My thoughts
All Posts post a reply | post a new topic

AuthorTopic: My thoughts
topic by
JC
4/9/2002 (17:22)
 reply top
I believe that the following principles and action are required in order to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in an equitable and nonviolent
way:

1) A complete end to the Israeli military occupation of the territories
occupied since 1967 in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem with
border adjustments agreeable to both parties. This can only occur when the suicide bombings have ceased.

2) The establishment of a viable Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders alongside Israel. Both Israel and a the Palestinian state should thus be able to guarantee the ability to maintain secure and recognized
boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

3) Jerusalem will be the capitol of both states. Unfettered access to all
religious sites in Israel and in the future Palestine will be insured to all
Jews, Muslims and Christians, regardless of nationality or sovereignty of the ites.

4) A just resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem that takes into
account the needs and aspirations of both peoples is crucial to a just peace. Such a resolution should acknowledge Israel's share of responsibility for the plight of Palestinian refugees while respecting the
special relationship between the State of Israel and the Jewish people.

5) I strongly urge the termination of both state-initiated violence and
terrorism for achieving political goals. This applies to violence against all individuals with special care being taken to avoid harm to civilians.
We need to work towards a future in which peoples use non-violent means to resolve
social and political inequities.

6) Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories are a major obstacle to peace, a tremendous financial burden to Israel and do little, if anything,
to enhance Israel's security. These settlements constantly expose to danger the settlers themselves and the Israeli soldiers sent to defend them, in
addition to bringing grave harm to the Palestinians living under Occupation.
I call for bringing safely home to Israel the settlers from all existing settlements except in those areas that will be included as part of a negotiated and mutually agreed upon exchange of territories between Israel and Palestine in determining the final borders of both states.

7) As a U.S. Jew, I am dedicated to the implementation of the
above-stated
principles.

If there are people in Palestine, Egypt, and throughout the Mid-East who are for peace and a 2-state solution now is the time to speak up and join forces. If we do not then the extremist elements in both our camps will lead us to hell. For a preview, take a look at Jenin. Now imagine the entire region like that. I love the Israeli AND Palestinian people too much to want that to be their fate.

Jews need to speak out against Israeli rejectionists and Arabs need to speak out against Arab rejectionists. I guarantee you that without both we will not get squat done, but with both sides joining forces and opposing the extremists elements in both camps we might save the world for millions of people.

Shalom/Salam.
reply by
Seth Sims
4/9/2002 (18:04)
 reply top
JC - I share your desires, but doesn't everything Arafat has done since Oslo suggest that this is highly unlikely?
reply by
--
4/9/2002 (18:30)
 reply top







A 'friend of Israel'
is a friend of democracy.
Israel is the sole democracy of the Middle East.

A 'friend of Israel' is a friend of peace.
The Israeli people, in its vast majority, yearns for peace. This has been proven
by multiple efforts and concessions which remain unanswered to this day.

A 'friend of Israel' is a friend of human rights.
We equally desire peace, welfare and democracy for all of Israel's neighbours.

A 'friend of Israel' is a friend of the rights of women and children.

We denounce the use of women and children in any armed conflict.

A 'friend of Israel' is a friend of the values of justice and equity.
These humanistic values are threatened by any form of fundamentalism.

A 'friend of Israel' is a friend of Jerusalem.
As long as religious freedom, and any freedom, shall be respected by the State
of Israel, we shall recognize Jerusalem as its capital.

A 'friend of Israel' is a friend of non-violence.
Nothing can ever justify resorting to terrorism and hatred.

A 'friend of Israel' is a friend of the free
world.
We call upon the free world to favour the emergence of Arab leaders who sincerely
seek peace and democracy and choose negotiation rather than confrontation.

A 'friend of Israel' is a friend of the oppressed.
Israel is the land of refuge of millions of oppressed Jews.

