The Middle East Quartet are set to meet this Friday, June 26, in Trieste, Italy. The meeting comes at a critical time with hopes of re-starting peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. President Obama has repeatedly stated his position that the Jewish only settlements in both the West Bank and east Jerusalem are ‘illegitimate’ to the chagrin of Israeli officials use to a ‘nudge nudge wink wink’ policy where they do what they want concerning settlement activities while the U.S. looks the other way. This tacit behavior was the norm during past administrations. The U.S. position on the illegitimacy of settlements is in line with international law and international consensus which has long viewed settlements as illegal. Israeli authorities, including Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, have repeatedly stated their intentions to continue what they call ‘natural growth’ building.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton heads to Trieste soon and AIUSA has sent a letter to her and cc’d Special Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell urging her to stand firm in the U.S. position on a complete settlement freeze and also containing a few more pressing concerns that we hope Sec’y Clinton remembers in discussions with other members of the Quartet (the EU, the UN and Russia).
The letter to Clinton not only re-iterates the illegality of the Jewish-only settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, but outlines the effect that settlements have had and are having on the local Palestinians living there. Not only have settlements negatively impacted the Palestinians’ standard of living, housing, education, health and work, but are inherently discriminatory in nature. Settlements, land surrounding settlements and by-pass roads built for easy commutes to Israel are exclusively for Israelis. Not only is water accessed in the OPT being re-directed to settlers and Israel at a 4:1 ratio, security measures taken by Israel, including over 600 roadblocks, checkpoints and the wall/fence much of which is being built on Palestinian territory have long been detrimental to any peace negotiations.
AIUSA believes previous attempts at resolving the conflict failed in part because they did not address these key issues. And actions must include more than just dismantling recently established settlements, referred to as “unauthorized outposts”. Israel should never have transferred its civilian population into the OPT and given that successive Israeli governments have consistently encouraged Israeli civilians to move to the OPT, Israeli authorities should now provide compensation for settler evacuations and assist them to re-settle. A study conducted by Shalom Achshav (Peace Now) in 2003 found that the majority of Israelis living in settlements would re-locate if offered an adequate economic incentive.
The letter also addresses our continuing concerns about human rights violations in areas under Palestinian Authority control despite training provided under the leadership of Lt. General Keith Dayton, U.S. Security Coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Arbitrary detentions, disregard for due process and ill-treatment and torture of detainees in PA detention centers continue to be reported.
We asked that these issues be raised and that U.S. training of PA security forces results in a professional force that respects human rights while providing security.
UPDATE 6/26/09: Ha’aretz, an Israeli daily, published ‘Quartet to urge Israel: Freeze all settlement activity’. A European diplomat said that the Quartet would tell Israel Friday to put a freeze on all settlement activity, including “natural growth”.
Very correct — U.S. must be firm on settlement freeze.
But i never saw white settler imperialism ( my term ) freeze its hugely voracious maw ever, ever since Columbus.
That's its inner logic, & to ask it to do this or to ask it to ask another of its spawn to do this ……… makes me weary, & wonder.
Single state solution, for me.
There are many advocating one democratic, secular state or a confederation of some kind as a solution rather than the 'two state solution' being supported now by the Quartet so whole-heartedly (including Obama) because they believe a two-state solution is no longer possible with all the 'facts on the ground' that have been allowed to develop.
Amnesty International takes no position on this. We don't take political positions or 'sides', but advocate for human rights for all and the settlements, illegal under international law and recognized so for years by the international community, including the United States, have created a human rights nightmare in the West Bank and east Jerusalem where they've been allowed to flourish.
There needs to be more than simply a freeze on growth; they need to be removed. And although everyone recognizes this would be difficult, the study I mentioned in the blog shows that many settlers were enticed by economical incentives to move to the OPT and if offered a comparable package to move back inside the 1949 armistice lines would do so.
Please see a report done by AI in 2003 on settlements which states that any resolution on settlements must be based on international law: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE15/085/…
There are many advocating one democratic, secular state or a confederation of some kind as a solution rather than the 'two state solution' being supported now by the Quartet so whole-heartedly (including Obama) because they believe a two-state solution is no longer possible with all the 'facts on the ground' that have been allowed to develop.
