gaskin, if the "squatters" you are referring to are those Israelis who have illegally expropriated Palestinian land and settled in it, then I agree they are a problem. Ariel Sharon of all people came to recognise that they were a problem. You might also remember, however, during your Israeli-hating/Jew-hating rants, that the 1967 borders you have referred to only exist because of the attempts of the Arabs made in 1967 to destroy Israel and finish the work of the Nazis.
It is an interesting historical irony that most Irish Republicans support, when viewing the Arab-Israeli conflict, those people who colonised and settled the land of Palestine, i.e. the Palestinians, after its original indigenous inhabitants, i.e. the Jews, had been expelled from that land.
If anything, historically, the position of the Palestinians is more similar to those who settled and colonised the north of Ireland after the original inhabitants had been dispossessed i.e. the so-called "Ulster-Scots"; and the position of the Israelis/Jews as the original indigenous inhabitants of "the holy land" is more similar to that of the Irish as the original inhabitants of Ireland, forced off much of the land by invading colonisers in the seventeenth century.
Here's another question. If the British had withdrawn from all of Ireland in 1920 and handed over power to Dublin, wouldn't a conflict similar to the Arab-Israeli conflict have befallen Ireland, with the descendants of the original indigenous people of Ireland pitted against the descendants of those who had colonised the north of Ireland three hundred years before? Might we then, if history had turned out that way, be supporting the Israelis more so than the Palestinians?
Shane
I do not hate Jews and have never made an anti-Jewish remark in my life.
I will no longer be responding to your posts untill you withdraw that slur.
Of course Chris, your only problem is with the evil "Zionist" monsters, and those Jews who dare to think that they might make a life for themselves in their ancestral homeland. Well, in the interest of continuing the argument, I'll withdraw that comment.
Shane
My father was raised in Dundalk, does that mean that I have a right to go into his/my "family/ancestral" home and remove the current inhabitents by force?
It's a yes or no answer
Try not to trivialise the issue Gaskin. Though I suppose you already do that with your naive and blinkered, unhelpfully one-sided view of it.
I really can not for the life of me Gaskin see how you can take the position that Palestine is the rightful homeland of the Palestinians while denying any right of the Israelis/Jews to look upon it as their rightful homeland as well. I mean, its just a very odd position from a historical point of view. Do you really think that Zionism is just some kind of big con-job or something?
How about the fact that Palestinian nationalism only really came into being as a response to Zionism?
"Try not to trivialise the issue Gaskin"
Why can't you answer my question?
What's the point Gaskin? You're determined to see the issue from a single point of view. That's not a very good way to have a discussion about this.
Why are you so afraid to answer my question?
I not going to help you trivialise the issue by answering dumb, irrelevant questions like:
"My father was raised in Dundalk, does that mean that I have a right to go into his/my "family/ancestral" home and remove the current inhabitents by force?"
Its an apt comparassion for your nonsense claims about ancestral homelands and shows just how ridicilious your claims are.
That is why you won't answer it.
Gaskin, your basing your own claim of an exclusive Palestinian right to the land of Palestine on the same way that others do for the Jews: because "they were there first". You know Gaskin, for a lawyer you have an remarkably, ridiculously even, small mind.
"your basing your own claim of an exclusive Palestinian right to the land of Palestine on the same way that others do for the Jews: because "they were there first". "
No I'm not, I make it on the claim that they were there, nothing to do with being there for. A German Jew has no right to land in Palestine.
The Gaskin family came from the Basque country about a thousand years ago, do I have the right to return there and remove Basque farmers from their land and take it as my own?
Shane
My mind may be small but at least I use it.
Gaskin, using your mind would be displayed through a questioning of your own views, which would eventually result in you taking a balanced and rational position, which you seem to be incapable of doing.
I am taking a balanced and rational position, the only one their is.
I always support the oppressed.
"A German Jew has no right to land in Palestine."
What if he has some connection to Palestine, or family roots there? What about if he bought land in Palestine before 1948? What about if he assisted in the defence of Palestine during the Second World War?
"I always support the oppressed."
Suicide-bombing on Israeli school buses is fine and dandy then? If not, clarify your position, if at all possible.
