|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 28 OF 57 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jul-08-11
 | | alexmagnus: Also, read this forum excerpt (in German, but youcan google-translate it :)) Unglaublich, wie man an Phantomschmerzen leiden kann! Israel scheint es seinen philosemitischen Freunden ja ganz schön angetan zu haben! Die schlimmsten Menschenrechtsverletzungen finden sich in Staaten ohne jegliche (basis-)demokratische Strukturen und ohne jeden Minderheitenschutz. Israel hat da sicher Nachholbedarf in einigen Bereichen! Denke ich aber an den Nahen Osten und die Palästinenser, fällt mir da zuerst Jordanien ein, mit allein 20.000 palästinensischen Toten im Schwarzen September 1970, umgebracht von den Arabischen Brüdern, die der palästinensischenSache doch so nahe stehen.
Übrigens sind das in einem Monat mehr tote Palästinenser, als nach palästinensischen Angaben im gesamten Konflikt mit Israel seit 1948 (also in 62!!! Jahren) umgekommen sind (12000-16000 nach Angaben der Hamas auf deren offizieller Webseite, und das sind die Gefechts-Opfer der "offiziellen Kriege"und die Opfer israelischer Menschenrechtsverletzungen schon zusammenaddiert!) EDIT: mein Gedächtnis spielte mir einen Streich: nochmals überprüft, stimmt nicht, es sind laut Hamas 12000-16000 ohne die in "offiziellen Kriegen" Gefallenen. Oder Syrien, als im Jahre 1982 mal eben ein Stadtviertel mit 15.000 Menschen zerstört wurde, mit 15.000 Toten als Ergebnis. Dort lebten "nur" palästinensischen Flüchtlinge, unter denen sich Anhänger der oppositionellen Muslimbrüderschaft versteckt haben (sollen)... Oder "Palästina", d.h. die palästinensischen Autonomiegebiete, in denen allein seit 2000 nach Amnesty-Angaben über 1400 Oppositionelle "verschwunden" sind und hinterher oftmals mit einer unauffälligen Todesanzeige in der Zeitung als "Martyrer" beklagt wurden. Quelle: Amnesty-Jahresbericht 2009. Oder Ägypten, das im Gegensatz zu Israel die Grenze zum Gaza-Streifen komplett dicht gemacht hat, was den endgültigen Kollaps der legalen palästinensischen Wirtschaft und das Aufblühen der organisierten Kriminalität zur Folge hatte. Ein Bereich, in dem überraschenderweise Teile der Hamas Quasi-Monopolisten sind. Quelle: Amnesty-Jahresbericht 2009. All dies und noch viel mehr spielt in der öffentlichen Diskussion der erklärten Palästina-Freunde keine Rolle und wurde auch nicht mit einer einzigen UNO-Resolution verurteilt, während Israel mit über 200 dergleichen bedacht wurde (ich glaube, Raoul hatte die Quelle zur genauen Zahl ausgegraben). OK, das wundert bei der UNO nun auch nicht wirklich... Es ist natürlich rechtens, auf die Verfehlungen Israels hinzuweisen. Ich verstehe aber beim besten Willen nicht, wieso sich die Palästina-Freunde auf Israel einschießen, sie den viel ungeheuerlicheren Rest aber nicht einmal am Rande erwähnen. Damit ist der Sache der Palästinenser kaum ein Deut gedient. Denn die wahren Feinde sitzen nicht in Israel, sondern an den Schalthebeln der Macht in den arabischen Staaten...
Wenn es den Palästina-Freunden wirklich um die Lage der Palästinenser geht, muss man vor allem dort ansetzen, und z.B. lokale Initiativen unterstützen.
Aber das passt natürlich nicht in gängige Schwarz-Weiß-Schemata, und ist für diejenigen, die den Nahostkonflikt vom europäischen Sofa aus "lösen" wollen, schwer zu verstehen... Dabei handelt es sich um frei verfügbare Infos, Wikileaks ist nicht nötig! Das setzt natürlich voraus, dass man sich wahrhaftig für das Leid der Palästinenser interessiert und nicht in erster Linie für Israel. Zugegeben, 95% derVeröffentlichungen zu diesem Thema sind Mainstream-Müll, die die Schuld des Konflikts auf Israel reduzieren.