Amnesty International takes no position on this. We don't take political positions or 'sides', but advocate for human rights for all and the settlements, illegal under international law and recognized so for years by the international community, including the United States, have created a human rights nightmare in the West Bank and east Jerusalem where they've been allowed to flourish.
There needs to be more than simply a freeze on growth; they need to be removed. And although everyone recognizes this would be difficult, the study I mentioned in the blog shows that many settlers were enticed by economical incentives to move to the OPT and if offered a comparable package to move back inside the 1949 armistice lines would do so.
Please see a report done by AI in 2003 on settlements which states that any resolution on settlements must be based on international law: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE15/085/…
There are many advocating one democratic, secular state or a confederation of some kind as a solution rather than the 'two state solution' being supported now by the Quartet so whole-heartedly (including Obama) because they believe a two-state solution is no longer possible with all the 'facts on the ground' that have been allowed to develop.
Amnesty International takes no position on this. We don't take political positions or 'sides', but advocate for human rights for all and the settlements, illegal under international law and recognized so for years by the international community, including the United States, have created a human rights nightmare in the West Bank and east Jerusalem where they've been allowed to flourish.
There needs to be more than simply a freeze on growth; they need to be removed. And although everyone recognizes this would be difficult, the study I mentioned in the blog shows that many settlers were enticed by economical incentives to move to the OPT and if offered a comparable package to move back inside the 1949 armistice lines would do so.
Please see a report done by AI in 2003 on settlements which states that any resolution on settlements must be based on international law: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE15/085/…
Very correct — U.S. must be firm on settlement freeze.
But i never saw white settler imperialism ( my term ) freeze its hugely voracious maw ever, ever since Columbus.
That’s its inner logic, & to ask it to do this or to ask it to ask another of its spawn to do this ……… makes me weary, & wonder.
Single state solution, for me.
There are many advocating one democratic, secular state or a confederation of some kind as a solution rather than the ‘two state solution’ being supported now by the Quartet so whole-heartedly (including Obama) because they believe a two-state solution is no longer possible with all the ‘facts on the ground’ that have been allowed to develop.
Amnesty International takes no position on this. We don’t take political positions or ‘sides’, but advocate for human rights for all and the settlements, illegal under international law and recognized so for years by the international community, including the United States, have created a human rights nightmare in the West Bank and east Jerusalem where they’ve been allowed to flourish.
There needs to be more than simply a freeze on growth; they need to be removed. And although everyone recognizes this would be difficult, the study I mentioned in the blog shows that many settlers were enticed by economical incentives to move to the OPT and if offered a comparable package to move back inside the 1949 armistice lines would do so.
Please see a report done by AI in 2003 on settlements which states that any resolution on settlements must be based on international law: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE15/085/2003
Amnesty's neutral silence on possible state solutions for Palestine are consistent with their specialised focus & mode, Edie. All of you have the understanding & support of concerned people everywhere for your invaluable efforts.
The settlers must go. Without doubt.
But not by request.
Jimmy Carter after visiting the settlements of Gush Etzion, June 14th, 2009
"This particular settlement area is one that I do not ever envison being abandoned or turned over to Palestinian territory."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5sJ4ppJ3uM
Jimmy Carter after visiting the settlements of Gush Etzion, June 14th, 2009
"This particular settlement area is one that I do not ever envison being abandoned or turned over to Palestinian territory."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5sJ4ppJ3uM
Jimmy Carter after visiting the settlements of Gush Etzion, June 14th, 2009
"This particular settlement area is one that I do not ever envison being abandoned or turned over to Palestinian territory."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5sJ4ppJ3uM
Amnesty’s neutral silence on possible state solutions for Palestine are consistent with their specialised focus & mode, Edie. All of you have the understanding & support of concerned people everywhere for your invaluable efforts.
The settlers must go. Without doubt.
But not by request.
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention clearly prohibits "mass forcible transfers" of protected persons from occupied territories. Later in the article, it states that "the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
American interpretations of this article maintained that it referred to forcible deportations that were practiced by the Nazis and not to Israeli settlement activity. During the first Bush administration, the US ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Morris Abram, explained that he had been on the US staff during the Nuremberg trials and was hence familiar with the "legislative intent" behind the Fourth Geneva Convention. He stated on February 1, 1990, that it applied to forcible transfers and not to the case of Israeli settlements.