Here, I'll answer the question Chris asked because Shane won't. No, you do not have a right to go into Dundalk and remove the current inhabitants by force. No, you do not have a right to go into Basque country and ethnically cleanse the region so you'll have a new place to live. The creation of Israel is one of those things that doesn't make any sense when looked at now and that would never fly in a million years if proposed now rather than 60 years ago. But the problem is, even given that the creation of Israel didn't make sense, what about the generations of folks who now call Israel home? Do Palestinians have the right to go into their ancestral home and remove the current inhabitants by force? No, just as the ancestors of the current inhabitants never had that right but did it anyway. So do we fix this mess by creating further injustice?
Chris, I'm a lawyer in the US, and one thing to consider is the use of tort like remedies, not violence, to remedy injustice. Instead of killing the Israelis, many of whom are just ordinary people like you and me who fled from even worse conditions in places like the former Soviet Union, where Jews weren't exactly loved, maybe the better way is to make them pay the Palestinians reparations, and I mean big-time reparations, to fix the past injustice that the Israelis are now benefiting from. Killing the decendants of aggressors to try to "make things right" for the decendants of victims just creates new injustice, new victims, and leads to a worse world.
"I am taking a balanced and rational position, the only one their is."
You should have joined the Roman Catholic priesthood...
"The creation of Israel is one of those things that doesn't make any sense when looked at now and that would never fly in a million years if proposed now rather than 60 years ago."
Well, things were a tad different in the aftermath of the Second World War weren't they. Six million Jews dead, anyone?...
"Instead of killing the Israelis, many of whom are just ordinary people like you and me who fled from even worse conditions in places like the former Soviet Union, where Jews weren't exactly loved, maybe the better way is to make them pay the Palestinians reparations, and I mean big-time reparations, to fix the past injustice that the Israelis are now benefiting from."
Not such a bad idea, but would of course only work if there was a degree of certainty that such money would be used by Palestinians to build a Palestinian state, rather than on continuing the war, which would, let's face it be unrealistic now and into the foreseeable future.
"What if he has some connection to Palestine"
Elaborate please?
I have a connection with England in so far as I lived there for a year.
Not really binding though is it?
"or family roots there"
No chance, I have family roots in the USA but I don't have a right to go there never mind live there.
"What about if he bought land in Palestine before 1948?"
Was he still the owner both de jure and de facto?
"What about if he assisted in the defence of Palestine during the Second World War?"
No chance, French/Russian or Americans have no right to land in France despite helping to liberate in during WWII.
NCM
Thanks for answering my questions.
I accept that we don't want to create any future injustices.
However I always preferred the clean hands doctrine of Equity.
"He Who Comes Into Equity Must Come With Clean Hands"
Zionists don't have clean hands in thid regard and any settlement must include a just settlement to the land issue.
Money can't buy you a happiness.
"You should have joined the Roman Catholic priesthood..."
LOL, I dont think so!
"Well, things were a tad different in the aftermath of the Second World War weren't they. Six million Jews dead, anyone?..."
And what? Does their suffering mean that they were entitled to steal land and force the inhabitents off their lands?
"And what? Does their suffering mean that they were entitled to steal land and force the inhabitents off their lands?"
You have no right to attribute exclusive blame to the Jews. Haven't you ever heard of the Balfour Declaration, or the rejection by the Arabs of a two-state solution which might have prevented sixty years of conflict, in 1937? Who started the Six Day War of 1967 Gaskin?
"LOL, I dont think so!"
I only mentioned it because you have a dogmatist's mind.
"However I always preferred the clean hands doctrine of Equity.
"He Who Comes Into Equity Must Come With Clean Hands"
Zionists don't have clean hands in thid regard and any settlement must include a just settlement to the land issue."
Palestinian hands aren't exactly pristine either.
"What if he has some connection to Palestine"
Elaborate please?"
Jews living in Palestine before 1948 had a right to citizenship of the British Mandate of Palestine, and therefore a right to live there and, perhaps, the right to live in any successor state of the Palestine Mandate, e.g. the State of Israel.
"What about if he assisted in the defence of Palestine during the Second World War?"
No chance, French/Russian or Americans have no right to land in France despite helping to liberate in during WWII."
You would say the same therefore for Arab soldiers who fought with/for the Allies in the defence of Palestine during the war?