A 'friend of Israel' is first and foremost a
friend.
Inspired by these ten principles, we declare on this day, Israel's day of independence,
our solidarity with Israel and peace and security for all.


reply by
John Calvin
4/9/2002 (20:04)
 reply top
Most of your points contain their own negation or are, at best oxymoronic. In short, idle chatter.

But thank you for all your incourteous efforts!
reply by
William
4/9/2002 (22:07)
 reply top
JC,
you defend Israel, but yet none of the points you mention are supported by the Israeli gov't. Sharon and all other gov't leaders, the doves included, have said that withdrawal to the 1967 borders is a non-starter and will never happen, also that dismantling the settlements, or giving Dome of the Rock to the Palestinians will never happen. As an American, neither a Jew or Arab, I support Israel within the 1967 borders. Israel, however, has on every occasion refused to live within these borders. The Barak proposal of giving up most of the occupied land while retaining all air rights, water rights (more important than oil or gold in the desert), retaining the settlements and all inter-connecting highways contradicts everything you have said. This is not a peace offer. Israel must also withdraw from the Golan Heights. If you support this, you have no business supporting the Israeli gov't.
reply by
muslim_american
4/9/2002 (22:29)
 reply top
Why would you talk to JC or seth ??? They have just posted articles to GETTOIZE muslims here .. and prepare for there eradication .. You really still beleive any thing they say ???
reply by
JC
4/9/2002 (22:52)
 reply top
William - I certainly don't support Sharon's platform. Just as you probably don't support all of Bush's positions. I do, however, still support Israel and her right to exist. You must remember that part of the context here is the continual rejection of Israel's right to exist by many parties in the Middle East (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Iran, Hezbollah, Iraq, Al Aksa). Israel must be careful to negotiate a wise settlement with the Palestinians, for both their sakes. If the Israelis and Palestinians don't insure secure borders you are simply asking for another attack by the Arab states which will result in the death of many Israelis AND Palestinians. This is crucial. The Saudi proposal is very important in this aspect and should be followed up on. I'm all for Israel returning to her 1967 borders if there is going to be real peace.

Do I defend Israel's right to exist? Absolutely. Do I disagree with Sharon's vision and agenda. Absolutely. I am for a 2 state solution. 2 viable states.

Am I for eradicating Muslims? Absolutely not. In fact I strongly believe that Israel's well being is contingent on her being able to establish a healthy, constructive relationship with Muslim nations. Israel as a state must be supportive and tolerant of all religions. That is, unless those religions seek to harm Jews or Israel.

As for water rights, Barak's proposal was a starting point to work off of. The two sides were able at Taba to be pretty much in agreement on what would be fair and doable.

As soon as their is peace between the two peoples some of that aid money that goes to military can go to major desalianation programs and help solve the water issue for both people.
reply by
JC
4/9/2002 (23:02)
 reply top
Professor Newman capture much of what I believe and feel. I only wish that there was a similar level of introspection and intellectual honesty in the Arab countries.

A time for self-criticism
David Newman


(April 10) - Reading the usually critical Israeli newspapers and listening to the television and radio broadcasts during the past 10 days, was a bit like listening to a watered-down version of George Orwell's newspeak - a government-sponsored version of events which paints everything in simple black and white.

Everything we (Israel) do is justified and right, everything the Palestinians do or say is wrong and biased, and everything that the international community says - including our best friend in the White House - that goes beyond condemnation of terrorism and suicide bombings, is out of place.

If President George W. Bush condemns Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat and terrorism that is fine. But if he also reminds us that we must withdraw from the territories and accept the fact that the internationally accepted solution to the conflict is the establishment of a Palestinian State, that is intervention in our sovereign affairs. Continue to give us aid without which our economy would falter even further, but don't tell us how to handle our affairs - even if this conflicts with your relations with just about every other country in the world.

