New to the Palestinian Cause....

[RadioRaheem84]

Hey guys, I am pretty new to the plight of the Palestinians and would like some back story.

So Resolution 242 calls for the withdraw of Israeli troops in occupied territories. This sounds pretty straight forward. So why hasn't Israel complied?

What are some damning links that counter Zionist myths that the Israeli State is not expansionist? I've heard Noam Chomsky say once that the Israeli State had been expansionist from the beginning but he didn't go into detail.

Is Israel imperialist? It seems that the settlements are an indicator but what sort of justification do the Israelis have for building colonies on Arab land?

Please post links and excerpts please. I really want to understand the plight of the Palestinians.

[freepalestine]

books by edward said, etc would be a good start
.or see palestineremembered.com ,info +links etc

[~Spectre]

Hey guys, I am pretty new to the plight of the Palestinians and would like some back story.

So Resolution 242 calls for the withdraw of Israeli troops in occupied territories. This sounds pretty straight forward. So why hasn't Israel complied?


Because they don't have to. The United States can veto any enforcement of international law, and Israel is armed to the teeth.





What are some damning links that counter Zionist myths that the Israeli State is not expansionist? I've heard Noam Chomsky say once that the Israeli State had been expansionist from the beginning but he didn't go into detail.

Is Israel imperialist? It seems that the settlements are an indicator but what sort of justification do the Israelis have for building colonies on Arab land?

Please post links and excerpts please. I really want to understand the plight of the Palestinians.I recommend reading:
http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe/dp/1851684670

General lies told to justify the Israeli position include:

1) The land was purchased legitimately by the Zionist settlers:
To refute this, simply ask why Palestinians would sell houses to buy a nice tent in a refugee camp.

2) Israelis made the desert bloom, and there weren't Palestinians in the area anyway. This is just racist nonsense.

3) Israel's actions are justified self defense against Arab states. Even if we for the sake of argument accept that Israel's actions against the Arab states have been strictly defensive - that has nothing to do with the Palestinians, who have no state and no army (for a long time not even these small little resistance groups), and did not participate in any of the wars which resulted in Israeli expansion.

4) The land archaeologically belongs to The Jewish People. This is not only a lie, but it is also irrelevant. It doesn't matter who was there first, it matters who is there now.

5) Israel's settlements are actually legal. Don't even humor this, not even the United States government actually tries to claim this.

6) Israel should be given some slack because it is a comparatively free society. Well that depends entirely to who. Besides how illogical the justification is anyway, A Palestinian in Gaza gets treated a lot worse than a Jew in say, Iran.

7) Israel does this to prevent terrorism. The truth is, Israel creates terrorism with its actions. The occupation and expansion long predate Hamas and any sort of agressive Palestinian resistance. As long as Israel continues to ethnically cleanse, occupy, and siege, then Israel is the defacto aggressor.

8) Israel needs to do what it does to prevent the anti-semites from destroying Israel. Nonsense, Israel is not threatened by anyone, and the opposition to Israel is not based on religion, but on action. Palestinian resistance used to be secular until Israel enabled the rise of Hamas to destroy secular Palestinian resistance. (conversely, for this reason, some in the Israeli intelligence community don't want to destroy Hamas, because they feel the next logical step would be a more extreme group in line with Al Qaeda)

9) What Israel does is justified because the Palestinians voted the wrong way in free elections. That's collective punishment, and squarely illegal. By this logic, terrorist atrocity against Israel is justified, so don't take them seriously.

10) Israel has tried to make peace but Palestinians have turned it down. The opposite is true. This includes groups like Hamas, who have extended ceasefires to Israel only to have Israel break the ceasefire (Israel famously did this with operation cast lead)

11) The Palestinians are extremists. Some are, but then so is the dominant force in the Israeli government. The Israeli religious parties are just as extreme, if not more so than the fundamentalist nutbags on the side of the Palestinians.

12) Moral equivalency. No, there is no equivalency, the scale of Israel's crimes are significantly worse than what has been carried out by Palestinian resistance.



Hope that helps get you started.

[Fulanito de Tal]

The Clash of Fundamentalisms by Tariq Ali would give you a good background of the West vs the Middle East history.

[hatzel]

So Resolution 242 calls for the withdraw of Israeli troops in occupied territories. This sounds pretty straight forward. So why hasn't Israel complied?

