Jakers

True, but does nothing to show any resemblance between the Tamil vs Sri Lanka rebellion and the Palestinian insurgency against Israel And as a matter of, that is because there is resemblance at at all. In Sri Lanka you have two principal population/ethnic groups [majority Senhalese and minority Tamil] who don't like each other, but that's about where the comparison begins and ends. Both ethnic groups have lived continuously on the island for centuries. The Tamils are clustered largely in the north. For no particular reason that my cursory search has discovered, the Tamil with to break up the perfectly legal, totally legitimate nation state formed in '48(?) when Ceylon gave itself the Sinhalese name of Sri Lanka. For some reason the Tamils grew discontent, and decided that they should unilaterally turn the island into a "Two-state solution", with their own separate nation state on the north end.

The Sinhalese objected, and as as a matter of law, they had every right to object, since under international law no portion of any sovereighn state has any right to unilaterly dissolve its participation in that state, taking some of it territory with them. That is, legally the South had no right to secede from the union, Quebec has no right to unilaterally secede from Canada, the Basques have no right to unilaterally secede from Spain, the Kosovans have no right to unilaterally secede from Serbia, and on and on.

As you can see, the UN might have extremely good grounds for discerning some very important legal and moral differences between what's going on in Palestine and what is going on in Sri Lanka--differences that completely justify what you label- "a double standard".

Well, since the circumstances bear no resemblance to each other, in law and in fact, I'd have to agree entirely. So why did you drab in this strawman, anyway?

Hold on thar, pardner!! If you want to gallup back 2700+ years, so can the Palestinians and their established states that preceded Joshua and the ethnic cleansing of Jerich. After all, I seem to rember that "Palestinian" arose out of "Phoenician", and although I'm not about to do some big research paper on that, It seems to me that a lot of what Israel has taken and wants to take was 2,700+ years ago, never belonged to either Israel, Judah, or any other Hebrew kingdom,-- except in their dreams.


Off and on. They tended to move, or get moved, around quite a bit. They were out of the area as political ethnic group several times, and infact, were quite happy to set up new homes in new kingdoms as the fancy struck them. Until well after the Roman diaspora of 2000 years ago, their was never all this sentimental attachment to the area. Jews felt quite at home all over the place, from Rome to China. In fact their were Jews living among Muslims and Chtistians throughout the middle East and North Africa, and quite happily so, until the Eastern European Zionists decided to move en mass to a place that their own ancestors may have never occupied in the first place, not even 2 thousand years ago.



Oh, please, don't play obtuse. They may have been legally Russian for a thousand years and then legally migrated to an Ottoman province---that only proves that saying that Palestine was their home and that they had a right to "re-establish" the kingdom of Israel was and is pure hogwash.


Maybe in Sri Lanka, but refusing refugees right of return, unilaterally seizing Palestinian property and handing it over to Zionist planters, and doing every possible thing to either kill or drive off Palestinians from the area is ethnic-cleansing according to any definition you'll find.

Yes, it most certainly did. Look it up. It was granted statehood in direct contravention to what the preamble to United Nations Security
Council resolution 242 termed the "inadmissible taking of land by
force".

Gee, good thing that that never happened!! Duh!

No. it was not . See above, resolution 242. A stolen land occupied by people who took and held it by force, depriving the original inhabitants thereof of property, security. life and every other human right, has no right to "self-determination".

Of course it would. Which is why the proposed single state [under the protection of the UN] was to ensure _equal_ rights for both Muslim and Christian Palestinians and for Zionist Jews. Such an equality was entirely antithetical to the Zionist principle of a Jewish state, of Jews, for Jews, by Jews, it could not be permitted to happen. And with Harry Truman's help, it didn't, and so fo 60 years we've had nothing but peace and love in the land.


You can call any war "defensive". The oldest trick in the book is to say, "Hey, he started it." Four year old's try that one on. Latest example, US invasion of Iraq. Or Israeli attack on Lebanon. Or maybe, just this latest atrocity in Gaza. But it applies from'48 through '67 to the present. Those were never "defensive" wars. And even if they had been [they were not], the UN charter says that violently seized property cannot be held permantly, but must be returned, and that inhabitants of such territory have "equal rights" re the invaders.

