Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forum
Netanyahu 'ethnic cleansing' comment against Palestinians draws U.S. rebuke
Source: Reuters
Netanyahu 'ethnic cleansing' comment against Palestinians draws U.S. rebuke
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday said the Palestinians wanted to form a state devoid of a Jewish population and termed it "ethnic cleansing", drawing sharp criticism from the United States.
In a video message, Netanyahu said in reference to the removal of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, "The Palestinian leadership actually demands a Palestinian state with one pre-condition: No Jews. There's a phrase for that: It's called ethnic cleansing. And this demand is outrageous."
Western-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has stated that a future Palestinian state would not permit a single Israeli settler to live within its borders.
After viewing the video clip that was circulated on social media, U.S. State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau said at a briefing in Washington that the Israeli leader's words were "inappropriate and unhelpful."
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-idUSKCN11F2UB
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
WhiteTara
(30,168 posts)
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,558 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 10, 2016, 02:11 PM - Edit history (1)
Be honest.
Be consistent.
Since you believe all Palestinians have a right to live in their ancestral lands, what about Jews?
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)But once upon a time when a two-state solution would've been possible, all illegal settlements would have to be removed as per the provisions in the Fourth Geneva Convention about population transfers. If any Israelis or Jews would have wanted to live in Palestine, there should have been no hindering them from doing so, as long as the settlements are all removed, and they want to live as normal Palestinian citizens in Palestine.
Now, as there never will be an independent Palestine, it's just a what if, like what would have happened if Germany won WW2 or something. Perhaps there will be a Palestinian version of "The Man in the High Castle" about it someday.
shira
(30,109 posts)....with people still living there & more people (Palestinians) to join them. There's no reason settlements would have to be removed or abandoned as you know very well Jews wouldn't have been welcome in any part of the W.Bank if settlements were taken down.
The point is that the Palestinian leadership is not tolerant of any Jews living there and THAT is why there's no real peace on the horizon. That was Bibi's point. The Palestinians want a Jew-Free state, you know that, but don't seem to care because you choose to not see racism when it's directed against Jews.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Is this your own plan, or is there a feasibility study of how a Palestinian state could exist with settlements still in place somewhere? How would the settlers contribute to the Palestinian economy and how would Palestinians be able to develop a functioning economy with the settlements being in the way just as they are now?
You're not being realistic...
shira
(30,109 posts)They wouldn't be Israeli & the residents would become Palestinian citizens in any real, genuine peace agreement. They would pay taxes like any other Palestinian citizen.
So what's the problem?
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)I would actually like to know what you base your argumentation on. It's a bit difficult to rubbish your arguments if I don't understand them...
shira
(30,109 posts)http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/162107/why-not-let-the-settlers-stay-in-palestine
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 13, 2016, 05:00 AM - Edit history (2)
So let's summarize. You don't believe Jews are indigenous, or that they are a separate people who deserve self-determination. You believe Jews are colonist invaders. The W.Bank, like Gaza, should be free of Jews and Palestinians should rule all the land from the river to the sea.
Yet you attack your opponents here as racists.
Please.
shira
(30,109 posts)In the wake of Binyamin Netanyahu's recent comments comparing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's insistence that Judea and Samaria be emptied of Jews to ethnic cleansing, a radical left-wing group has endorsed the proposal to grant Jews living over the Green Line citizenship in a future Palestinian state.
According to a spokesman for "Gush Shalom" (lit. The Peace Bloc), it is impossible to effect an evacuation in Judea and Samaria as was done in Gush Katif. While those communities contained roughly 9,000 residents, they noted, the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria have more than 400,000. These Jews, the spokesman said, should be offered the same opportunity Israel extended to Arabs within the Green Line - citizenship.
He relates that in Israel, an Arab Is required to obey Israeli law. If he wants to purchase a weapon, he must first acquire a permit, and only then may he procure a weapon. If he does otherwise, he can expect to be arrested, questioned, tried and sentenced to time in an Israeli jail. He has a right to vote in Israeli elections, and indeed, the Arab Joint List is the third largest party in the Knesset. This, he said, should be the fate of Israelis who decide to stay in a newly created Arab state.
While drawing the comparison with Israeli Arabs, Gush Shalom did not address rampant anti-Semitic incitement within the Palestinian Authority, or regular attacks by local Arabs on Jews. Despite their endorsement of the arrangement, Gush Shalom expects few would trade their Israeli citizenship for Palestinian citizenship.
more...
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/217718
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Currently, the occupation and the settlements have devastating economic effects for the Palestinians, resulting in an outright reduction of about half of their GDP, and a negative economic outlook. It even speaks of an ongoing "process of de-agriculturalization and de-industrialization" (p9), which are hardly words to describe functioning economy. Could you explain to me how your plan for a Palestinian "state" would alleviate the Palestinian economy in any way whatsoever?