"or family roots there"
No chance, I have family roots in the USA but I don't have a right to go there never mind live there."
Do you support the right of people born in the north of Ireland, like yourself, to identify themselves as Irish as well as British?
I am only dogmatic on certain issues.
"Palestinian hands aren't exactly pristine either."
As NCM will inform you this maxim bars relief for anyone guilty of improper conduct in the matter at hand.
It operates to prevent any affirmative recovery for the person with "unclean hands," no matter how unfairly the person's adversary has treated him or her.
So there goes your theory
"Jews living in Palestine before 1948 had a right to citizenship of the British Mandate of Palestine, and therefore a right to live there and, perhaps, the right to live in any successor state of the Palestine Mandate, e.g. the State of Israel."
First of all a foreign occupier does not dictate to a people once gone.
Also I did not say a resident of Palestine, I said a German Jew.
"Do you support the right of people born in the north of Ireland, like yourself, to identify themselves as Irish as well as British?"
I am Irish you idiot, I was born and bred on the Island of Ireland. I am entitled to Irish citizenship as of right and by birth.
"I am only dogmatic on certain issues."
If you are in this situation, you should just give up.
"As NCM will inform you this maxim bars relief for anyone guilty of improper conduct in the matter at hand."
By "in the matter at hand", do you mean what is going on right now, or something more?
If there is ever to be anything approaching a solution to this conflict, EACH side will have to, at some point, drop the "my suffering is worse than yours" mentality, or carry on going around in circles.
"First of all a foreign occupier does not dictate to a people once gone."
Well, the British could not get out of Palestine and wash their hands of it quick enough, so I suppose you have a point.
"Also I did not say a resident of Palestine, I said a German Jew."
Plenty of German Jews became residents and citizens of Palestine during the 1930's and 1940's. One status does not necessarily negate the other.
"I am Irish you idiot, I was born and bred on the Island of Ireland. I am entitled to Irish citizenship as of right and by birth."
Then on what grounds would you deny the right of an Israeli born yesterday in Israel to Israeli parents, to the right to live in Israel?
P.S. Don't call me an idiot, Father Chris. With advocacy skills like that, I won't be calling on your legal services any time soon.
Q."Do you support the right of people born in the north of Ireland, like yourself, to identify themselves as Irish as well as British?"
A."I am Irish you idiot, I was born and bred on the Island of Ireland. I am entitled to Irish citizenship as of right and by birth."
The party you support accepts and supports the right of people in the north of Ireland to call themselves Irish as well as British. You know it does. So drop the touchy indignation.
Chris, you are right that money cannot buy happiness, and in many respects it is a second-best solution to an injustice. But further killing for a bunch of desert land is not justice either. Money at least can buy the necessities of life, and can make a huge difference in the lives of people. I'm not suggesting a "sell out," I'm suggesting a way to give Palestinians compensation for what they lost rather than giving them the actually "thing" they lost, the land. This is all probably very academic, though, and I'd be shocked if the sides in this conflict that is now so brutal came to such a reasonable settlement.
As far as clean hands go, it's too late for that. There have been enough pointless murders in all this to last for a long time.
Note that I'm not advocating a universal solution to all the world's problems of "just throw money to the victim." Sometimes war is necessary. But Israel is a uniquely screwed up situation because the international community played such a large role in bringing the whole thing about in the first place. I say make the British pay the bill. I'd love to read about republicans marching through Belfast with a demand that the British pay the Palestinians compensation -- that would be so fitting and would highlight the indisputable fact that imperial Britain is largely responsible for leaving a screwed up world in its greedy colonial wake. No joke, I'd love to see that.
"I say make the British pay the bill. I'd love to read about republicans marching through Belfast with a demand that the British pay the Palestinians compensation -- that would be so fitting and would highlight the indisputable fact that imperial Britain is largely responsible for leaving a screwed up world in its greedy colonial wake. No joke, I'd love to see that."
I agree.
"As NCM will inform you this maxim bars relief for anyone guilty of improper conduct in the matter at hand.
It operates to prevent any affirmative recovery for the person with "unclean hands," no matter how unfairly the person's adversary has treated him or her."
