Frost over the World-Israel special: Salam Fayyad-9May08

[gossieuk]

I think Israel's offensive against terror is a self fulfilling prophecy. Israel cannot know peace and cannot enjoy a secure and deserved homeland for their people whilst the upper echelons insist on maintaining the occupation. What a gesture of goodwill it would be for Israel to start recognising the Palestinians right to life and freedom as humans. Israel is immensely powerful and is backed by the powerful. They have nothing to fear but the hatred they instil in the minds of their victims

[baselion]

Palestinian people resemple the Indian American story, albiet all the suffering and pain we had from Israeli army, as a Palestinian I believe we cann live together in Peace in one democratic state

[Bevan30000]

I agree a weak interview indeed. Anyone who believes that Israel stole the land off the Palestinians is misinformed. The Palestinians never owned the land in the first place, when the Israelis took over it was owned by the British, once more they were offered a state to call their own at the same time as Israel was but they rejected the plan because they were greedy, land hungry and hated any notion of Jews living in their neighbourhood. Just like the present.

[Tareq88]

And what business did the British have in splitting up Palestine on their behalf? Foreign military occupation from the past does not justify today's military occupation.

[Bevan30000]

I'm pretty sure it was the UN which voted for partition and as a matter of fact the British rightfully had fought and won the land from the Ottoman empire in the WWI. Take your opinions on morale justice elsewhere.

[Tareq88]

And guess what? Whatever was forcefully taken from the Palestinians, the Palestinians are going to take it back by force.

[Bevan30000]

The Palestinians never had anything taken from them, YOU HAVE TO OWN IT FIRST TO HAVE IT TAKEN FROM YOU.

[Tareq88]

Michael Bar-Zohar, Ben-Gurion's official biographer:

"The simple truth was that Palestine was not an empty land, and the Jews were only a small minority of its population. In the days of the empire building, the Western powers had dismissed natives as an inconsequential factor in determining whether or not to settle a territory with immigrants. Even after the world war, the concept of self-determination... was still reserved exclusively for the developed world." (Michael Bar-Zohar, p. 45-46)

[Bevan30000]

Nowhere does that statement say that the Palestinians weren't taken into consideration. They were given 2 states of their own to officialy govern as independent nations. The first Jordan and the second being Palestine which they rejected because the Arabs wanted it all for themselves.

[Tareq88]

The UN didn't have any Arab or Muslim voices, so the UN as far as I'm concerned, it's not their responsibility to manage the affairs of Muslim and Arab countries like they are children. I'm astonished by this sheer arrogance and audacity.

[Bevan30000]

Actually you might want to check your sources on that.

[KalAshtuk]

What are you talking about "rightfully fought and won the land"? They had no more right to occupy that territory than the Turks did, in both cases there still was an occupation of an indigenous people.

[Bevan30000]

Well my point is the British didn't invade the indidenous people. They invaded the Ottomon Empire and won the battle against them in WWI... so naturally the British have a strategic interest in the territory they just fought for and won. Anyway, the Jews deserve a state of their own. Denieing them this right is anti-semitsm and equating their right to the right of a minority Arab group, the Palestinians is pathetic.

[KalAshtuk]

But the Ottoman empire was occupying an area of land that was not theirs, so when the British took over that territory they had no more right to it than the Turks did. The argument that the Jews deserve a state should not be made on the basis that they will disposses the people already living there. Also at the time the Palestinian-Arab population was a majority and the Jewish population was a minority.

[Bevan30000]

The Ottoman Empire was not an occupation, Palestinian nationalism only came about in the 1900's. Yes some Palestinians lost their homes, similarly an equal number of Jews were kicked out of Arab states and had their assets expropriated, the difference is Israel took those Jews. The surrounding Arab States did nothing to help the Palestinians. The Jews have biblical and historical ties to the land, as do Muslims. The Land was fairly divided, Jordan, Palestine and Israel were created out of it.