And if Europe is critical of our policies, well that is just another example of deeply rooted anti-Semitism. Israel's anti-European xenophobia was clear for all to see in former prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu's bitter attack on them earlier this week, coming as it did (so conveniently) during the week in which we commemorate the Holocaust. What better occasion than to remind ourselves, and the world, that Jewish life is no longer cheap. Our exploitation of the Holocaust to justify every military action is starting to backfire, as the world begins to use the same metaphors to accuse us of inhuman behavior towards innocent Palestinian civilians. The fact that what is happening in the occupied territories is in no way comparable to what happened during the Holocaust is becoming irrelevant in terms of international opinion. A country which continually uses, and all too often manipulates, Holocaust imagery to justify its policies of self defense and 'never again,' cannot complain when the rest of the world uses those same standards to make judgements concerning its own policies.

We used to play a game of make believe and convince ourselves that our occupation of the West Bank and Gaza was a 'benign occupation,' and that our army is only a 'defense force,' taking offensive and punitive action where necessary, but never acting against civilian populations. There is no such thing as a 'benign' occupation, and the purpose of armies is to fight wars, during which - unfortunately - civilians are injured and killed.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon can try to convince the world that the reason we have to remain in the West Bank is because we are taking care not to harm civilians and, therefore, the military campaign will continue longer than the Americans or Europeans want it to.

A war is a war is a war and there is no clean way of fighting wars. Many innocent people suffer in wars and we shouldn't make ourselves look foolish by trying to convince the world that our war is different - whether or not the initial cause, namely the eradication of terrorist cells, was justified or not.

And we only harm our image even further by banning the international press from entering the West Bank. Firing tear gas grenades at pro-peace demonstrators, or journalists who desire nothing more than to report on the Zinni-Arafat meeting, is truly reminiscent of Third World dictatorships. In Israel, one of the most advanced communication societies in the world, policy makers must surely be aware that there are no borders which can prevent the dissemination of such information or images and that any country which attempts to create such borders immediately paints itself in a negative light as it obviously has something to hide.

We can scream as loudly as we want that reports concerning army brutality to civilians, the cutting off of water and food supplies, not allowing the local population to bury their dead (even those who have simply died of natural causes) and stealing from houses, are all untrue. But, through our own misguided policies, we have cut off any means which will enable an alternative story to emerge. And the sad truth is that the reports are so many - only the Israeli press chooses to avoid them or even investigate their authenticity - that it is hard to believe that some of them are not true.

In times of crisis, such as that facing us right now, it is more important than ever before to be self critical. That the other side is not critical of its own society is no reason for us to try to impose a single uncritical explanation for our actions. Indeed, doing so brings us down to their level, and this is not what we want.

We are becoming the pariah of the world community, just as South Africa was during the apartheid era. And if we simplistically attribute it to good old-fashioned anti-Semitism, we are missing the point.

Neither Bush nor Prime Minister Tony Blair can be accused of being anti-Semitic. Neither of them opposes our attempt to prevent further terrorism. But they do oppose our continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and they do favor the establishment of a Palestinian State alongside the State of Israel. No amount of newspeak or closure of the territories can change these basic facts and any attempt to argue otherwise only blackens our image throughout the world.

(The writer is chairman of the Department of Politics and Government at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and the editor of the International Journal of Geopolitics.)
reply by
William
4/9/2002 (24:17)
 reply top
Muslim,
you make a point why would I respond to JC? Anyone who knows Israel so well, but yet supports it will not be influenced, but yet I feel compelled to respond for the sake of response and anyone objectively reading who may not understand the issue.

JC, what you said is a lie. Sharon does not wish to see a 2 state solution and has constantly denied even the suggestion of it. You talk about Hamas's rejection of Israel (while the PLO has recognized Israelis rights within the international borders), while the Israeli gov't rejects a Palestinian state (within the international borders). Looking at the big picture it's easy to see who really rejects a settlement.