True, at least if the relief sought is an equitable remedy. Here I'd argue that we shouldn't interpret the unclean hands doctrine to bar a solution to this conflict that would consist of many hundreds of billions of dollars being paid to ordinary Palestinians and tons of investment in Palestinian lands (investment owned of course by the Palestinian people collectively, not foreign corporations or shareholders). That's not exactly an equitable remedy for the Israelis so much as it is a remedy for the Palestinians, so I'm not convinced the unclean hands doctrine should counsel against it.
At this point, I just want a fair solution to this conflict that doesn't screw the Palestinians, that allows the Palestinians freedom (and freedom from theocracy or totalitarian government), and that doesn't result in a new holocaust of Palestinians or Jewish residents of Israel. It is too late for perfect justice, because no solution out there will give it. War will only make justice more unobtainable. The Israelis should learn this while they can, and the Palestinians should reconsider whether resistance through small scale attacks will ever achieve victory. The Israelis will never go down without taking everyone with them, and a nuclear wasteland where the "holy land" once was isn't a particularly good outcome.
Q."Do you support the right of people born in the north of Ireland, like yourself, to identify themselves as Irish as well as British?"
A."I am Irish you idiot, I was born and bred on the Island of Ireland. I am entitled to Irish citizenship as of right and by birth."
***
I may not know much about this wide world of ours, but I'm pretty sure Irish republicans living in the six counties don't go around calling themselves "British."
"I may not know much about this wide world of ours, but I'm pretty sure Irish republicans living in the six counties don't go around calling themselves "British."
The party Gaskin supports, Sinn Fein, accepts and supports the right of all in the north of Ireland, regardless of political position, to identify themselves as Irish or British or both. He is being unnecessarily touchy about it.
I really can not for the life of me Gaskin see how you can take the position that Palestine is the rightful homeland of the Palestinians while denying any right of the Israelis/Jews to look upon it as their rightful homeland as well.
Shane,
Your mistake is that you misunderstand the term 'Palestinian'. The term is non-sectarian and simply refers to anyone living in Historic Palestine pre-1947, and includes Muslims, Jews, Christians, Druze etc.
'Palestinian Arab' means something different.
What I (and others) reject is the contention that Jews have an exclusive claim on the land of Palestine. Hense Chris' point:
I support the establishment of a United and Secular Palestine where all of the inhabitents, both Jewish and Arab would be equal citizens
Why would anybody oppose this?
A coalition of Arabs attempted to destroy Israel in 1967 and failed disastrously, doing no favours for their Palestinian "brothers"
Wrong, Shane. Israel started the Six Day War. That is an objective, empirical fact.
You might also try reading up about something called "the Holocaust" if you want more information on why the State of Israel was founded
Nonsense. Zionism predates the Holocaust. Their plan for a Jewish state was in place before either World War.
Yasser Arafat denied the Palestinian people their chance to have their own state at Oslo in 1993, because he couldn't secure East Jerusalem as its capital?
You're confused, Shane. Oslo in 1993 was a declaration of principles, not a negotiation on final status issues.
"What I (and others) reject is the contention that Jews have an exclusive claim on the land of Palestine."
So do I. But in Gaskin's case this seems to equate with a belief that the Arabs have an exclusive claim to Palestine, and that the Israelis/Jews have no rights whatsoever, and that their feelings are not to be considered.
"I support the establishment of a United and Secular Palestine where all of the inhabitents, both Jewish and Arab would be equal citizens"
And how exactly would this fantasy land be governed? How would government be shared justly between the different groups? How would the different groups be justly represented? How would this fantasy land conduct its dealings with Iran and Syria? How would it deal with the ilegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank? Any ideas at all on what form this "promised land" would take would be welcome.
"Nonsense. Zionism predates the Holocaust. Their plan for a Jewish state was in place before either World War."
Err, yes, I know that Zionism predated the Holocaust. The Holocaust had the effect of making the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the Middle East and imperative rather than a distant prospect.
Err, yes,
But Shane, you said:
You might also try reading up about something called "the Holocaust" if you want more information on why the State of Israel was founded
The Holocaust is not why Israel was founded. It would have been founded anyway.
"Wrong, Shane. Israel started the Six Day War. That is an objective, empirical fact."