[KalAshtuk]

No, the Ottoman empire was an occupation, it was not the most bloody but it still was a foreign government occupying another area of land that was not theirs.

The point about Palestinian nationality is a little irrevelevant as the arab population of Jews, Muslims and Christians had lived there far before 1900. Plus Jordan and Palestine were separated and created by the British a long time before Israel was created.

[Bevan30000]

No, check your history books. Perhaps Arab textbooks would say it occupied Palestine, but think to check if the Arabs ever revolted against it, the answer is no, because Palestinian nationalism originated after the fall of the empire. Thus no occupation.

Jordan was established in 1946 out of the mandate of Palestine, then in 1947 the remaining land was split into Palestine and Israel... Palestinians rejected this and this is why they have no state to this day.

[KalAshtuk]

Than we are going to disagree on this point because Jordan was separated from Palestine around 1920, not in 1947; the idea of Palestinaian nationalsim can be traced at least back to 1936 when the Palestinians revolted against the British and were brutally put down, resulting in the leaders of this uprising to be exiled and most went to Jordan.

[KalAshtuk]

My other point is that that the arab population living in the area called Palestine had lived there far before the British came along and said "we will call this area Palestine". When the Turks came along and conquered part of the middle-east, they were occupying this area which was not their land and that did not have an identity as Palestine but still had people living there. To me this is defined as occupation and there is no need for there to be some sort of nationalsim for this to be so.

[Bevan30000]

It may have been seprated ideologicaly, but it wasnt until 1946 that it became an independent state.

What youre suggesting is that any racial group with any kind of ties to a land is therefore under occupation if the group doesnt have independence. This is stupid. Especialy considering the many different Arab/Muslim sects, then almost every Arab state is an occupier, as with Australia, US and just about every African country.

[KalAshtuk]

No it wasn't separated "ideologically" it was a separate state in 1920 from Palestine.

What I am suggesting is that any racial group who has a tie to the land is under occupation when it is ruled by a foreign group who has no tie to the land, especially if this rule is enforced by force and violence. You may consider this stupid, but this is a valid definition of "occupation".

And yes there is an argument that at some point Australia and the US were occupiers.

[Bevan30000]

Turkish society is Muslim/Christian, you believe neither sects have ties to Jerusalem...?

I think something that you might agree on is that if you fast forward to the present. Consider the time, suffering and the armed struggle which has become so much a part of the Palestinian identity, for 41 years under Israeli occupation, they are worthy of statehood.

[KalAshtuk]

But the Ottoman was occupying another indigenous population, so the when the British kicked them out the British ended occupying this indigenous people. Also the Jews were never a majority they were always a minority, not a majority. And finally if the only reason for Israel's creation is that the Jews deserve a state, then that state should have been created in Europe and not the middle-east.

[Bevan30000]

They're a majority today and 2000 years ago. Why are you so concerned about a tiny strip of land, the Muslims have the entire middle east, northern Africa and south east Asia. You can't denie the Jews historical and biblical link to the land, which is far more significant than the Muslim link.

Why should it have been created in Europe, the Jews live all over the world, but the one place they have a historical, spiritual and biblical core is Israel.

[KalAshtuk]

Because I don't care who lives in Africa or Asia, if that tiny strip of land had been empty then there is no problem but when you force people to move and make their lives miserable then there is.

I don't care about the religion what I see is human beings, and I don't put one religion over the other. Israel should have been created in Europe because it is the Europeans who are responsible for the holocaust.

Your answer also shows you apply different standards to both sides.

[Bevan30000]

The Muslims have the entire middle east as well, don't forget it. There are plenty places Palestinians can go. You can't claim religion is irrelevent. The Palestinian nationalist dream is religious. The Palestinians had an opportunity to have land but they rejected in in '47 based on religion, they wanted the Jews out.

About the Holocaust, it was an accelerent, not a reason that Israel was established, get it right.

How are my standards different?