President George W. Bush sent Prime minister Ariel Sharon a letter on April 14, 2004, acknowledging that, at the end of the day, Israel would obtain defensible borders as well as the large West Bank settlement blocs. The April 14, 2004, Bush letter to Sharon on defensible borders and settlement blocs, was subsequently ratified by large bipartisan majorities in both the US Senate (95-3) and the House of Representatives (407-9) on June 23-24, 2004.
Jimmy Carter after visiting the settlements of Gush Etzion, June 14th, 2009
“This particular settlement area is one that I do not ever envison being abandoned or turned over to Palestinian territory.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5sJ4ppJ3uM
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention clearly prohibits “mass forcible transfers” of protected persons from occupied territories. Later in the article, it states that “the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
American interpretations of this article maintained that it referred to forcible deportations that were practiced by the Nazis and not to Israeli settlement activity. During the first Bush administration, the US ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Morris Abram, explained that he had been on the US staff during the Nuremberg trials and was hence familiar with the “legislative intent” behind the Fourth Geneva Convention. He stated on February 1, 1990, that it applied to forcible transfers and not to the case of Israeli settlements.
President George W. Bush sent Prime minister Ariel Sharon a letter on April 14, 2004, acknowledging that, at the end of the day, Israel would obtain defensible borders as well as the large West Bank settlement blocs. The April 14, 2004, Bush letter to Sharon on defensible borders and settlement blocs, was subsequently ratified by large bipartisan majorities in both the US Senate (95-3) and the House of Representatives (407-9) on June 23-24, 2004.
Judo
All but Israel and Micronesia recognize the Jewish-only settlements in the occupied Palestinian Territories as illegal based on international law. Political considerations that came later do not change this fact.
We also cannot forget the Hague regulations which outline how an occupier may not manipulate the demography or physical aspects of an occupied territory unless it is for the welfare of the occupied. The settlements, both in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, certainly do not meet this criteria.
Judo
All but Israel and Micronesia recognize the Jewish-only settlements in the occupied Palestinian Territories as illegal based on international law. Political considerations that came later do not change this fact.
We also cannot forget the Hague regulations which outline how an occupier may not manipulate the demography or physical aspects of an occupied territory unless it is for the welfare of the occupied. The settlements, both in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, certainly do not meet this criteria.
Edith
Don't argue with me.
Go argue with Nobel Prize winner Jimmy Carter who visited the Jewish west bank settlement of Gush Etzion 2 weeks ago and clearly states in the video of the visit you can watch on the link I posted above that he has never foreseen Israel being forced to return that settlement to the Palestinians. Obviously you have a different vision of what peace in the middle east will eventually look like than Jimmy Carter has.
Only crazed extremists such as yourself, Edith, harbor insane violent dreams of violently ripping 500,000 Jewish people out of their homes, with all the mass human suffering that will result.
Normal human beings who care for the people both sides ( unlike you but like Jimmy Carter ) all know that some small 1948 border adjustments and some land swaps of a few q. kilometers will allow most Jewish settlements to remain in Israeli hands while allowing a demilitarized Palestinian state to be formed in the rest of the West Bank and Gaza (which is where any Palestinian refugees will return to) will be the shape of the final peace agreement.
This exact kind of deal has been repeatedly offered by Israel to the Palestinians, going back at least 15 years, the Palestinians have rejected it every time, with mass bloodshed as a result, and now Obama will force the Palestinians to finally accept it and get this stupid conflict over once and for all.
So Edith, continue if you want to spin your kooky fantasies of these imaginary mass violent evictions being visited on 500,000 Jews that you pray for daily while the rest of us actually work for Peace.
Edith
Don’t argue with me.
Go argue with Nobel Prize winner Jimmy Carter who visited the Jewish west bank settlement of Gush Etzion 2 weeks ago and clearly states in the video of the visit you can watch on the link I posted above that he has never foreseen Israel being forced to return that settlement to the Palestinians. Obviously you have a different vision of what peace in the middle east will eventually look like than Jimmy Carter has.