Why don't you show us the original of that document. And why are illegal settlements and land-grabbing walls still being built on Palestinian property?

Jakers

I gather that calling somebody "stupid" doesn't violate any rules--provided that you guys do it.

donsutherland1

The "bill of goods" is the false claim that Jews had no historical legitimacy in the region and that there had been no Israel in prior history.

The facts differ. Arab Fedayeen began attacking Jews in 1919. Arabs carried out a massacre in Hebron in 1929 in which 67 Jews were killed. Arabs initiated riots and violence that lasted from 1936-1939 during which more than 400 Jews were killed.

Israel is a legitimate state. One cannot wish away its legitimacy. The UN was given charge of the disposition of the British Mandate. The UN respected the equal claim to self-determination by both the region's Arab and Jewish residents. Israel was later admitted into the UN.

The numbers come from President Clinton's memoirs, Secretary of State Albright's memoirs, and Middle East Envoy Dennis Ross' memoirs. The refugees of the 1948 war and their descendants would have had the chance to settle in the new Palestinian state. In addition, a refugee fund of $30 billion to up to $40 billion would have been established.

Israel has a right to exist. Negotiations will determine the boundaries of a Palestinian state.

The 1948 borders are impractical now. They are not defensible. Furthermore, the memoirs of the aforementioned leaders and diplomats I cited reject the "bantuization" claim. You are referring to earlier maps. The experience of the Sioux, Cherokee, and Apache tribes, and Zulus during Apartheid are irrelevant to the Middle East dispute.

The only historical distortion is repetition of the myth that the Jewish peoples ancenstral homeland wasn't in the region, that the Jewish people had no historical legitimacy, the omission of the anti-Jewish violence launched by Arabs beginning in 1919, and that Israel is not a legitimate state.

donsutherland1

There is one common thread: the exercise of a sovereign state's inherent right of self defense. Both Israel and Sri Lanka exercised that right.

The land passed among different empires and peoples. None of those peoples were Palestinians. The Phoenicians were not Palestinians. Although there had been a sovereign Israel in the past, there had never been a sovereign Palestine.

Historic Jewish legitimacy is based on archaeological evidence, early historical accounts, and DNA evidence that show Jewish origins and early presence in the region. Moreover, that Jewish presence was continual. The Jewish people are the earliest remaining inhabitants of the region.

Of course, Jewish immigration was also legal. As a result, the Jewish immigrants enjoyed full legal rights.

The facts are what they are. While it might be inconvenient for the rejectionist narrative, the reality is that there was an Israel in the past. In contrast, there has never been a sovereign Palestine.

The term "ethnic cleansing" first gained international usage during the Balkans civil war (Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia) during the early 1990s. Andrew Bell-Fialkoff, formerly a Research Fellow at the Center for the Study of Small States, has extensively studied historic events that might fit the definition of ethnic cleansing. He provided the following definition:

At the most general level...ethnic cleansing can be understood as the expulsion of an "undesirable" population from a given territory due to religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological considerations, or a combination of these.

Israel has not engaged in the expulsion of Arabs from its boundaries. It is not engaging in such practices. Most of Israel's non-Jewish population (now 1.5 million) is comprised of Arabs. Israel's Arab population enjoys the rights of Israeli citizens including but not limited to educational opportunities, employment, and political participation.

Mr. Bell-Fialkoff's historical research that goes back Assyrian ruler Tiglath-Pileser III (745-727 B.C.) does not cite Israel as ever having engaged in what can be defined as ethnic cleansing.

Res. 242 also permits Israel "secure" boundaries. There was room for boundary changes. Such flexibility was consistent with the original intent behind the post-1948 war demarcation lines.

Although contemporary commentary often suggests that international law requires an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 war boundaries, such commentary ignores the historical background behind those borders. If one goes back to the time those boundaries were first established, it becomes clear that those lines were never intended to set permanent boundaries.