Report on UNCTAD assistance to the Palestinian people: Developments in the economy of the Occupied Palestinian Territory
Source: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 1 September 2016
(snip, p9-10)
been forced to abandon cultivation.
35. In the industrial sector, occupation and related uncertainty, and the restrictions on movement and access, have stifled investment and limited the Palestinian private sector to small-scale operations with low capital intensity and efficiency. The World Bank (2014) has indicated that microenterprises and small enterprises dominate Palestinian business, with 90 per cent of firms employing fewer than 20 workers. The small size of firms is correlated with capital intensity and low labour productivity. Labour productivity in small firms, at $10,000, is only one third of that of large firms. In 1994–2010, the economy of the Occupied Palestinian Territory experienced a steady technological regression, with a 0.5 per cent annual decline in total factor productivity. Had the pre-Oslo Accords growth trend continued, real GDP per capita in 2010 might have been 88 per cent higher (International Monetary Fund, 2011). In 2013–2015, the industrial sector witnessed further deterioration, indicated by a 9 per cent drop in the PCBS industrial production index.
36. The impact of occupation on productivity is illustrated by comparing the productivity levels of Palestinian firms in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. Productivity is highest in East Jerusalem as, under an effective annexation, its firms face comparatively lower levels of restrictions on access to markets and have a better supply of electricity and other inputs. Productivity per worker of the median Palestinian firm is $23,000 in East Jerusalem, $10,000 in the West Bank and $6,800 in Gaza (World Bank, 2014). Save for the blockade and the systematic destruction of its infrastructure, there is no other plausible reason for firms in Gaza to be one third less productive than firms in East Jerusalem. The same reasoning applies to the productivity of firms in the West Bank, which is less than half of firms in East Jerusalem.
37. Palestinian economic indicators have deteriorated in the last two decades, with serious ramifications for the welfare of the Palestinian people. In 1995–2014, the population grew by 3.6 per cent annually, while real GDP per capita grew by only 1 per cent (table 2). In addition, productivity failed to grow and unemployment increased by 9 percentage points to 27 per cent. The trade deficit, at 40 per cent of GDP, continued to be extremely high, while economic dependence on Israel increased, as reflected in the greater share of Israel in the Palestinian trade deficit, which increased from 49 per cent in 1995 to 58 per cent in 2014 (see table 1). Despite efforts by PNA to reduce expenditure and undertake serious fiscal reforms, the budget deficit has not improved in the last 20 years. Reliance on donor support continued to be heavy, as reflected by the high level of current transfers, which currently hover around 10 per cent of GDP.
Read more: http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/app2016d1_en.pdf
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 13, 2016, 06:26 AM - Edit history (1)
Why do you feel it's best for the economy to expel all Jews from the W.Bank? You're calling for the same ethnic cleansing that obliterated all Jewish life outside Israel in the Arab mideast 60-80 years ago. That hasn't worked out well economically for those Arab states. So what makes you think doing so now will help a future Palestine?
Igel
(36,087 posts)Jews had a more than 2000-year history of living in the West Bank until Jordan took it over.
It was Judenrein after that, because Jordan ethnically cleansed Jews. Even under the Ottomans, considered enlightened and tolerant, it was illegal for Jews to own land in Palestine. It's still illegal to sell land to Jews in the West Bank according to the law that the PA says is in force, so to say that the settlers must all leave is to restore the Judenrein quality imposed by the Jordanians.
That's not international law. It's the result of ethnic hatred and ethnic purging of the population. Now, the bit about taking private land and moving settlers there, that's international law, but only later international law, enforced only sporadically in a not unbiased way.
There's really no reason Jews would have to leave the settlements in any genuinely peaceful 2-state scenario where they would be protected, equal citizens of a future Palestine.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)settlers can stay.
It means that there will be no Palestinian state, but wasn't that the whole point of building settlements anyway?
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 13, 2016, 06:24 AM - Edit history (1)
....makes it impossible for a Palestinian state to exist.
As if taxpaying Jewish citizens of Palestine would be a bad thing.
What gives?
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Source: Haaretz
Donald Trump’s adviser on U.S.-Israeli relations told Haaretz Sunday that the Obama administration “should be ashamed of their misguided reaction” to remarks by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In a Facebook video published over the weekend, Netanyahu said that support for the removal of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, as part of a two-state peace deal with the Palestinian Authority, was the equivalent of advocating for the “ethnic cleansing” of Jews.
“Prime Minister Netanyahu makes exactly the right point. The Palestinians want Israel to absorb countless 'refugees' - people who never lived in Israel and whose ancestors were never forced to leave Israel - while their so-called 'state' is required to be, as the Nazis said, judenrein (devoid of Jews). It is an entirely racist and anti-Semitic position,” David Friedman, the Trump adviser, related in an email exchange. Contrary to Friedman's assertion, many of the 700,000 Palestinian refugees in the 1947-1949 War of Independence were forcibly expelled by the Israeli army.