Only crazed extremists such as yourself, Edith, harbor insane violent dreams of violently ripping 500,000 Jewish people out of their homes, with all the mass human suffering that will result.
Normal human beings who care for the people both sides ( unlike you but like Jimmy Carter ) all know that some small 1948 border adjustments and some land swaps of a few q. kilometers will allow most Jewish settlements to remain in Israeli hands while allowing a demilitarized Palestinian state to be formed in the rest of the West Bank and Gaza (which is where any Palestinian refugees will return to) will be the shape of the final peace agreement.
This exact kind of deal has been repeatedly offered by Israel to the Palestinians, going back at least 15 years, the Palestinians have rejected it every time, with mass bloodshed as a result, and now Obama will force the Palestinians to finally accept it and get this stupid conflict over once and for all.
So Edith, continue if you want to spin your kooky fantasies of these imaginary mass violent evictions being visited on 500,000 Jews that you pray for daily while the rest of us actually work for Peace.
The West Bank and Gaza Ghetto are Occupied Territories according to international law and countless UN resoultions Israel has continuously ignored.Only "disputed" in The minds
of Israel and her supporters.
It is important to note that these illegal settlements are exclusively Jewish,and are connected by roads that are also exclusive.The IDF supports the whole ROTTEN system and is let loose on the Non Jewish captive Palistinian populace corralled in Israel designed Ghettos.The Aim is to make the lives of these Non Jews so insuferable as to drive them off their lands and bring in Jewish Israelis.
Now if you build an Apartheid society not too many would argue it's not wrong,but the Israeli model is Funded buy things like tax free Israel Bonds and other slippery financial intsruments with origins MOSTLY in these United States.
Furthermore,Israel receives over $10 million a day in US DOLLARS that we know of.Unique in the annals of US foriegn aid:US "CASH" is deposited in the Israeli treasury at the begining of each year,and the US tapayer pays the interest on that Borrowed money.Israel invests in turn that New money and collects interest.How sweet 'tis.
According to the Christian Science Monitor,the cost of Israel to the American TAXpayer has been over $1.3 TRILLION since 1973.
The West Bank and Gaza Ghetto are Occupied Territories according to international law and countless UN resoultions Israel has continuously ignored.Only “disputed” in The minds
of Israel and her supporters.
It is important to note that these illegal settlements are exclusively Jewish,and are connected by roads that are also exclusive.The IDF supports the whole ROTTEN system and is let loose on the Non Jewish captive Palistinian populace corralled in Israel designed Ghettos.The Aim is to make the lives of these Non Jews so insuferable as to drive them off their lands and bring in Jewish Israelis.
Now if you build an Apartheid society not too many would argue it’s not wrong,but the Israeli model is Funded buy things like tax free Israel Bonds and other slippery financial intsruments with origins MOSTLY in these United States.
Furthermore,Israel receives over $10 million a day in US DOLLARS that we know of.Unique in the annals of US foriegn aid:US “CASH” is deposited in the Israeli treasury at the begining of each year,and the US tapayer pays the interest on that Borrowed money.Israel invests in turn that New money and collects interest.How sweet ’tis.
According to the Christian Science Monitor,the cost of Israel to the American TAXpayer has been over $1.3 TRILLION since 1973.
Judo,
It is not for me (or Jimmy Carter) to decide the outcome of negotiations, but one must know the base on which to start negotiations and that is the law not pre-meditated creation of fact on the ground to manipulate the final outcome of negotiations.
Israeli settlements near the green line may very well end up staying under the jurisdiction of Israel, but according to the law these settlements should never had been built or Israelis allowed to continue moving there let alone encouraged to do so. Based on this fact, Israel is responsible to remove all illegal settlers.
You are right in that many won't go peacefully even with economic incentives, I just reference the Shalom Achshav study to show that it can be done and shouldn't be written off as impossible. The link again: http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=6…
The responsibility or blame for any difficulties in removing the settlers should not be put on those stating this fact, but on the different Israeli, American and European administrations that have allowed the settlements to continue. This is not an extremist view, it's one based on legal fact. Again, any resolution to the settlement issue should be based on international law:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/085…
Edith a"crazed extremist" !! Well well. Imagine how the Palestinian population, the People who are the People of the Land, is viewed, then.