Something tells me I won't be making myself very popular here, but who cares, there's a question, and I know the answer, so why not give it a go...

Resolution 242 (http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/242%281967%29&Lang=E) calls for two things, namely:


(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict [the Six-day war in 1967];

(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."The Israeli opinion would be that, as long as her neighbours don't abide by the second part, then there's no obligation to follow the first, either, as this would be unilateral concessions. This is a central tenant of Israeli policy, the idea of 'land for peace'. Egypt, for instance, became the first Arab country to recognise Israel in 1979, signing a peace treaty. Israel responded by withdrawing all troops from Sinai. As Syria, to give an example, doesn't recognise Israel, and continue the state of war, Israel refuses to withdraw from the Golan Heights. Lebanon finds herself in a similar position. Palestine, on the other hand...well, one should remember first that the PLO didn't acknowledge Israel's right to exist until 1993, so no progress could really have be expected to be made until then. However, a quick look at the PLO's emblem might suggest they still have aspirations for taking the whole territory, and the continuing attacks against Israel show that Israel's right to live in peace within secure boundaries, as the resolution calls for, it not being respected. This is the basis for not withdrawing. Israel will only meet her side of the bargain when her neighbours do the same, in accordance to the intentions of Resolution 242. That is to say, the two points will have to be achieved simultaneously, by both parties, and negotiations towards this, as we may have noticed, have been infamously slow.

I'll mention that a reason for the slow negotiations is the interpretation of the first point. Many believe that the wording intentionally didn't call for Israel to withdraw from all territories, opening the door to negotiation of how much territory should be relinquished, and under which conditions. The question also emerges in the treaties of how to guarantee that both sides with be able to live in peace, a fundamental and central tenant of the resolution, as important as Israeli withdrawal.

[freepalestine]

the reason palestinians-show the map of palestine because its their country where 80% of the population where ethnicly cleansed,massacred.mention the ROR .and why a zionist needs to answer the thread speaks volumes.stop the bs comrade

[RadioRaheem84]

I'll mention that a reason for the slow negotiations is the interpretation of the first point. Many believe that the wording intentionally didn't call for Israel to withdraw from all territories, opening the door to negotiation of how much territory should be relinquished, and under which conditions. The question also emerges in the treaties of how to guarantee that both sides with be able to live in peace, a fundamental and central tenant of the resolution, as important as Israeli withdrawal.


Oh man, not the all territories argument! That is pure BS. Even the French wording of the original resolution intended for Israel to vacate ALL territories occupied. Even as a noob, I know that to be a tired argument.



That is to say, the two points will have to be achieved simultaneously, by both parties, and negotiations towards this, as we may have noticed, have been infamously slow.
Even worse. One would have to totally misconstrue the history of the negotiations and give all the favor to Israel in order to believe the mess you wrote.

Sorry, comrade. You've been fed lies.

[hatzel]

Oh man, not the all territories argument! That is pure BS. Even the French wording of the original resolution intended for Israel to vacate ALL territories occupied. Even as a noob, I know that to be a tired argument.

Technically the French wording doesn't say that either. If you happened to speak French, you'd know that. 'Retrait des forces armées israéliennes des territoires occupés lors du récent conflit', a bit like 'je bois du lait'. That doesn't have to mean I drink all the milk. I could easily point out how Lord Caradon himself mentioned an 'adequate withdrawal', rather than a 'total withdrawal'. The idea of a land-trade is well accepted in this, the idea of compromise. Trading one pocket of land for another and so on, if it can be agreed in negotiations, and considered 'adequate'. But even if it does mean all territories, with no negotiation possible, the second part of the resolution is as important as the first. So your question could equally well be 'why are there still states in the region who don't recognise the existence and legitimacy of Israel, who continue to be in a state of war with Israel, and who continue to threaten Israel's borders?' Of course this isn't your question, though, because nobody who ever starts chiming about 242 pays much attention the second bit. When it's just as binding and important as the first part.

Still, none of that even matters. If you're going to ask a question, then you should be happy with the answer. So why haven't Israel withdrawn? Because of the reasons I gave. That's the reason. Go to the Israeli foreign minister or something, and ask them why Israel haven't withdrawn in the face of Resolution 242. And they'll tell you what I told you. So, to that end, it's a perfectly good answer to your question. Whether or not you agree with the interpretation or the realisation or anything like that is moot, because that's the reason. The only other answer you've got, 'because the US veto everything', doesn't explain why, because Resolution 242 was passed without veto, and stands without veto. Really, that's the answer to a totally different question...