Eine sehr zuverlässige und seriöse Quelle ist aber Amnesty: harte Fakten, kein ideologisches Gesabbel. Sehr unbequem für das eigene Weltbild, jede Ideologie und jeden Staat.
Dafür aber für 40€ Jahresmitgliedschaft billig zu haben! (to be contunued with a PS by the same forum member) |
|
Jul-08-11
| | alexmagnus: (continuation):
PS: nur lesen, wenn das Weltbild Widersprüche aushält: 1. Die USA und Israel finanzieren den haushalt der palästinensischen Autonomiegebiete zu 60% (eine genauere Aufschlüsselung habe ich leider nicht gefunden), 25% kommen von der EU, 10% aus den arabischen "Bruderstaaten", 5% aus den Autonomiegebieten selber (Steuern usw.). 2. Laut Amnesty-Jahresbericht 2009 führte die Amnesty-Ortsgruppe Ramallah im Jahr 2008 eine großangelegte Befragung unter 3000 Gazastreifen-Bewohnern durch. Frage war, nach welchem Vorbild ihr Staat Palästina politisch organisiert werden sollte. Die Antwort war frei wählbar, musste aber ein real existierender Staat sein.
20% antworteten mit Israel (!), 10% mit USA, 15% mit europäischen Staaten, 20% nannten Staaten aus dem islamischen Kulturkreis, 5% sonstige, 30% verweigerten eine Antwort.
Die 8 Organisatoren der Befragung sind gleich mal in den Folterkellern der Hamas verschwunden, einer wurde dort getötet ("gesundheitliche Probleme" nach Angaben der Hamas) , die restlichen 7 wurden nach 2 Monaten als "zionistische Spione" nach Israel "abgeschoben", d.h. mit Säcken über dem Kopf hinter der Grenze zurückgelassen. Ihre Angehörigen verloren ihre Arbeits- und Studienplätze. Deren Kinder sollten ursprünglich aus den Schulen ausgeschlossen werden, diese "Maßnahme" wurde dann doch nicht durchgeführt..." |
|
| Jul-08-11 | | Colonel Mortimer: International law gave birth to Israel. I'm sure it can be invoked similarly for Palestine. Until then we have apartheid in the Occupied Territories. |
|
Jul-08-11
| | alexmagnus: Apartheid? Read up on the actual apartheid (I mean SA before 1994) before using this word. And as I said, nothing against an independent Palestine. The only questions is the <secure> borders for both sides. Also, inner-Palestinian conflicts hardly give much hope for Palestinians. So far they coudn't even unify themselve on which form (a West-like secular democracy or an Islamic theocracy like Iran) the state of Palestine will be. You can't blame Israel for that. |
|
| Jul-09-11 | | Colonel Mortimer: <Apartheid?> Israel built a wall that cut through the occupied territories. It follows a route that encompasses the settlements. This is in direct contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949). The construction of this wall was also considered illegal by a ruling of the international court of justice in 2004. Additionally within the occupied territories there are laws that favour the settlers over the indigenous population (for example Jewish only roads and building permits). Does this meet the requirements of international justice, or natural justice for that matter? If no borders are fixed in international law as you argue, then the very State of Israel is in question too. But we both know that the UN partition plan is recognised worldwide as the basis for the peaceful resolution of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. |
|
Jul-09-11
| | alexmagnus: <Israel built a wall that cut through the occupied territories.> 1) 97% of the wall is actually a fence, easy to move
2)The existence of the wall/fence itself is not a problem. The problem is the exact way of it. But, as I said, it is easy to move. Thing is, there is no fixed border. Israel has reasons to think the "border" of 1967 is not secure - there are points in it at which the distance between the "border" and Tel Aviv is no more than 6 km. <Six> kilometers. As long as there is no peace treaty, I can understand Israel for wishing this zone to be widened. I said, I can understand, not that I support it (my personal preference for the Israeli-Palestinian border is the "border" of 1967 with two corrections - 1)Jerusalem as an undivided double capital, 2) a demilitarized zone). <Additionally within the occupied territories there are laws that favour the settlers over the indigenous population (for example Jewish only roads and building permits).