[KalAshtuk]

No the plaestinian idea of land isn't based on religion. The rejection of the partition plan wasn't based on wanting the jews out, there had been palestinian jews before as well as massive jewish immagration as well. The rejection of the plan was simple: who wants to lose half of their country to immigrants.

Your point about the Palestinian having places to go is crazy, their families had been on that land for generations and they had links with to it. What were the reasons for Israel creation?

[Bevan30000]

Palestinians view the conflict as religious (e.g Jihad). The Palestinians had a whole country to gain, call their own, govern the way they wish.

Most Zionists were immigrants, so were most Palestinians who were of Egyption etc background, you can't seperate the two.

How is it crazy? The middle east is wealthy with oil OPEC etc, surely an Arab government, would help them establish themselves.

What about the Jewish villages in Hebron, Judea/Samaria who lost everything to the Jordanians?

[Bevan30000]

Israel was created because of anti-semitsm and a longing for a home in Israel, in short. The Peel Plan was presented in 1937, before the holocaust. Similar to the partition plan of 1947, only it included about 1/3 of Israel today. The Arabs rejected it.

[KalAshtuk]

Of course they rejected it, again nobody wants to lose their home to immigrants.

Most of the anti-semitism was from Europe and thus the solution should have come from there.

Palestine had accepted the biggest numbers of Jewish refugees and immigration.

The argument that Israel should be created in Palestine is only based on religion. To accept that argument is to put ones religious believes over those of others, so the argument cannot be used.

[petersz98]

Actually the Zionists rejected the Peel Plan on the grounds that the Jewish state would have been too "small". Get your facts right. Britain eventually rejected it as well as it would have meant loading people on to trucks and pushing them over an arbitary drawn line on a map because they were on the wrong side of it.

[Bevan30000]

Peter, Do you have nothing better to do than read Youtube comments from months ago.

Finally, don't make claims like that with out referencing them because otherwise nobody will pay the slightest attention to you.

[KalAshtuk]

No they view the conflict as nationalist and humanitarian.

The Palestinians were not immigrants, they had been on that land for generations, so you can separate the two.

It is crazy because once the British and the French drew up the countries of the Middle-East, then the argument that "They're all arabs so the're all the same" is pretty racist. The Palestinians are not another Arab countries responsabilities, just Israel's

[Bevan30000]

So you're going back now on what you said, that Israel was created because of the holocaust. Suddenly cracks are starting to show in you knowledge. This is because you've been brainwashed and told lies.

Fact is the Jewish connection to Israel is not just religious, its historical, spiritual and tangable, Jews have lived in Israel longer than any Palestinian.

[Bevan30000]

The Palestinians belived they could drive the Jews into the sea in 48,67,73. This was done with military and diplomatic backing from the Arab states, thus the Arabs States are responsable.

About the Jewish immigrants, which you keep mentioning. The majority were immigrants, which built infrastructure, schools, agriculture etc, these immigrants infused the land with capital, creating jobs in difficult economic times. Arabs from all around the middle east immigrated to Palestine to cash in.

[KalAshtuk]

No I'm not going back on what I said. What has happened is that your arguments are so weak that I am arguing your case for you. There is an argument for the creation of a jewish homeland, which is the persecution faced by the Jews, but there is no real argument for its creation in Palestine. The only place where it would have been just for Israel to be created is Europe since this is where the worst and most of this persecution occured.

[KalAshtuk]

But you can't say "the muslims" as though they all fit neatly in on box. No religion works that way. What I see is one people being kicked out of a land they have lived in for generations by another. The religious link to the land is not important because it is subjective and requires dicrimination against any other belief. The historical link seems controversial because it seems more logical that Palestine has a link with ancient Israel as much as the immigration that created modern Israel.

[jonomcfato]

This land was promised for the jewish people many years back and the romans, a long time ago invaded cannan (israel) and took the land naming it palestine, so that no jewish people could latter claim the lost land.