[RadioRaheem84]

Technically the French wording doesn't say that either. If you happened to speak French, you'd know that. 'Retrait des forces armées israéliennes des territoires occupés lors du récent conflit', a bit like 'je bois du lait'. That doesn't have to mean I drink all the milk. I could easily point out how Lord Caradon himself mentioned an 'adequate withdrawal', rather than a 'total withdrawal'. The idea of a land-trade is well accepted in this, the idea of compromise. Trading one pocket of land for another and so on, if it can be agreed in negotiations, and considered 'adequate'. But even if it does mean all territories, with no negotiation possible, the second part of the resolution is as important as the first. So your question could equally well be 'why are there still states in the region who don't recognise the existence and legitimacy of Israel, who continue to be in a state of war with Israel, and who continue to threaten Israel's borders?' Of course this isn't your question, though, because nobody who ever starts chiming about 242 pays much attention the second bit. When it's just as binding and important as the first part.

Still, none of that even matters. If you're going to ask a question, then you should be happy with the answer. So why haven't Israel withdrawn? Because of the reasons I gave. That's the reason. Go to the Israeli foreign minister or something, and ask them why Israel haven't withdrawn in the face of Resolution 242. And they'll tell you what I told you. So, to that end, it's a perfectly good answer to your question. Whether or not you agree with the interpretation or the realisation or anything like that is moot, because that's the reason. The only other answer you've got, 'because the US veto everything', doesn't explain why, because Resolution 242 was passed without veto, and stands without veto. Really, that's the answer to a totally different question...

The absence of the word “the” has no effect on the meaning of the clause, which refers to “territories”, plural. Is it territory that was occupied by Israel in the ‘67 war? If yes, then, under international law and Resolution 242, Israel is required to withdraw from that territory, i.e. the Syrian Golan Heights, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.
To insist that the U.N. intended for Israel to retain some of the territory it occupied during the war would fly in the face of 242.
Also in the resolution: "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war".

So you're argument is that because some states in the region do not recognize Israel, then it has the right to hold on to some of the territories? Even though the roots of disputes with Israel have to do with reasons before the 67 scrimmage?

Sorry, comrade, but I've heard all of these arguments before on ProtestWarrior, especially the use of Lord Caradon.

[DragonQuestWes]

Well, considering that Israel has been strongly backed by the US no matter what, I can safely say that it has been doing acts of imperialism in the West Bank and Gaza.

You can go to this site: http://www.politicaltheatrics.net/

Occasionally, I go there for any news relating to Palestine/Israel.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Here is a documentary that will enlighten you to many aspects of what goes on.

Occupation 101:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2451908450811690589#

[Reznov]

Heres a follow-up question, are there any organziations/groups etc... that we should be supporting that are helping the Palestinians?

[Barry Lyndon]

Heres a follow-up question, are there any organziations/groups etc... that we should be supporting that are helping the Palestinians?

The International Solidarity Movement, for one. They are an organization that sends activists to the occupied Palestinian territories to act as human shields against Israeli house demolitions, to obstruct the building of apartheid wall in the West Bank, etc.
http://palsolidarity.org/

[∞]

Lebanon finds herself in a similar position. Palestine, on the other hand...well, one should remember first that the PLO didn't acknowledge Israel's right to exist until 1993, so no progress could really have be expected to be made until then.


Oh sorry Palestinians got mad about this portion of land belonging to outsiders in a Zionist government,

http://www.thirdtemple.com/images/israel-map/israel.jpg

[Barry Lyndon]

Palestine, on the other hand...well, one should remember first that the PLO didn't acknowledge Israel's right to exist until 1993, so no progress could really have be expected to be made until then. However, a quick look at the PLO's emblem might suggest they still have aspirations for taking the whole territory, and the continuing attacks against Israel show that Israel's right to live in peace within secure boundaries, as the resolution calls for, it not being respected. This is the basis for not withdrawing. Israel will only meet her side of the bargain when her neighbours do the same, in accordance to the intentions of Resolution 242. That is to say, the two points will have to be achieved simultaneously, by both parties, and negotiations towards this, as we may have noticed, have been infamously slow.