> There are also non-Israeli-only roads. But it's not for the apartheid, it's for security. Actually, with time they become available for all population (if security is guaranteed)groups. F.x. do you know that most checkpoints in the West Bank are no longer in use? Reason: the so called "economical peace" - with the economy of the West Bank booming, peace is easier to achieve without much fear of terror. <If no borders are fixed in international law as you argue, then the very State of Israel is in question too.> Why? It's not like all of Israel's borders are in question. Israel signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, so the Israeli-Egyptian and the Israeli-Jordanian borders are fixed. Israel annected the Golan heights but, to my knowledge, would give them back to Syria the very moment Syria is ready for a peace treaty with Israel. Remain only the Palestinian territories. And here the border question is the question of a)what is secure and b)what is acceptable (especially the Jerusalem question). As long as these questions are unsolved, the borders are not fixed. <But we both know that the UN partition plan is recognised worldwide as the basis for the peaceful resolution of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.> Actually the current international view on the Israel-Palestine border is not the UN partition plan (1947) but the armistice line of 1949. Nobody questions Israel's territorial gains in the War of Independence. |
|
Jul-09-11
| | alexmagnus: <Remain only the Palestinian territories> To be exact, remains only the West Bank. As the Israel-Gaza border seems not to be questioned by anybody. |
|
| Jul-09-11 | | Colonel Mortimer: <Nobody questions Israel's territorial gains in the War of Independence.> Incidentally this war is referred to as the "1948 Arab-Israeli war" internationally, and as the "Catastrophe" by the Arabs. Only the Israelis refer to it as the "War of Independence." However, Israel cannot obtain legal title to any territory by conquest. Therefore Israel's borders were legally established by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (partition plan), which ended Great Britain's mandate with the proviso that an Arab and Jewish State would be established with borders as demarcated in the resolution. Those borders still stand as the legal boundary of the State of Israel. |
|
Jul-09-11
| | alexmagnus: <However, Israel cannot obtain legal title to any territory by conquest.> Well, it was a defensive war. A clearly defensive war at that, with Israel having been attacked just the day after it was founded. If you cannot gain territories in a defensive war then it makes any aggressor happy - he has nothing to lose. |
|
| Jul-09-11 | | Colonel Mortimer: There is no legal entitlement under international law (see UN charter) to substantiate Israel's acquisition of territory. I'm stating the legal position, not my opinion. If it was a defensive war, then it should not have ended with an offensive acquisition of foreign territory. |
|
| Jul-09-11 | | Colonel Mortimer: ...otherwise Germany would be under British, French and Russian occupation. |
|
Jul-09-11
| | alexmagnus: <...otherwise Germany would be under British, French and Russian occupation.> Which it actually was before 1949. Also, Germany <did> have to give away some of its territories after the war. |
|
| Jul-09-11 | | Colonel Mortimer: <Which it actually was before 1949. Also, Germany <did> have to give away some of its territories after the war.> Let's not get sidetracked. The UN came into existence in the fall of 1945. Therefore international law applied to its fullest degree in advance of Israel's territorial gains in Palestine. |
|
Jul-09-11
| | alexmagnus: To my knowledge, the 1949 armistice line is accepted as "minimum" by most negotiating parties. In fact, these so-called "borders of 1967" are mentioned everywhere - even the Hamas, which does not recognize Israel at all, speaks about Palestine <in the borders of 1967> (which is a somewhat weird formulation, as 1967 there was no Palestine - the West Bank was occupied by Jordan and the Gaza strip by Egypt. But it's clear what they mean). So, even when the most radical Palestinians accept the 1967 "borders", why go back to 1947? Also, the 1947 borders are hardly technically realizable - Israel created a lot of infractructure there between 1948 and 1967, also it was never disputed. Also, look at the 1947 borders. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:.... Each state is divided into three almost unconnected parts. Not really practical. Especially if the two states don't coexist peacefully. In peace times, this border would <probably> be acceptable (Jerusalem remains a problem though - Israelis couldn't reach it without crossing Palestinian territory) but in war times it is simply unrealizable. The distance between Palestinian border and Israel's biggest cities is even smaller there. |
