15-10-2002 06:55									#331
	Got spare money?

quote: This is why Israeli insistence on an immediate resolution of the refugee problem could put significant pressure on Arabs to finally acknowledge Israel's right to exist.

How would that work? How can Israel insist on other states taking care of the problem Israel caused, and why do you expect them to feel pressured by it?

Not even the US demands that the arab world should clean up Israels mess... Only that they should accept Israels right to exist, which they have all done by now.

	15-10-2002 06:58									#332
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

CyberGnu, The existence of the refugees in their camps awaiting a return to Israel without hope of permanent settlement anywhere else in the Arab world tells me that the Arabs have not accepted Israel's right to exist.

	15-10-2002 07:00									#333
	Inflate your Upload Space

BTW, Sharon today said "I believe there is a real chance that the coming year could be a turning point."

If I was a palestinian I would find this a good time to barricade my house...

When a war criminal known as 'the bulldozer' tells you that 'a turning point is coming', it can only mean one thing: The next step of Sharons Endlosung is near...

	15-10-2002 07:00									#334
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: CyberGnu, The existence of the refugees in their camps awaiting a return to Israel without hope of permanent settlement anywhere else in the Arab world tells me that the Arabs have not accepted Israel's right to exist.

And why is that?

	15-10-2002 07:03									#335
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu But this argument is fundamentally flawed... Israel could easily solve the RoR by partitioning off some of the land within the green mile. Obviously citizens of a different country would not affect the demographics of Israel. So, with that argument debunked, we are left with a very different conclusion. The continuing existence of the refugees in their camps is testament to the continuing greed of Israel.

I am not sure about "easily." I am very skeptical that there can be any mass return of the refugees to present day Israel or Palestine in any manner that would not result a human disaster for the refugees or result in a fundamental demographic change for Israel where the Jews would find themselves a minority within their own borders.

	15-10-2002 07:06									#336
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: I am not sure about "easily." I am very skeptical that there can be any mass return of the refugees to present day Israel or Palestine in any manner that would not result a human disaster for the refugees or result in a fundamental demographic change for Israel where the Jews would find themselves a minority within their own borders.

Ned, this doesn't feel like you.... You usually put more thought into your posts.

Look, by partitioning off a piece of Israel, the returning refugees would not be within Israels borders. It's very simple.

	15-10-2002 07:08									#337
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu And why is that?

As I said, the Arabs fully intend that GA resolution 194 be implemented. This means the refugees, 5.5 million strong according to their own estimates, return to Israel. When this occurs, Jews become a minority in Israel. It makes just as much sense then to fully integrate Israel into a greater Palestinian state with Arab domination. In essence Israel would cease to exist. The original Arab and Palestinian goal will have been achieved.

Of course, Jews would be free to leave, or better yet, flee.

	15-10-2002 07:10									#338
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu Ned, this doesn't feel like you.... You usually put more thought into your posts. Look, by partitioning off a piece of Israel, the returning refugees would not be within Israels borders. It's very simple.

What this sounds like is taking a further piece of Israel, giving it to the current Pals, an settling the refugees there.

But, is this possible?

	15-10-2002 07:51									#339
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: As I said, the Arabs fully intend that GA resolution 194 be implemented. This means the refugees, 5.5 million strong according to their own estimates, return to Israel. When this occurs, Jews become a minority in Israel. It makes just as much sense then to fully integrate Israel into a greater Palestinian state with Arab domination. In essence Israel would cease to exist. The original Arab and Palestinian goal will have been achieved. Of course, Jews would be free to leave, or better yet, flee.

Well, again, not if the refugees got a substantial piece of land to live in... Complete with infrastructure and everything, of course.

	15-10-2002 07:52									#340
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: What this sounds like is taking a further piece of Israel, giving it to the current Pals, an settling the refugees there. But, is this possible?

Depends on how greedy Israel is, doesn't it? AFAIK, there is no practical problems involved...