Those lines were created by a series of Armistice Agreements that followed the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The Armistice Agreements make two points clear:

• The lines do not constitute permanent boundaries (even as post-1967 revisionism attempts to make such a claim)
• The lines merely separate the military forces of the parties

In other words, negotiations would be required to establish those boundaries. Almost 60 years later, I believe the understanding that permanent borders would be developed through the negotiating process is as relevant as it was when the armistice lines were first established. That contemporary thinking among a number of states and political leaders has evolved away from the parameters of these armistice agreements does not in any way alter the original understanding that the pre-1967 war boundaries were not permanent borders.

The region's Arab residents could have had a state in 1948 had the Arab leadership not been unyielding in its demand to gain control of all of the region. The Palestinians could have had a state in 2001 had Yasser Arafat had the courage and foresight to accept President Clinton's bridging proposal. Bad leadership, not "theft," not to mention persistent terrorism by groups such as Hamas, is responsible for the lack of a Palestinian state today.

Such a state was not feasible. UNSCOP explained:

All the proposed solutions have aimed at resolving, in one manner or another, the Palestinian dilemma: the reconciliation of two diametrically opposed claims, each of which is supported by strong arguments, in a small country of limited resources, and in an atmosphere of great and increasing political and racial tension and conflicting nationalisms…

Every practicable solution today, even the most extreme, is confronted with the actual fact that there are now in Palestine more than 1,200,000 Arabs and 600,000 Jews, who, by and large, are from different cultural milieux, and whose outlook, languages, religion and aspirations are separate…

The most simple solutions, naturally enough, are the extreme solutions, by which is meant those which completely reject or ignore, or virtually so, the claims and demands of one or another party, while recognizing in full the claims of the other. The Special Committee has rejected such solutions…

In the early stages of the discussions, it became apparent that there was little support for either of the solutions which would take an extreme position, namely, a single independent State of Palestine, under either Arab or Jewish domination… It was recognized by all members that an effort must be made to find a solution which would avoid meeting fully the claims of one group at the expense of committing grave injustice against the other…

…the Committee also realized that the crux of the Palestine problem is to be found in the tact that two sizeable groups, an Arab population of over 1,200,000 and a Jewish population of over 600,000, with intense nationalist aspirations, are diffused throughout a country that is arid, limited in area, and poor in all essential resources. It was relatively easy to conclude, therefore, that since both groups steadfastly maintain their claims, it is manifestly impossible, in the circumstances, to satisfy fully the claims of both groups, while it is indefensible to accept the full claims of one at the expense of the other...

It was apparent that the binational solution, though attractive in some of its aspects, would have little meaning unless provision were made for numerical or political parity between the two population groups, as provided for in the proposal of Dr. J. L. Magnes. This, however, would require the inauguration of complicated mechanical devices which are patently artificial and of dubious practicality...

The basic premise underlying the partition proposal is that the claims to Palestine of the Arabs and Jews, both possessing validity, are irreconcilable, and that among all of the solutions advanced, partition will provide the most realistic and practicable settlement, and is the most likely to afford a workable basis for meting in part the claims and national aspirations of both parties…

Only by means of partition can these conflicting national aspirations find substantial expression and qualify both peoples to take their places as independent nations in the international community and in the United Nations…

The partition solution provides that finality which is a most urgent need in the solution. Every other proposed solution would tend to induce the two parties to seek modification in their favour by means of persistent pressure. The grant of independence to both States, however, would remove the basis for such efforts…

Partition is based on a realistic appraisal of the actual Arab-Jewish relations in Palestine…

Previously, the Peel Commission reached the same conclusion.

In 1948, Arab armies attacked Israel.
In 1956, Egypt had illegally blockaded Israel in international waters.
In 1967, Egypt repeated the illegal blockade.
In 1973 Egypt launched a war against Israel.

Under international law, naval blockades constitute acts of war. Arabs initiated invasions in both 1948 and 1973. Therefore, Israel acted in self defense in all those cases.

justone

It is not my litany that is long, but it is a history of Arab aggression and their inhumanity to man that is long. It is a list of facts you refuse to look at confirming that a reasonable dialog with you is impossible.