Israel has no 'right to exist'. No state has the 'right to exist'. States exist, they are a political reality. The wording 'right to exist' implies that there is some sort of enshrined morality surrounding state-craft. There isn't.
If you take off pro-Zionist blinders(which you have yet to do), it's easy to see why the Palestinians are reluctant to recognize Israel's 'right to exist'-because the very foundation of Israel was built on the theft of the Arabs land and the expulsion of their population in 1948. To recognize Israel's 'right to exist' is to accept the legitimacy of that crime. It would be like demanding that Native Americans accept the 'right to exist' of the United States- its an absurd demand made upon the colonized to forgive the colonizer, adding insult to injury.

Even if the Palestinian leadership accepts such a condition, they quickly lose credibility among their people. The PLO accepted it, and within a few years they became a corrupt slumlord of the West Bank and Gaza and a puppet of Israel. A decade after Oslo Hamas was elected to replace Fatah(the political wing of the PLO). Hamas refuses to accept this condition, although it has repeatedly offered a 30 or 40 year truce with Israel if it withdraws to its 1967 borders.

Israel insists that the Palestinians make this humiliating concession because they know that they will never willingly do so. Because the Palestinians refuse, Israel can claim it 'has no partner for peace', and can continue to build settlements, uproot olive trees, demolish homes, build its wall, and commit a massacre from time to time, like in Gaza, just to show who's boss.

[~Spectre]

http://www.vimeo.com/14835834

Good, recent, talk by Chomsky about Israel/Palestine. Covers a lot of subjects including early attempts at socialism in Israel, the state system, the boycott/divestment movement, comparisons to how Apartheid in South Africa was challenged, 1 v 2 state solution, the relationship between the U.S. and Israel, right of return, etc.

[Saorsa]

http://workerspartynz.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/palestine-pamphlet-v13-final-copy.pdf

This should help you get started.

[M-26-7]

More links:

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Palestine) (about the Palestinian Exodus in 1948)

Histadrut: Israel's racist "trade union" (http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10379.shtml) (shows the ethnically-exclusive reality of "labor Zionism")

Edit: I would not say that I am a supporter of "the Palestinian Cause", by the way. I'm just an anti-racist, therefore I oppose national oppression in Israel, and in the occupied territories, and in any other place on earth.

[Vaillant]

Technically the French wording doesn't say that either. If you happened to speak French, you'd know that. 'Retrait des forces armées israéliennes des territoires occupés lors du récent conflit', a bit like 'je bois du lait'. That doesn't have to mean I drink all the milk. I could easily point out how Lord Caradon himself mentioned an 'adequate withdrawal', rather than a 'total withdrawal'. The idea of a land-trade is well accepted in this, the idea of compromise. Trading one pocket of land for another and so on, if it can be agreed in negotiations, and considered 'adequate'. But even if it does mean all territories, with no negotiation possible, the second part of the resolution is as important as the first. So your question could equally well be 'why are there still states in the region who don't recognise the existence and legitimacy of Israel, who continue to be in a state of war with Israel, and who continue to threaten Israel's borders?' Of course this isn't your question, though, because nobody who ever starts chiming about 242 pays much attention the second bit. When it's just as binding and important as the first part.

How do you even dare to make Israel look like a victim in this? Jews expelled palestinians from the most fertile lands, took away their homes and murdered them. Israel is a terrorist state and has no right to exist, nor have any Palestinian to recognize its existance because it was built on palestnians blood.



Still, none of that even matters. If you're going to ask a question, then you should be happy with the answer. So why haven't Israel withdrawn? Because of the reasons I gave. That's the reason. Go to the Israeli foreign minister or something, and ask them why Israel haven't withdrawn in the face of Resolution 242. And they'll tell you what I told you. So, to that end, it's a perfectly good answer to your question. Whether or not you agree with the interpretation or the realisation or anything like that is moot, because that's the reason. The only other answer you've got, 'because the US veto everything', doesn't explain why, because Resolution 242 was passed without veto, and stands without veto. Really, that's the answer to a totally different question...
Israel hasn't withdrawn because it is rulled by a bunch of fanatics that made Jews believe that Jerusalem belongs to them because "the bible says so".
There is no argument on this matter, Palestinians are right, Israel is wrong, and no no seems to give a crap about it...

[RadioRaheem84]

A right winger would make the argument that then most nations don't have the right to exist because they were born out of ethnic cleansing. Under that pretext the US doesn't have the right to exist because it exterminated the indigenous population.