	15-10-2002 23:11									#341
	Inflate your Upload Space

I'm sorry CyberGnu, but this seems extremely far-fetched. The reason I say this is that that the whole of Palestine, including Israel, is now densely populated. I don't see how Israel could carve a small piece of land from within its current borders to give to 5.5 million refugees, whom, I presume, would become part of the new Palestinian state.

Simply from refugees point of view, they should either integrate into the state where they are now or move back to the West Bank. I know they desire to move back to their ancestral homes within the borders of Israel. But, until there is snow in Hell, I don't think that will ever happen. Nor should anyone encourage them to believe that this will happen, ever. To the extent that they continue to cling to this faint hope, they only prolong their misery by preventing integration into Arab society outside Palestine.

	16-10-2002 00:27									#342
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Not all of the refugees would return to Israel proper. Many refugees fled the occupation of the territories, and repatration would put them in a Palestinian state. Anyway, if there were danger of Israel losing its Jewish identity, many more Jews from around the world would "return."

Israel has no right to be a Jewish state any more than any other state has a right to limit itself by ethnicity. Very few such states exist, and are technically against international law.

As well, international law mandates the repatriation of refugees. Morally and legally Israel must allow the refugees and their familes to return home.

The bigger problem for Israel would be having to uproot all those Jews they moved onto Palestinian property and finding room and jobs for an influx of millions.

	16-10-2002 01:25									#343
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Not all of the refugees would return to Israel proper. Many refugees fled the occupation of the territories, and repatration would put them in a Palestinian state. Anyway, if there were danger of Israel losing its Jewish identity, many more Jews from around the world would "return." Israel has no right to be a Jewish state any more than any other state has a right to limit itself by ethnicity. Very few such states exist, and are technically against international law. As well, international law mandates the repatriation of refugees. Morally and legally Israel must allow the refugees and their familes to return home. The bigger problem for Israel would be having to uproot all those Jews they moved onto Palestinian property and finding room and jobs for an influx of millions.

Well, Che, I don't know that I agree with you on whether Israel has a right to be a Jewish state. Isn't this the flip of the right of self-determination of peoples?

I think the illegality ensues if they are guilty of apartheid. This entail a systematic subjugation of a racially different people for reason of race. Subjugaton and disccrimination based on religion is not apartheid. If it were, England, for example, would be guilty.

	16-10-2002 02:50									#344
	Full PM-box? Change here!

We could debate back and forth, but I would argue that self-determination doesn't give you the right to exclude native inhabitants (including refugees). Self-determination means a nation can't be kept in someone else's state against it's will. So the Jews have a right to self-determination, but they don't have a right to ethnically cleanse the place.

You might want to take a close look at the differences between the rights of Arab Israelis and the privelges of Jewish Israelis. Also consider how the Palestinians are treated in the occupied territories and then compare this to Apartheid. You will find them very similar. It's ethnic discrimination, because Christian Palestinians (8% of the Palestinian pop) are discriminated against also.

	16-10-2002 03:03									#345
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: I'm sorry CyberGnu, but this seems extremely far-fetched. The reason I say this is that that the whole of Palestine, including Israel, is now densely populated. I don't see how Israel could carve a small piece of land from within its current borders to give to 5.5 million refugees, whom, I presume, would become part of the new Palestinian state.

How? Well, it wouldn't be cheap, of course. But considering that the cost was already payed by the refugees, I don't see how that would be an argument.

Look, Ned, I don't think this will happen. But saying that it can't happen is just plain wrong. Israel can solve the RoR, but it isn't prepeared to do so.

This is an important point. If, as you argue, there really was no possibility for Israel to do anything about it, your argument would have some weight to it.

But as it is, Israel can but won't, which puts the blame squarely back on Israel.

quote: Nor should anyone encourage them to believe that this will happen, ever. To the extent that they continue to cling to this faint hope, they only prolong their misery by preventing integration into Arab society outside Palestine.

This is where you are on thin ice. You are essentially advocating that might gives right. "Israel stole their land, but Israel isn;t prepared to give it back, therefore no one should even hint at their right to get it back". While practically sound, it is still morally repugnant. You see?