Judo,
It is not for me (or Jimmy Carter) to decide the outcome of negotiations, but one must know the base on which to start negotiations and that is the law not pre-meditated creation of fact on the ground to manipulate the final outcome of negotiations.
Israeli settlements near the green line may very well end up staying under the jurisdiction of Israel, but according to the law these settlements should never had been built or Israelis allowed to continue moving there let alone encouraged to do so. Based on this fact, Israel is responsible to remove all illegal settlers.
You are right in that many won't go peacefully even with economic incentives, I just reference the Shalom Achshav study to show that it can be done and shouldn't be written off as impossible. The link again: http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=6…
The responsibility or blame for any difficulties in removing the settlers should not be put on those stating this fact, but on the different Israeli, American and European administrations that have allowed the settlements to continue. This is not an extremist view, it's one based on legal fact. Again, any resolution to the settlement issue should be based on international law:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/085…
Judo,
It is not for me (or Jimmy Carter) to decide the outcome of negotiations, but one must know the base on which to start negotiations and that is the law not pre-meditated creation of fact on the ground to manipulate the final outcome of negotiations.
Israeli settlements near the green line may very well end up staying under the jurisdiction of Israel, but according to the law these settlements should never had been built or Israelis allowed to continue moving there let alone encouraged to do so. Based on this fact, Israel is responsible to remove all illegal settlers.
You are right in that many won't go peacefully even with economic incentives, I just reference the Shalom Achshav study to show that it can be done and shouldn't be written off as impossible. The link again: http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=6…
The responsibility or blame for any difficulties in removing the settlers should not be put on those stating this fact, but on the different Israeli, American and European administrations that have allowed the settlements to continue. This is not an extremist view, it's one based on legal fact. Again, any resolution to the settlement issue should be based on international law:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/085…
Edith a”crazed extremist” !! Well well. Imagine how the Palestinian population, the People who are the People of the Land, is viewed, then.
Judo,
It is not for me (or Jimmy Carter) to decide the outcome of negotiations, but one must know the base on which to start negotiations and that is the law not pre-meditated creation of fact on the ground to manipulate the final outcome of negotiations.
Israeli settlements near the green line may very well end up staying under the jurisdiction of Israel, but according to the law these settlements should never had been built or Israelis allowed to continue moving there let alone encouraged to do so. Based on this fact, Israel is responsible to remove all illegal settlers.
You are right in that many won’t go peacefully even with economic incentives, I just reference the Shalom Achshav study to show that it can be done and shouldn’t be written off as impossible. The link again: http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=61&fld=188&docid=547
The responsibility or blame for any difficulties in removing the settlers should not be put on those stating this fact, but on the different Israeli, American and European administrations that have allowed the settlements to continue. This is not an extremist view, it’s one based on legal fact. Again, any resolution to the settlement issue should be based on international law:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/085/2003/en/823056fe-d695-11dd-ab95-a13b602c0642/mde150852003en.pdf
lol.
You complain that the Jewish villages in the west bank are (you claim) racist because they are exclusively Jewish, so your solution to this supposedly racist situation is to violently ethnically cleanse 500,000 Jews from their historic homeland and create in their place a 100% racially pure Palestinian state? If you don’t see any contradiction here, fixing one supposedly racist situation by creating an infinitely more racist situation, then you must be totally blind.
So Amnesty International is now calling for the rounding up and expelling a ½ a million Jews in order to create a 100% ethnically pure Arab state? What could possibly be racist about that?
After all, such well known pro-Israeli rabid Zionists like Jimmy Carter oppose such a move and instead jimmy Carter calls for the peaceful non-racist solution of minor border adjustments of a few kilometres back and forth and some small land swaps of perhaps 50 sq. kilometres of 1948 Israeli territory to the new Palestinian state so that the Palestinians receive land of exactly equal size from Israel in return for allowing the main settlement blocs to remain in Israeli hands.
Really, which solution do you really think an organization like Amnesty International, which claims to believe in human rights, should want to call for?