The Six Day War was the culmination of the attempts made by the Arab states to destroy Israel since 1948. Syria had been sponsoring guerilla attacks against Israel since the beginning of the 1960's, and had attacked Israeli civilian communities from the Golan Heights. On the eve of the war, Egypt had already amasses 100,000 of its troops in the Sinai. Israel's pre-emptive air attack on the Egyptian air force was arguably defensive in nature. The Arabs walked head-first into war with Israel in 1967, and it was their sheer military ineptitude that caused their defeat. Even in spite of this defeat, Egypt, Syria and Iraq made another attempt to destroy Israel only six years later.
You might also keep in mind that the "Palestinian territories" at this time, captured by Israel, belonged to Egypt, Syria and Jordan, not "the Palestinians".
And how exactly would this fantasy land be governed? How would government be shared justly between the different groups? How would the different groups be justly represented?
All questions which could have been, and indeed were, asked about Apartheid South Africa. There was talk of partition there too, of having separate governments for blacks and whites. In the end they opted for the 'rainbow' model which, while imperfect, was undoubtedly the best option.
Same applies in Palestine. A just two-state solution is equally worthy of your 'fantasy land' tag as a one-state solution. Neither are likely to emerge any time soon. But one has the potential to lead to peace, the other will only bring partition and an inviable Palestinian state.
The two-state option is fast becoming impossible with East Jerusalem cut off from the West Bank and in the region of 50% of the West Bank inaccessable to Palestinians (those pesky indigenous people).
500 plus KMs of settler-only roads, settlements and outposts expanding all the time, close to half a million settlers now living in the West Bank. You think Israel is going to change these 'facts on the ground' they've put so much money, effort, and resources into creating? Fantasy land, Shane.
"The Holocaust is not why Israel was founded. It would have been founded anyway."
That is debatable. The British, who had responsibility for Palestine, certainly felt no urgency to establish the State of Israel, even though they had committed themselves to do so, and could not get out of Palestine quick enough in 1948, leaving the Israelis and Arabs to deal with the consequences. The British had also been fighting the Zionist forces in Palestine for some years before 1948.
Shane,
The Six Day War was about Zionist expansion and was started by Israel. But don't take my word for it, here's Moshe Dayan who was Defense Minister at the time:
"I made a mistake in allowing the [Israeli] conquest of the Golan Heights. As defense minister I should have stopped it because the Syrians were not threatening us at the time."
"All questions which could have been, and indeed were, asked about Apartheid South Africa."
Are you seriously putting the animosity that existed in South Africa in 1994 between blacks and whites on the same level as that which exists between Israelis and Palestinians?
"The two-state option is fast becoming impossible with East Jerusalem cut off from the West Bank and in the region of 50% of the West Bank inaccessable to Palestinians (those pesky indigenous people)."
The Jerusalem issue can be resolved. I agree that illegal Israeli settlement building must be stopped, and illegal Israeli settlements removed. Ariel Sharon of all people eventually came to recognise the settlement problem. But this issue requires appropriate action from BOTH Israelis AND Palestinians.
The only people proposing a one-state "solution" are the headcases on the Zionist Right and the likes of Hamas on the Palestinian side, almost reason enough in itself to oppose one.
In retrospect, most would indeed say that the Israeli conquest of the Golan Heights ws a mistake, but the conquest of the Golan Heights happened AFTER the war had already started, of which Syria was a belligerent. Try again.
P.S. Syria might have eventually been able to get the Golan Heights back through diplomacy (as it is trying to do today), but instead resorted to another war in 1973.
At the Camp David Summit in July 2000 Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat a Palestinian STATE comprising three-quarters of the West Bank and all of Gaza. In exchange for the withheld areas of the West Bank where the main Israeli settlement blocks were situated, Barak offered the equivalent area in the Israeli Negev desert. Also included in the offer were the return of a small number of refugees and compensation for those not allowed to return. Arafat REJECTED Barak's offer and refused to make an immediate counter-offer. Arafat couldn't secure East Jerusalem imediately, so he threw away the first real prospect of Palestinian statehood. Arafat was criticised for this by a member of his own negotiating team and cabinet, Nabil Amr.
JG: "The Holocaust is not why Israel was founded. It would have been founded anyway."