|
| Jul-09-11 | | Colonel Mortimer: I wasn't advocating a return to 'partition' borders. I was just stating the legal context. As you say, the 1967 borders is what is generally and international recognised as a starting point for peace. The current government of Israel does not recognise this, and continues to build illegal settlements in the West Bank. Even though the current (and previous) US administrations publicly endorse the world view, they continue to veto the yearly UN draft resolution for the peaceful settlement of the Palestinian question based on resolution 242 and the 1967 borders. |
|
Jul-09-11
| | alexmagnus: Recently they hardly build new settlements, only embiggen old ones, which is a slightly different story. Israel's position is, as I said, to widen the distance between the border and Israel's main cities, with security reasons, There is actually a great debate around it in Israel itself. The main question is - are the borders of 1967 defensible? In case you can prove that yes, you take the settlement-builderstheir only argument. But can you prove it? As I said, I myself support the borders of 1967 with the changes I mentioned (Jerusalem+DMZ). |
|
Jul-09-11
| | alexmagnus: <The main question is - are the borders of 1967 defensible?> The question arises due to Israel's interpretation of the resolution 242: <(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment 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 <secure> part is, what, in Israel's official opinion, the borders of 1967 are <not>. |
|
| Jul-09-11 | | Colonel Mortimer: <But can you prove it?> No one can prove anything in this regard. Israel's security reasons are simply excuses. Israel's military is one of the most powerful in the world. They also have 500+ nuclear warheads. Also Israel's security cannot have as its price the subjugation of the Palestinian people's inalienable right to self-determination. "Might is right" is the axiom by which the deeds of successive American and Israeli administrations are plainly to be judged. This does nothing to foster peace at all - it just deepens the injustice and grievances born from it. |
|
Jul-09-11
| | alexmagnus: If Israel just acted from "power" point of view it wouldn't sign those peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt. Note, of territories occupied in 1967, Israel occupies only 16% now (OK, most of the remaining 84% is the Sinai given back to Egypt, but still - that isn't exactly proving your point of Israel being a greedy expansionist). |
|
Jul-09-11
| | alexmagnus: Also, did you read the German part I posted? If not, one of the points was that 60% of Palestine's budget is financed by USA and Israel. |
|
Jul-09-11
| | alexmagnus: By the way, Wikipedia's articles on both peace treaties have a nice covering of the entire story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt%... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel... |
|
| Jul-09-11 | | Colonel Mortimer: <that isn't exactly proving your point of Israel being a greedy expansionist).> It's not a point that needs to be proved. It's a reality. |
|
Jul-10-11
| | alexmagnus: <Colonel> Reality? As I said, you have to prove it. Israel gave back 84% of territories occupied, for peace. During the peace talks with Jordan it could also have given up the West Bank (to Jordan; but Jordan decided to give it to the future state of Palestine). Israel has, ever since 1967, shown its will to return most of the occupied territoiries - for peace. Of course, there are exceptions (East Jerusalem and some 4-5 settlements in the West Bank), but generally like 99% of the territory occupied in 1967 is either already given up or is ready to be given up. |
|
Jul-10-11
| | alexmagnus: Also, in 2000, Israel proposed to give Palestinians 97% of the West Bank, with the remaining 3% being exchanged for Israeli territory. The Palestinians denied. |
|
Jul-10-11
| | alexmagnus: And, last but not least, in 2005 Israel left the Gaza strip. <Unilaterally>, without anybody urging it. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 28 OF 57 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