Should Amnesty be on the side of a peaceful solution based on compromise and negotiation like the one described above which avoids mass human rights violations and suffering involved in the creation of ½ million unwilling Jewish refuges while at the same time allowing the creation of an independent demilitarized Palestinian state that can accept as many Palestinian refugees as it wants,
Or
Should Amnesty International call for Edith’s loony tunes solution, which at best would involve the ethnic cleansing by force of ½ million Jews and the creation of a racist 100% racially pure Palestinian State? And at worst, Edith’s solution can easily be predicted to lead to mass violence, and bloodshed and wars worse than any yet seen.
What side should Amnesty be on? The side of peaceful compromise like Jimmy Carter calls for?
Or should Amnesty support the total refusal to compromise, extremism, ethnic cleansing, the creation of yet another racist ethnically pure Arab state, violence and war like Edith calls for?
lol.
You complain that the Jewish villages in the west bank are (you claim) racist because they are exclusively Jewish, so your solution to this supposedly racist situation is to violently ethnically cleanse 500,000 Jews from their historic homeland and create in their place a 100% racially pure Palestinian state? If you don’t see any contradiction here, fixing one supposedly racist situation by creating an infinitely more racist situation, then you must be totally blind.
So Amnesty International is now calling for the rounding up and expelling a ½ a million Jews in order to create a 100% ethnically pure Arab state? What could possibly be racist about that?
After all, such well known pro-Israeli rabid Zionists like Jimmy Carter oppose such a move and instead jimmy Carter calls for the peaceful non-racist solution of minor border adjustments of a few kilometres back and forth and some small land swaps of perhaps 50 sq. kilometres of 1948 Israeli territory to the new Palestinian state so that the Palestinians receive land of exactly equal size from Israel in return for allowing the main settlement blocs to remain in Israeli hands.
Really, which solution do you really think an organization like Amnesty International, which claims to believe in human rights, should want to call for?
Should Amnesty be on the side of a peaceful solution based on compromise and negotiation like the one described above which avoids mass human rights violations and suffering involved in the creation of ½ million unwilling Jewish refuges while at the same time allowing the creation of an independent demilitarized Palestinian state that can accept as many Palestinian refugees as it wants,
Or
Should Amnesty International call for Edith’s loony tunes solution, which at best would involve the ethnic cleansing by force of ½ million Jews and the creation of a racist 100% racially pure Palestinian State? And at worst, Edith’s solution can easily be predicted to lead to mass violence, and bloodshed and wars worse than any yet seen.
What side should Amnesty be on? The side of peaceful compromise like Jimmy Carter calls for?
Or should Amnesty support the total refusal to compromise, extremism, ethnic cleansing, the creation of yet another racist ethnically pure Arab state, violence and war like Edith calls for?
lol.
You complain that the Jewish villages in the west bank are (you claim) racist because they are exclusively Jewish, so your solution to this supposedly racist situation is to violently ethnically cleanse 500,000 Jews from their historic homeland and create in their place a 100% racially pure Palestinian state? If you don’t see any contradiction here, fixing one supposedly racist situation by creating an infinitely more racist situation, then you must be totally blind.
So Amnesty International is now calling for the rounding up and expelling a ½ a million Jews in order to create a 100% ethnically pure Arab state? What could possibly be racist about that?
After all, such well known pro-Israeli rabid Zionists like Jimmy Carter oppose such a move and instead jimmy Carter calls for the peaceful non-racist solution of minor border adjustments of a few kilometres back and forth and some small land swaps of perhaps 50 sq. kilometres of 1948 Israeli territory to the new Palestinian state so that the Palestinians receive land of exactly equal size from Israel in return for allowing the main settlement blocs to remain in Israeli hands.
Really, which solution do you really think an organization like Amnesty International, which claims to believe in human rights, should want to call for?
Should Amnesty be on the side of a peaceful solution based on compromise and negotiation like the one described above which avoids mass human rights violations and suffering involved in the creation of ½ million unwilling Jewish refuges while at the same time allowing the creation of an independent demilitarized Palestinian state that can accept as many Palestinian refugees as it wants,
Or
Should Amnesty International call for Edith’s loony tunes solution, which at best would involve the ethnic cleansing by force of ½ million Jews and the creation of a racist 100% racially pure Palestinian State? And at worst, Edith’s solution can easily be predicted to lead to mass violence, and bloodshed and wars worse than any yet seen.