It does provide moral justification to what the Europeans did and are still doing to the Arabs, according to the concept of the just war.


No, as one can see Europeans did not and do not do to Arabs what Arabs did and do to Europeans, these are different civilizations, different goals, different means.

That is not a European concept. The might comes to right – is.



It shows how blind your hatred is.
It is moral and ethitical to put you in a jail and confiscate your property for the crimes committed by you. You are a criminal and your moral and ethic are of a criminal.

You brainwash a child, strap a belt on him and sent him to blow himself, and then you appeal to moral and ethic and blame Americans and Jews for killing children. Sure you are moral in your moral, in my moral system you’re a plain child molester and murderer. It is highly moral to get rid off you, it is a necessity.

I am a necon and I have extreme right wing values, they are not a dog eat dog world of "Natural Selection", of "winners" vs "losers", of dominance and subjection, nor I have ever expressed anything like that. This out of the blue insulation of yours is not different from all other insulations driven by blind hatred you have been expressing. A reasonable dialog with you is impossible.


I would advise you to take a look at my profile. I proudly wear a whole bunch of warnings and bans on my sleeve. You are an Anti-Semite, as it was shown in my post. I have no problems with banning Anti-Semites, racists, spamers, Nazis and other scum. As you have exposed yourself that your hatred is blind and no facts of history would make you to look at them and take them in consideration, that a reasonable dialog with you is not deeming to be possible, taking in the consideration that you will never quit whatever are facts and reasons, there is no reason to keep garbage on these pages. I would rather spend my time tearing Don apart and exposing Tashah’s lingerie.

You can take a line from the quote and google it. There is no reason to provide you with such a courtesy. All Internet is taken over and authored by Zionists and Europeans, - so what would be a difference for you? Your reply was known ahead of time and so it has came. Why Arabs have never provided humanity with any technology?

It is not OK to call you stupid, as it is in violation of the rules; it is a failure that shouldn’t be allowed in dealing with your type, and especially with your type. It is not OK to ban Anti-Semites, racists, spammers, Nazis, Communists and other scum until their inabilities to a reasonable dialog are exposed and confirmed. I would be the first one to protest. You are not the case for me, I wouldn’t shed a drop of my blood, not ever a tear. Your inabilities have been exposed well enough for me.

Jakers

"historical legitimacy" Now there is a high sounding bit of bumper-sticker sloganeering. But what does it mean? Does it mean that if, anywhere from 100 years to 10,000 years ago, certain people from whom you assume yourself descendant, lived in a certain area, that you now have a legal and legitimate claim to that property? Ridiculous!! The Zionists of the 19th century had no legal or moral claim to the territory that came to be called "Israel" at the very last minute in the spring of 1948. All they did have was a self-serving ethnic tradition and the backing of right-wing "xtianist" zealots, principally in the USA, who wanted Jews back in Jerusalem in order to "fulfil" apocalyptic "prophesy",[the end of the world] and a bunch of European aristocrats who wanted to put all of their own Jews in some other place, the farther away the better. [This is pre-Hitler's "final solution", remember] In 1918, these self-important colonialists reneged on Laurence of Arabia's promise to the arabs in return for their aid in bringing down the Ottoman empire, and carved it up like it was their turkey to carve. Hence the infamous, "Balfour Declaration". Still no moral, legal or other justification--just the colonialist 'business as usual' of sharing out the spoils. No "historical legitimacy" in that garbage.

As to "Israel" in "prior history", supposedly there were 2 "kingdoms" [read, tribal areas] called "Israel" and "Judah" in the general area, along with sundry non-Judaic tribal areas with other political names, between 921 BCE and 720 BCE. And you think that that dim and temporary passing piece of history confers legal power today, to people coming from just about everywhere else on earth, but principally and originally north-eastern Europe?!! Please get real. Either that or concede "historical legitimacy" to all Mexicans entering California, Texas, and the American South-West. "Right of Return", and all that, eh what?!?