Ok, but ya gotta admit, the Holocaust sure brought things to a head and gave a clear purpose for why Israel made sense -- throughout history, the Jewish people, a stateless people, have been viciously oppressed at every turn, and giving them their own state where they could finally stand up for themselves seemed a very noble goal in the wake of a genocide of epic proportions and extraordinary evil. The tragedy in all this was that the international community gave the Jewish people something that wasn't really theirs to give away, but of course 60 years ago colonial people, like the Palestinian Arabs, were treated as mere subjects without rights -- we recognize this as horribly wrong now but at the time, this was how the "civilized" West viewed the world. And the other tragedy is that the Israelis are increasingly become the oppressor, a drastic perversion of a people who have had to face oppression themselves at every turn. This conflict is turning people evil, and that itself is a great evil.
I guess one thing I'd like is for everyone to view this conflict without resort to blanket rules: the oppressed are always right, no matter what they do; the world is divided neatly into oppressed and oppressor, and the later are, down to their babies, inhuman monsters that should be thrown into the sea; and war by the oppressed is the path to justice. These beliefs lead to genocide just as surely as the belief that a people are inferior and have no right or ability to care for themselves [Chris, if you ever want a surreal and disturbing read, look up pre-US Civil War legal cases involving slaves -- just use a service like Lexis (if you have free access), look for cases in a southern state (North Carolina works fine), and use the keyword "Negro" or "slave" -- people were quite literally property in the good ole USA 160 years ago].
Ariel Sharon of all people eventually came to recognise the settlement problem
Shane,
Your naiveté is touching! Sharon's whole programme was about settlement expansion.
"Everybody has to move; run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements, because everything we take now will stay ours. Everything we don't grab will go to them" said he.
The suggestion that his removal of settlers from Gaza and his simultaneous expansion of West Bank settlements somehow represented a conversion on the road to Damascus is ridiculous.
But this issue requires appropriate action from BOTH Israelis AND Palestinians.
Wrong. The settlements are a cancer on Palestinian land, and they are illegal. They should all be removed. This requires Israel to stop acting outside international law and basic standards of decency. The Palestinians are not to blame for their own humiliation. Settlements/land-grabs cannot be tolerated.
The only people proposing a one-state "solution" are the headcases on the Zionist Right and the likes of Hamas on the Palestinian side, almost reason enough in itself to oppose one.
Again, incorrect. All sorts of secular and progressive people all over the world are proposing this. It is also extremely popular among Palestinians. I've been to Palestine and can vouch for this. It came up again and again in meetings and conversations.
but the conquest of the Golan Heights happened AFTER the war had already started, of which Syria was a belligerent. Try again.
Perhaps you should ask Moshe Dayan to try again (hard now I know!). Because he said:
"...the Syrians were not threatening us at the time"
It's hard to square this with your "belligerent" claim.
Another point on Sharon recognising the settlement problem:
Sharon's senior adviser, Dov Weisglass:
"The disengagement [from Gaza] is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians... this whole package that is called the Palestinian state has been removed from our agenda indefinitely."
JG, the Syrians had been sponsoring guerrilla attacks on Israel since the beginning of the 1960's, that constitutes a threat.
"Wrong. The settlements are a cancer on Palestinian land, and they are illegal. They should all be removed. This requires Israel to stop acting outside international law and basic standards of decency. The Palestinians are not to blame for their own humiliation. Settlements/land-grabs cannot be tolerated."
It seems I am not the only one who is naive. The Israelis will not even contemplate an end to settlement building for as long as Hamas declares as its central aim the destruction of Israel. That is the reality in the real world JG, and no amount of righteous indignation will change it.
"The Palestinians are not to blame for their own humiliation."
No, but their leaders have made many mistakes, not least Yasser Arafat's rejection of the offer of a Palestinian state in at the Camp David Summit in July 2000.
Shane,
JG, the Syrians had been sponsoring guerrilla attacks on Israel since the beginning of the 1960's, that constitutes a threat.
You're entitled to your opinion of course. All I'm saying is the former Israeli defense minister - Moshe Dayan - disagreed with you.
It seems I am not the only one who is naive. The Israelis will not even contemplate an end to settlement building...
What I said was in response to this:
I agree that illegal Israeli settlement building must be stopped, and illegal Israeli settlements removed... But this issue requires appropriate action from BOTH Israelis AND Palestinians.