What side should Amnesty be on? The side of peaceful compromise like Jimmy Carter calls for?
Or should Amnesty support the total refusal to compromise, extremism, ethnic cleansing, the creation of yet another racist ethnically pure Arab state, violence and war like Edith calls for?
lol.
You complain that the Jewish villages in the west bank are (you claim) racist because they are exclusively Jewish, so your solution to this supposedly racist situation is to violently ethnically cleanse 500,000 Jews from their historic homeland and create in their place a 100% racially pure Palestinian state? If you don’t see any contradiction here, fixing one supposedly racist situation by creating an infinitely more racist situation, then you must be totally blind.
So Amnesty International is now calling for the rounding up and expelling a ½ a million Jews in order to create a 100% ethnically pure Arab state? What could possibly be racist about that?
After all, such well known pro-Israeli rabid Zionists like Jimmy Carter oppose such a move and instead jimmy Carter calls for the peaceful non-racist solution of minor border adjustments of a few kilometres back and forth and some small land swaps of perhaps 50 sq. kilometres of 1948 Israeli territory to the new Palestinian state so that the Palestinians receive land of exactly equal size from Israel in return for allowing the main settlement blocs to remain in Israeli hands.
Really, which solution do you really think an organization like Amnesty International, which claims to believe in human rights, should want to call for?
Should Amnesty be on the side of a peaceful solution based on compromise and negotiation like the one described above which avoids mass human rights violations and suffering involved in the creation of ½ million unwilling Jewish refuges while at the same time allowing the creation of an independent demilitarized Palestinian state that can accept as many Palestinian refugees as it wants,
Or
Should Amnesty International call for Edith’s loony tunes solution, which at best would involve the ethnic cleansing by force of ½ million Jews and the creation of a racist 100% racially pure Palestinian State? And at worst, Edith’s solution can easily be predicted to lead to mass violence, and bloodshed and wars worse than any yet seen.
What side should Amnesty be on? The side of peaceful compromise like Jimmy Carter calls for?
Or should Amnesty support the total refusal to compromise, extremism, ethnic cleansing, the creation of yet another racist ethnically pure Arab state, violence and war like Edith calls for?
"HISTORIC homeland" — not by actually living there though history's centuries, but by virtue of "God's" "word".
Palestinian state — not a real one, of course, like all other states, but a toothless one, without control over its land & waters & air. Worse than an indian reservation. And right next to a nuclear israel. A demilitarised Palestine ? Why not also stipulate a discontinuous , fragmentary one ?
The conditions are first imposed by settler imperialism, & THEN the rules of civilised discussion & compromise invoked — while calling your opponent in the discussion any kind of disrespectful name you fancy.
Who in history ever succeeded in talking peace to a European setter invasion ?
The only treaty the native can ever make with the settler is the treaty made by a mortally wounded buffalo on its knees before the hunter.
“HISTORIC homeland” — not by actually living there though history’s centuries, but by virtue of “God’s” “word”.
Palestinian state — not a real one, of course, like all other states, but a toothless one, without control over its land & waters & air. Worse than an indian reservation. And right next to a nuclear israel. A demilitarised Palestine ? Why not also stipulate a discontinuous , fragmentary one ?
The conditions are first imposed by settler imperialism, & THEN the rules of civilised discussion & compromise invoked — while calling your opponent in the discussion any kind of disrespectful name you fancy.
Who in history ever succeeded in talking peace to a European setter invasion ?
The only treaty the native can ever make with the settler is the treaty made by a mortally wounded buffalo on its knees before the hunter.
The on-going crisis between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs will continue, settlements will continue to be built, cruelty will reign, rockets and bombs will explode and the hatred will grow.
Eventually Iran will gain the nuclear power and the ability to deliver.
Israel will attack, Iran will respond, and the survivors will be very sorry, as the land will be no longer be habitable.
The on-going crisis between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs will continue, settlements will continue to be built, cruelty will reign, rockets and bombs will explode and the hatred will grow.
Eventually Iran will gain the nuclear power and the ability to deliver.
Israel will attack, Iran will respond, and the survivors will be very sorry, as the land will be no longer be habitable.