	16-10-2002 04:02									#346
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara We could debate back and forth, but I would argue that self-determination doesn't give you the right to exclude native inhabitants (including refugees). Self-determination means a nation can't be kept in someone else's state against it's will. So the Jews have a right to self-determination, but they don't have a right to ethnically cleanse the place. You might want to take a close look at the differences between the rights of Arab Israelis and the privelges of Jewish Israelis. Also consider how the Palestinians are treated in the occupied territories and then compare this to Apartheid. You will find them very similar. It's ethnic discrimination, because Christian Palestinians (8% of the Palestinian pop) are discriminated against also.

The word "ethnic" is loaded, isn't it. The only thing that is "illegal" under international law is apartheid. But this is specifically limited to "racial" discrimination. Religious discrimination is not "illegal" under international law.

There are many examples today of institutionalized religious discrimination, from that of communist societies which discriminate against all religions, to Muslim theocracies, to the Church of England which historically has discriminated against Catholics. Indeed, the US may be the only country in the world that has officially and constitutionally outlawed religious discrimination.

What this all means is that religious or anti-religious states are legal under international law.

Now, if one goes the next step and begins to exterminate people of a specific religion, that is genocide under international law. Further, if one forceably transfers population, that is a crime against humanity.

Now, Israel may have been guilty of the latter in 1948-9. But today, it is not guilty of apartheid, in my view.

	16-10-2002 04:15									#347
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I think, CyberGnu, that refugees have a right of return under intenational law only when there is a peace treaty among beligerant parties. There is no general peace agreement between Israel and its Arab/Moslem enemies.

But let me examine here a countervailing priniciple. You and I agree that Israel has a right to exist. But what do we mean by this?

I think it means that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state.

But, this is exactly where we cross the line with the Arabs. They may say that Israel has a right to exist; but they also say that the refugees have a right of return. But we know that if this were to happen, it would destroy the Jewish state by making it non Jewish. The bottom line, therefor, is the Arabs still have not recognized Israel's right to exist. They have only recognized the right of the present residents of Israel to citizenship in an Arab-dominated state named Israel.

	16-10-2002 05:26									#348
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I think, CyberGnu, that refugees have a right of return under intenational law only when there is a peace treaty among beligerant parties. There is no general peace agreement between Israel and its Arab/Moslem enemies.

Actually, displacing a people from an occupied area is a war crime.... Displacing them from your own country is a crime against humanity. Just pick which one you'd prefer...

Whether a state of war exists between Israel and the rest of the ME doesn't matter.

quote: But let me examine here a countervailing priniciple. You and I agree that Israel has a right to exist. But what do we mean by this? I think it means that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state.

Practically, I agree with you.

quote: But, this is exactly where we cross the line with the Arabs. They may say that Israel has a right to exist; but they also say that the refugees have a right of return. But we know that if this were to happen, it would destroy the Jewish state by making it non Jewish.

No, we don't know this. I've showed you a dozen times in this thread that your argument is based on a flawed assumption. Israel could solve the RoR and preserve a jewish state. These are only mutually exclusive if you include 'while keeping all the land they have occupied throughout the years' as well.

	16-10-2002 06:02									#349
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

CyberGnu, Except for the fact that the PALS end up with more land under your formula, how is relocating a refugee into Palestinian Judea, Samaria or Gaza different from locating a refugee on Israeli land land adjacent to one of the these. The refugee really wants to be in Israel. He doe not want to be relocated to the West Bank or Gaza.

As to land, the Arabs have plenty of it, particularly if one considers that Trans Jordan is really just the East Bank of historic Palestine. Israel has very little land. It makes no sense for Israel to give up some of its land to in order to crowd 5.5 million refugees into a few square miles of now vacant wasteland. This would be the equivalent of crowding an NFL football team into a phone booth.

The Israeli proposal on RoR makes eminent sense. The Arab position, stiicking to the formula expressed in GA 194, is unacceptable in my view.

	16-10-2002 06:40									#350
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Except for the fact that the PALS end up with more land under your formula, how is relocating a refugee into Palestinian Judea, Samaria or Gaza different from locating a refugee on Israeli land land adjacent to one of the these.