I fail to see how how I'm being naive. I don't predict that Israel will act with civility, I merely say it's what they must do and it's what international civil society must demand they do. It is not up to the Palestinians to make 'concessions' so that the Israelis will stop their illegal land-grabbing. That would be rewarding criminality.
but their leaders have made many mistakes, not least Yasser Arafat's rejection of the offer of a Palestinian state in at the Camp David Summit in July 2000.
Arafat's mistake was signing up to the Oslo folly in the first place. If you're interested in this I highly recommend Sara Roy's essay An Oslo Autopsy, which you can read here.
The "generous offer" myth that you have repeated here is just that, a complete myth. An offer that could only be considered generous by the most immoral imperialist. Hense, Ehud Barak considered it generous.
These two links spell it out pretty well:
http://www.gush-shalom.org/media...a/
barak_eng.swf
http://www.doublestandards.org/g...rg/
gorman1.html
"Arafat's mistake was signing up to the Oslo folly in the first place."
Is that because the Palestinians showed, in their actions immediately after the signing of the Oslo Accords, including intensifying their attacks on Israel, that they had no real intention of honouring their side of the deal?
The Israelis, however, refrained from building new settlements in the aftermath of the agreement, even though they were not required to do so under the Accords.
As for the Camp David Summit, that took place under the framework set out by those same Oslo Accords, so it is fair to conclude that the Palestinians would have known what to expect at Camp David. They chose to attend nonetheless, and Arafat still failed to make any counter-proposals, instead rushing back to Ramallah so he could immediately start planning the Second Intifada.
"It is not up to the Palestinians to make 'concessions' so that the Israelis will stop their illegal land-grabbing. That would be rewarding criminality."
If the Israelis liquidated a Jewish settlement in the immediate aftermath of a Hamas suicide-bombing on, let's say, an Israeli school bus, would that not also be rewarding criminality?
Shane,
You've made a fair few factually incorrect statements on this thread. For example, had you taken 20 minutes to read Sara Roy's article you'd know that the following statement is 100% false:
The Israelis, however, refrained from building new settlements in the aftermath of the agreement
In fact, there was an explosion of settlements during the Oslo period (1993 - 2000).
As Roy writes (page 12):
"...influx of almost 100,000 new Israeli settlers into the West Bank and Gaza - which doubled the settler population — and the addition of at least 30 new Israeli settlements and settlement-related infrastructure since 1993. During this time, the government of Israel confiscated over
40,000 acres of Palestinian land — much of it viable agricultural land
worth more than $1 billion — for Israeli settlement expansion and
road building. (The latter refers to the paving of 250 miles of settler
bypass roads onto expropriated Arab lands designed to connect
Jewish settlements and divide Palestinian population centers.)"
As for the Camp David Summit, that took place under the framework set out by those same Oslo Accords, so it is fair to conclude that the Palestinians would have known what to expect at Camp David.
Well, no, because the final status issues weren't discussed until Camp David. Camp David was supposed to be a negotiation, not a fait accompli presented to the Palestinians to either accept or reject.
Nobody would have been happier to accept a Palestinian stat than Arafat. The man was a power-crazed nut. It's a measure of just how insulting the 'generous offer' was that Arafat rejected it.
...rushing back to Ramallah so he could immediately start planning the Second Intifada
You give Arafat too much credit. The 2nd Intifada was entirely beyond his control. He neither planned nor wanted it.
If the Israelis liquidated a Jewish settlement in the immediate aftermath of a Hamas suicide-bombing on, let's say, an Israeli school bus, would that not also be rewarding criminality?
No, it wouldn't. The settlements are illegal and a serious obstacle to peace. Many Israelis would remove every settler in the morning if they could. A deal based on legitimizing criminality is bound to fail. Better standards must be demanded from everyone.
You also came out with this howler:
Yasser Arafat denied the Palestinian people their chance to have their own state at Oslo in 1993, because he couldn't secure East Jerusalem as its capital?
????
Continuously correcting you is too time-consuming!
Good night!!
its a good job S/F arent in palestine they would all be jews now wonder if the jews offered them seats in a makebelieve that they had palestine would hamas join them in power that they think they have lol
Commenting by HaloScan
