1) Lineage-related citizenship rights given to other peoples are denied to the JewsWhere is this happening, exactly?
Modern day national citizenship is either based on geographical or hereditary accident of birth. In certain countries, like the USA and Canada, if you are born here, you are a citizen. It doesn't matter whether your family was here long before the pilgrims set foot or whether they were passing through on a ski vacation. In other countries, you can have three generations of people born there and still not attain citizenship through birth unless somewhere along the line there was a 'legitimate' national ... Israel may be far from perfect, but it is not out of line with other nations in this respect. It is worse than some and better than some, worse in some ways and better in other ways.The idea that it's just an "Accident of birth" to be born a Palestinian and thus treating them as a second class citizen is no different then the "accident of birth" of being born in Thailand means you are not a citizen of the US. Someone born in Thailand is a Thai citizen, whereas a Palestinian is a citizen of nowhere - with no rights over the government that actually runs their lives.
Izzat Al-Rashq, a member of the Hamas' political bureau, welcomed the decision but made demands reflecting Hamas' unwillingness to recognize the state of Israel.
"We need to put this in its normal context as a part of the National Strategic vision based upon the rights and national principles without compromising an ounce of soil from our Palestinian lands extending from the Ocean to the (Jordan) river," he posted to his Facebook page.
He called for the establishment of a Palestinian state "with Jerusalem being its capital" on land that includes what is Israel.
Israel has authorised the construction of 3,000 more housing units in occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank, according to Israeli officials.posted by MuffinMan at 8:10 AM on November 30, 2012 [1 favorite]
It is also speeding up the processing of 1,000 planning permissions.
Hamas still calling for the eradication of Israel:Since when is "unwillingness to recognize" the same as "calling for the eradication of"Izzat Al-Rashq, a member of the Hamas' political bureau, welcomed the decision but made demands reflecting Hamas' unwillingness to recognize the state of Israel.
They didn't have to. It should be obvious to even the most casual observer of the history of Hamas and the region that was what he meant.Yes, let's ignore what they actually say and just go by what we imagine they really mean. It's totally reasonable to kill people on the basis of what you imagine them doing or thinking, whether or not you have any evidence.
But the language used by Hamas and is in their charter isn't merely about land (re-)appropriation. It's been about struggling against and slaughtering Jews, and obliterating the state of Israel.From wikipedia:
Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal indicated to Robert Pastor, senior adviser to the Carter Center, that the Charter is "a piece of history and no longer relevant, but cannot be changed for internal reasons."[76] Hamas do not use the Charter on their website and prefer to use their election manifesto to put forth their agenda.[77][78] Pastor states that those who quote the charter rather than more recent Hamas statements may be using the Charter as an excuse to ignore Hamas.[76]The problem here is that people are ascribing motivations to Hamas, and then saying that because they have those motivations they are terrible people who can't be negotiated with.
British diplomat and former British ambassador to the UN Sir Jeremy Greenstock stated in early 2009 that the Hamas charter was "drawn up by a Hamas-linked imam some [twenty] years ago and has never been adopted since Hamas was elected as the Palestinian government in 2006".[79] Mohammed Nimer of American University comments on the Charter, "It's a tract meant to mobilize support and it should be amended... It projects anger, not vision."[80] Ahmed Yousef, an adviser to Ismail Haniyeh, has questioned the use of the charter by Israel and its supporters to brand Hamas as a fundamentalist, terrorist, racist, anti-Semitic organization and claims that they have taken parts of the charter out of context for propaganda purposes. He claims that they dwell on the charter and ignore that Hamas has changed its views with time.[81]
Hello delmoi. I had a conversation with you about a similar, related topic this past June. Back then, you ignored presented evidence, took my words out of context and used selective editing to twist my meaning.*shrug* I don't really remember it. If you linked then people could see the discussion and judge for themselves.
BBC News: Israeli settlement plans in a strategically sensitive area of occupied land near East Jerusalem would deal "an almost fatal blow" to peace hopes, UN head Ban Ki-moon has warned. [...]posted by MuffinMan at 11:56 PM on December 2, 2012
In a statement on Sunday, Mr Ban expressed "grave concern and disappointment" over the 3,000 newly authorised Israeli settlement units in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
But he was most adamant that any plans to build in the so-called E1 area - between Jerusalem and the West Bank settlement of Maaleh Adumim - should be rescinded. An Israeli official has described the proposals in the E1 zone as "preliminary zoning and planning work".
"It would represent an almost fatal blow to remaining chances of securing a two-state solution," Mr Ban said. [Emphasis mine]
The act of the displacement of the Picasso prefigures a number of problems relating to how the Picasso in Palestine project may or may not have succeeded in imagining a Palestinian community to come. Several of those problems had to do with the security of the work: the insurance, climatic conditions during transport, paper work, how to deal with the road blocks, and many other aspects that would normally not be considered a problem when a work of art goes to a foreign exhibition in a fully developed nation state. One could say that the displacement of the work showed the underlying conditions of both the nation state and the modern art world, and their complicity when invaluable pieces of art become object of global transportation.posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:14 PM on December 9, 2012
« Older Just in time for the holidays: ACME Product Catalo... | The vanishing Ninja.... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
They seem to have been drawing the boundaries based on Jewish-majority areas and Arab-majority areas. Presumably even three months after the partition of India and Pakistan it was apparent that it was probably a good idea to draw your boundaries in such a way that you don't get massive movements of people. However, it seems like having two countries with higgledy-piggledy borders that don't particularly like each other isn't the most practical. But... it was somehow supposed to be technically one country?
posted by hoyland at 6:34 AM on November 28, 2012