Because there are people living in current palestine already. Would you chase them away to make room for the refugees?

Look. Israel drove the refugees away, and settled jews in the land instead. Why do you keep insisting that the palestinians or arabs should take in those refugees, and refusing to even consider the possibility of Israel actually hadning back the land it stole?

You;ve answered 'because there are Israelis already living there' a couple of times, but you keep ignoring the two counterarguments: Those Israelis have no right to live there in the first place, and if regardless of where the refugees go, there are people living there anyway.

The logical conclusion MUST be that if someone should leave to make room for the returning refugees, it should be the people who stole their land, not their neighbours!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote: The refugee really wants to be in Israel.

?

You really think the refugees want to live in Israel? They want their own land. If they can't have that, living in Israel is most likely better than living in the camps, but still.

quote: It makes no sense for Israel to give up some of its land to in order to crowd 5.5 million refugees into a few square miles of now vacant wasteland.

Eh, that is how they live right now... I'm talking about a lot more than a few square miles, of course. Something on the order of a third of current Israel, perhaps.

quote: The Israeli proposal on RoR makes eminent sense.

Which one is that? 'Learn to live with it'?

quote: The Arab position, stiicking to the formula expressed in GA 194, is unacceptable in my view

Only if accepting greed as valid reason not to give the land back is an acceptable arugment....

	16-10-2002 08:17									#351
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

A third of Israel? CyberGnu, whether your position is morally correct, legally correct or whatever, Israel will never agree to give up that much land to solve the RoR problem. The US won't back it either. I doubt if even the UN would ask this of Israel. It is a non starter.

	16-10-2002 08:35									#352
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I know it is a non starter. But it is a possibility, and concluding that Israel can't solve the RoR is thus false.

	16-10-2002 09:32									#353
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ned The word "ethnic" is loaded, isn't it. The only thing that is "illegal" under international law is apartheid. But this is specifically limited to "racial" discrimination. Religious discrimination is not "illegal" under international law.

Bah international law is stupid IMO. But at least you clearly used the word illegal.

quote: There are many examples today of institutionalized religious discrimination, from that of communist societies which discriminate against all religions, to Muslim theocracies, to the Church of England which historically has discriminated against Catholics. Indeed, the US may be the only country in the world that has officially and constitutionally outlawed religious discrimination. What this all means is that religious or anti-religious states are legal under international law.

True, religious discrimination is "legal". It would be unfair to impose religious tolerance on isrealis.

quote: Now, if one goes the next step and begins to exterminate people of a specific religion, that is genocide under international law. Further, if one forceably transfers population, that is a crime against humanity. Now, Israel may have been guilty of the latter in 1948-9. But today, it is not guilty of apartheid, in my view.

The damage has been done, whether Isrealis are 'guilty' of a crime or not. Even if it was integrated now, Arabs would complain that they would have hard time finding rent, etc due to Israeli presence there already... Either way it's not gonna be an easy solution and I for sure cannot see any ideal just solution being worked out.

	16-10-2002 20:37									#354
	Support Apolyton

Calc II, we seem to be on the same page on the refugees. The problem I have is the Arab insistance on GA 194 passed in 1949. When it was passed, the war was still ongoing or just winding down. The refugees had just been displaced and still had homes to go back to. I also assume that the UN assumed that the warring parties would enter into a peace treaty of some sort.

Well, the Arabs agreed only to stop fighting. They then entered into a cold war with Israel that flared up again in '67 and '73. That cold war continues even 'til today.

But the adherence to GA 194 also continues even though the ability to implemented it (easily) has long since vanished. At the same time, the refugees have been in those camps for 50+ years. Whole generations have been born who have never seen their ancient homeland. To say that these people as well have a right of return is a stretch.

But this issue also explains why Palestine cannot be solved with only Arafat at the table. This is not an issue between the Palestinians and the Israeli's only. The very absence of the other Arabs states from the table illustrates their unwillingness to help solve the refugee problem.