JC,
You try to confuse people by saying this is an issue of the existence of Israel, when it is not. In your mind making peace with the Arabs threatens the existence of Israel, whereas constant expansion and warfare guarantees protection? You say
you don't entirely support Sharon, but from the points, you've made you either don't understand Sharon or don't understand the Israeli policy, because you support none of the Israeli aims in the West Bank. Either way you should not be protecting a gov't policy you do not believe in.
You don't distinguish from supporting the policy of Israel and supporting the existence of Israel. I support the existence of Israel, but not it's subjugation of the indigineous population in the occupied territories. This argument is always made as if Israel is about to be swarmed, when in fact it is the Israeli policy of constant confrontation and expansion, that makes any violence more likely. I'd argue that continued Israeli expansion and aggression in the occupied territories is a far more grave risk to Israel than making peace. Israel can exist and would find peace if it stayed within it's international borders.
reply by
JC
4/9/2002 (24:34)
 reply top
William - You are not accurate in some of your statements. First of all I do distinguish between supporting the state of Israel and supporting the policies of the current administration. I am for an end to the occupation. Was that not clear in my post? Please read some of my previous posts where I make it even clearer perhaps.

Secondly, Sharon has actually stated that he is for a 2-state solution. His idea of the state is quite different from mine, however. I wouldn't expect Palestinians to accept his offer.

Pleaes go read Hamas's charter. Tell me they are not devoted to the destruction of the Jewish state.

How do you explain the continued shelling of Northern Israel by Iranian backed Hezbollah, even after the Israelis left Southern Lebanon?

You appear to be less than genuine in your analysis of the larger context of the situation.

reply by
muslim_american
4/9/2002 (24:51)
 reply top
William ? you are accusing Jc of belien a liar? ..!! that is naiive .. maybe next you will suspect seth of being ..hmmm a monster?
reply by
William
4/9/2002 (24:55)
 reply top
JC,
I made no mistake. I said your opinions are not consistent with Israeli policy. You say you wish to see an end to the occupation, but the Israeli gov't official line is that the occupation is permanent. I don't read most posts, but i've read all posts on this thread. Sharon's official policy is that Jordan is the Palestinian state, not acceptable anywhere, even in the US. Israel isn't dealing with Hamas, they're dealing with the PLO, just as the PLO is dealing with the Israeli gov't and not extremist settlers. The PLO has recognized the existence of Israel in their international borders in the PLO charter, but Israel has NEVER, Barak included, recognized the existence of a Palestinian state in WRITING! You said you are for the end of occupation, but give me a link where Israel has offered a formal agreement for the end of occupation. None exists, which is my point.

The issue with Hezbollah is different. Israel withdrew from most of Lebananon except for a small area called Sheba Farms. Israel claims it is occupied Syrian land, while even Syria admits it belonged to Lebanon. Hezbollah continues to attack occupied land, what a shocker!!!

reply by
Seth Sims
4/10/2002 (7:52)
 reply top
Don't bother reasoning with this guy JC. He has made up his mind and is not interested in a 'good faith' dialogue with you.

He willfully ignores Camp David and the later peace talks in Taba. Palestinian negotiaters would call this guy a liar.

BTW Bill, The UN declared Shabba Farms to be originally Syrian territory. Guess they're part of the Jewish cabal too.
reply by
Wisso
4/10/2002 (15:16)
 reply top
Jews r fucking hilarious...israel has over 65 UN resolutions on their asses and yet they listen to none of them...but when UN sais anything in israel s intrest...they bring they start supporting UN....
reply by
Ozzie
4/11/2002 (1:05)
 reply top
JC

Send Sharon and his cronies your proposal. See how they respond. The Palestinians have only demanded that they hold on to their pre-67 properties. The Oslo peace plan and Barak refused anything close to even your proposal.

If Israel (like you are suggesting) plays it fair for both Palestinians and Israelis equally, then I don't think the Arab countries will oppose. The puppet-Arab regimes have catered to Israel's wishes for over 30years without much opposition. With each day however, more and more hatred is growing among the Arab masses due to Sharon's holocaust!
reply by
ozzie
4/11/2002 (1:16)
 reply top
You know, I'm drained from trying to even comprehend the bullshit of all these zionist Israeli sympathizers. It really feels like I've been attacked by bunch of leeches. I have no more energy in speaking to the 'whaling' wall. Yikes!