Subject:
|
Re: Peruvian Indians [Re: Is the Palestinian Cause Dead? The Latest Terror Attacks]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Aug 2002 08:25:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
730 times
|
| |
|
|
>
> ??? When are they ready-- between terrorist attacks?
John,
"They" would say that their attacks are in response to Israeli oppression
and murder. Indeed, there is little doubt that the current Intifada started
with Sharon’s deliberately provocative trip to Haram al-Sharif. Further,
there is little doubt that the suicide bombings were started when Israel
showed itself unwilling to protect Palestinians from Israeli extremists.
>
> It is we who insist on maintaining our control over them; it is we who escalate
> the situation in the region and feed the cycle of bloodshed. I regret to say
> it, but the blame is entirely ours."
>
> I regret to say it, and I feel for his loss, but he's not in touch with
> reality. The blame is *NOT* entirely Israel's.
In response to the Peruvian Indians text, these letters were published in
the Guardian yesterday:
==+==
We are Jews, born and raised outside Israel, who, under Israel's "law of
return", have a legal right to Israeli residence and citizenship (Real
lives, G2, August 7). We wish to renounce this unsought "right" because:
1) We regard it as morally wrong that this legal entitlement should be
bestowed on us while the very people who should have most right to a genuine
"return", having been forced or terrorised into fleeing, are excluded.
2) Israel's policies towards the Palestinians are barbaric - we do not wish
to identify ourselves in any way with what Israel is doing.
3) We disagree with the notion that Zionist emigration to Israel is any kind
of "solution" for diaspora Jews, anti-Semitism or racism - no matter to what
extent Jews have been or are victims of racism, they have no right to make
anyone else victims.
4) We wish to express our solidarity with all those who are working for a
time when Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip can be lived in by people
without any restrictions based on so-called racial, cultural, or ethnic origins.
We look forward to the day when all the peoples of the area are enabled to
live in peace with each other on this basis of non-discrimination and mutual
respect. Perhaps some of us would even wish to live there, but only if the
rights of the Palestinians are respected. To those who consider Israel a
"safe haven" for Jews in the face of anti-Semitism, we say that there can be
no safety in taking on the role of occupier and oppressor. We hope that the
people of Israel and their leaders will come to realise this soon.
Michael RosenIan Saville
Prof Irene Bruegel
Michael Kustow
Mike Marqusee
Prof Steven Rose
Leon Rosselson
and 38 others
==+==
==+==
The comment by Ian Buruma (G2, July 23) that "inside Israel, there is no
apartheid" is pathetic in its inaccuracy. Israeli Arabs cannot get housing
and are segregated into specific areas by pass laws. But that's the detail.
The big picture is worse. This state is "a home for Jews". This week we read
that poor Peruvian natives are being "converted" to Judaism so they can
become the new shock troops of the West Bank settlements; and that Israeli
Arab citizens can be stripped of their citizenship. Support Israel all you
want, but it is a racist state.
==+==
Are these people wrong too?
>
> > Here is a guy who despite what must be tremendous personal loss and grief is
> > STILL seeking peace. Rather than look for fault on the other side, he is
> > introspecting and finding flaws with the Israeli side of the equation. His
> > solution is to seek the same path to peace his own departed son favored. In
> > trying to carry on with his son's political beliefs he seems to be honoring
> > his son in the best possible way and for the noblest of causes: peace.
> >
> > In all honesty, how can you find fault with this noble Israeli's views? If
> > everyone on both sides of the conflict were as self-sacrificing as this one
> > guy we'd have peace in the middle-east overnight.
>
> Oh, I admire his *willingness* for peace. But the reality is that Hamas would
> kill him and every other Israeli in a New York minute if they could. And they
> will continue to do so, or die trying. _They do not want peace_. Period. End
> of story.
Just like Israel, Hammas wants peace on its terms.
> *This* is the harsh reality that the world MUST, *but is unwilling*,
> to acknowledge.
>
> If only one side wants peace, then you really can't have peace, now can you?
> (unless, of course, the other side kills all of the peace-lovers).
Think back to just after Oslo and Oslo 2, was there not a real sense of hope
after that? But what wrecked that? Was it the Palestinians or right-wing
Israelis?
The truth is that Israel is only interesting in peace on its terms. When
Shamir ended his term as PM this is what he had to say:
"It pains me greatly that in the coming four years I will not be able to
expand the settlements in Judea and Samaria [West Bank] and to complete the
demographic revolution in the Land of Israel. I know that others will now
try to work against this. Without this demographic revolution, there is no
value to the talk about autonomy, because there is a danger that it will be
turned into a Palestinian state. What is this talk about 'political
settlements'? I would have carried on autonomy talks for ten years, and
meanwhile we would have reached half a million people in Judea and Samaria."
Perhaps the Peruvian Indians will help complete the “demographic revolution
in the Land of Israel”?
Scott A
>
> -John
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
44 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