The Zionists began buying land from absentee Turkoman landlords, principally in Egypt, from the last decades of the 19th century on. Having bought these 'feudal' farms, they then evicted the peasants who had been living on them for hundreds of generation, with nothing but a "Hit the road, Jack, and doncha come back no mo' no' mo! Hit the road, Muhammed. The Zionists made it their rule that henceforth, any land they acquired could then only be sold or transferred to Jews. By the end of WWl they had displaced and left to starve a sizeable number of ex-tenant farmers. For some reason these people were bitter about how the EUROPEAN Jews were treating them, as they had always been treated fairly by their Jewish neighbours that were indigenous to arabia. Eventually however, it got harder and harder to tell an European Zionist from a home-grown Zionist. Then came the bitterness of post WW! broken promises and the infamous "Balfour Declaration" By the late 1920's Zionist were finding it necessary to terrorize, even murder, Palestinian tenant farmers in order to make them leave the farms that the Zionists bought out from under them. The crowds of hungry and homeless Palestinians grew, and by the late 20's racial hatred had spread to both camps, and riots and violence became the thing to do.

Arab Fedayeen were only emulating what Zionist terror groups had been doing before and during WWl.

Not a 'good thing', but it didn't happen because Satan crept in through the window one night and turned formerly peaceful Palestinians into Jew-hating
monsters. We reap what we sow.

donsutherland1

From UNSCOP:

The basic premise underlying the partition proposal is that the claims to Palestine of the Arabs and Jews, both possessing validity...

It is a fact that both of these peoples have their historic roots in Palestine, and that both make vital contributions to the economic and cultural life of the country.

That the historic legitimacy is inconvenient for those who espouse a rejectionist message has little bearing on the facts. UNSCOP highlighted the historical legitimacy of both peoples.

The transactions were legal contracts. Jewish immigration was made legal by the Ottoman Empire. Legal immigrants enjoy the full rights of all residents.

Arab aggression against the area's Jewish residents was taking place in 1919. Furthermore, the Haganah was established in 1920 in response to the need for Jewish residents to defend themselves against Arab Fedayeen, among others, who were attacking them.

Tashah

Scroll up. I didn't specifically call anyone stupid. But if you feel the shoe fits, then you have purchased the adage yourself.

__________________

SquareMelon

Few points;

The situations in sri Lanka and in Israel are different. The hostilities in Sri Lanka is between a majority and a minority for rights and representation.


The UN have not recognized any part of Srilanka as occupied land. Therefore, the dispute remains purely internal. That is not to say that UN should not intervene.

In contrast, the West Bank and Gaza are recognized by the UN as occupied territories. Israel has been clearly labeled as an occupying force. Numerous UN resolutions are still un implemented by Israel. The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are not a minority group trying to get their rights. They are a separate ethnic group and are recognized by the UN as an occupied people.

The majority of the members in the UN understand the situation between Isr/Pali for what it is. A struggle by an occupied people trying to exercise their right for self determination and let free from the occupation. They understand that Israel supported by the Imperialistic powers of the world is stealing Palestinian land piece by piece while pretending that she is "negotiating" with them. Many also recognize the right of the Palestinian people to resist the occupation even though many disagree with the tactics and methods used. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon considers all human life as precious including those of Palestinians.

I find it interesting that in the same thread that the UN is labeled as having double standards towards Israel, the decisions by the same UN (UNSCOP) are quoted to support the the argument in support of the existence of Israel based on the partition plan.

__________________
The Square Water Melon Revolution

donsutherland1

There are differences and I previously noted the existence of differences. The single common thread is both the Israeli and Sri Lankan governments are exercising their inherent right of self defense. The UN is attempting to deprive Israel of its right.

Fortunately, it appears possible that the UN will not get that opportunity. Haaretz reported that the U.S. will likely block initiatives aimed at condemning Israel in the Security Council. The UN's lack of balance has contributed to the problem. Therefore, if the UN is kept on the sidelines, there is the possibility that an environment that is more favorable to diplomacy could begin to emerge once Hamas is sufficiently weakened. A premature ceasefire would preclude sufficient weakening of the Hamas terrorist organization and leave it in a position to claim that it won a "victory" of sorts. Such an outcome would further erode prospects for diplomacy.