“Arabs live and work side by side with Israelis in the State of Israel. They attend universities, enjoy the strongest human and civil rights (including women's rights) in the region, and have access to world class health care. There is no better place for Arabs to live in the Middle East than in the State of Israel. With this background in mind, the Prime Minister of Israel correctly observes that the Palestinian demand to remove all Jews from their ancestral homeland in Judea and Samaria is nothing short of an attempt at ethnic cleansing. The State Department should be ashamed of their misguided reaction to Mr. Netanyahu's remarks,” Friedman said.
“The United States frequently refers to the ‘two state solution’ as two states for two peoples. The Palestinian response - which the US State Department refuses to challenge - is ‘one state for two peoples (Israel) and a second state just for Palestinian Arabs.’ It is no wonder that the State Department under Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have lost credibility in the region.”
Read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.741515
Note: Haaretz Premium article - Google title for access.
Response to Eugene (Original post)
6chars This message was self-deleted by its author.
aranthus
(3,386 posts)My father was alive then, and he definitely remembers it.
shira
(30,109 posts)1 - To defend one assertion does not make one a Bibi supporter. My fierce criticisms of and opposition to Bibi, his performance and his behavior are a matter of public record.
2 - Before deciding that things make us uncomfortable, we need to evaluate whether they are accurate.
3 - The precondition that Jews - i.e., on ethnicity and one ethnicity only -- be removed (to the point of removing even their graves) from land taken by Palestinians before peace can be established is by definition a request to cleanse acquired land of one ethnicity. We are not talking of separating ethnicities as neatly as possible for stability but of removing every last person who is Jewish, dead or alive.
4 - The obvious: had Israel demanded that all 2 million Israeli Arabs to the last one be removed from Israel as a precondition to peace, the world would have, as a matter of common sense, called it ethnic cleansing. Moreover, half of Jewry at least, with me among the loudest, would have criticized Israel for such a racist request. When the Palestinians -- who it should be noted, are of the aggressing and defeated side re 67 -- make that demand, everyone pretends it is decent. Why is it decent to refuse categorically to have Jewish/Israeli citizens?
5 - The issue of the security of Jews who remain in what would become a Palestinian state is secondary to the principle of their right to remain, should they choose to. That said, the fact that they would not be secure further highlights the problem: intolerance. If Palestinians cannot stomach any Jewish citizens of their new state (as Abbas has declared), how likely is that state to actually be peaceful vis a vis Israel, or even stable internally (hatred and smooth civics do not coincide)? In any case, the Jews who live in settlements to be handed over should choose on their own whether to leave or stay. It should not be dictated by racial law. It is also far cheaper than systematic uprooting.
6 - The predictable choir of public and loud criticism by Jewish organizations cannot be defended. What is the point or morality of arguing that Jews should not even be given the choice to become Palestinian citizens? Of defending a request born entirely of intolerance and that creates a land problem where there would otherwise be none? ****If Palestinians were able to tolerate some Jews or Jewish villages in their midst, the border problems presented by settlements would go away.****
7 - It should be noted that those same critics who screech now that saying "ethnic cleansing" is incendiary and an obstacle to reconciliation are the exact same who "welcome" endless "conversation" about the equally if not more incendiary "occupation", "apartheid", and yes, "ethnic cleansing" (but in reverse).
8 - To say this is not in any way a defense of the one state solution at all. As stated above, accepting that land given to Palestinians must be free of jews is what creates a border problem where there was none. The lines would be far easier to set if settlements did not have to be dismantled to set them.
9 - Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon set the precedent for this by accepting Sadat's request that all Jews be removed from Sinai as a condition of peace with Egypt. They should arguably have pushed back on that point. The benefit was very big -- peace with Egypt is a blessing -- and there is a huge difference between Yamit in the Sinai and Shiloh in Samaria in terms of national history and attachments. Still, perhaps they could have obtained a concession that Jews should be allowed to stay if they choose. In any case, Israel has no legal claim to Sinai while it has a defensible claim to the WB.
shira
(30,109 posts)
Vogon_Glory
(9,572 posts)Despite my strong dislike for Benjamin Netanyahu, I'm not sure he's wrong. Considering the great lengths the world "peace community" go to to cover up the Palestinian's propaganda efforts that conflate anti-Judaism with anti-Zionism and so many Arab countries in the Levant and the Magreb that are now nearly Juden-frei, why the ##### should the rest of us believe that the Palestinians REALLY want to live side by side in PEACE with not only the descendants of Jewish refugees from Europe, but the descendants of Jews driven out of ARAB countries? I think a LOT of Palestinians still harbor happy thoughts about "driving the Jews into the sea."