[montezoma]

And jews took the land from canaanites.

All this biblical mythology doesn't qualify as an argument to who own the land.

[mowgly3000]

@montezoma jews were the canaanites

[ultbeatlesfan]

What a weak interview! Lots of questions about Israeli obligation and Israeli failures to meet them, but not ONE about the Palestinian commitment to wiping Israel off the map. Pathetic.

[ambientdiscord]

since when has there been a "Palestinian commitment to wiping Israel off the map" you arent even misquoting the correct country. that is the quote that is continually (and incorrectly) attributed to the president of Iran, Ahmidinejad.

[IWantDemocracyNow]

umm, hello? if someone stole your land, and were keeping it from you by using all the guns and bombs it could, wouldn't you feel the need to take your land back? If the chinese invaded America, would you be asking "what about the American commitment to wiping China off the map?" i bet you wouldn't

[jasaahae]

The vast majority of Israeli land does not oficially belong to Jews, so I don't understand your statement?

Even the Prime Minister's house and the Knesset sit on land still owned by Palestinian families.

Israel is a racist apartheid state that must be stopped at all costs!

Did you know that Israel has more UN resolutions and World Court judgements passed against it compared to all other countries on Earth? Its amazing that they get away with so much murder and theft!

Free Palestine!!

[BIGMEL1981]

Israel has a right to be called a country but do not steal the land thats not yours!

[Bevan30000]

It was rightfully annexed after your Jordanian and Egpytion brothers tried to drive Israel into the sea. Instead the Israelis pushed you back further into your territory and humilaited the Arab world, once again.

[Tareq88]

The Arabs were 100% right in rejecting the partition plan. It's like someone breaking into your house and drawing a line of what belongs to you and what's no longer yours.

Actually, Israel has suffered humiliating defeats following 1967. It has been shrinking and is only 1/3 of what it was since 1967. Our territory is ALL of Palestine from the Mediterranean to the Dead Sea.

Not even in the wettest of their dreams will the Zionists live to see Greater Israel.

[Bevan30000]

If you believe that you'll believe anything

[Tareq88]

What I believe is human rights should be universal, not bargaining chips.

[Bevan30000]

I actually cannot believe someone who advocates the Arab world is lecturing Zionists on human rights! I think half the world's population (women), homosexuals and non-Muslims would have a little something to say about the human rights records in the Arab States. UNBELIEVABLE! Don't worry the next PM of Israel is a woman so you'll have to swallow your Muslim pride even more.

[Tareq88]

1.) Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Turkey, had female presidents and Prime Ministers.

2.) Arab states may not have good human rights records, but at least they don't send armies and invade defenseless nations and mass murder over 1 million civilians like the US, UK, Australia, Denmark, Poland, etc.

3.) The Arab countries are under secular, socialist regimes and suppress the Islamic opposition groups.

4.) Israel violated more UN reslotions than any other nation on earth.

[Tareq88]

Is it any wonder Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu are critics of Israel and friends of the Palestinian people?

[Bevan30000]

None of those countries are part of the Arab World, look it up. And btw even I am a critic of Israel, a valuable part of deomcracy is free speech. Perhaps if people in the Arab world were allowed to voice their opinions your countries would be in better shape.

[Tareq88]

Democracy this, democracy that. Hitler was democratically elected... what's your point?

Yes, and the Arabs have witnessed this fine democracy in Gaza. They elect someone who isn't a puppet slave of Washington, the result is political blackmail and collective punishment on every citizen.

Nice to see the US using violence to promote in the Middle East something they couldn't even accomplish back home through a ballot box lol

[Tareq88]

I love how self-righteous hypocrites try lecturing me like I'm a child about what free speech is.

The governments in the Arab world aren't stupid enough to make a heroes out of dissidents. People in the Arab world DO voice their opinions. You just can't agree with their opinions, such as mine, because what the Arabs are having to deal with is 21st century fascism, hypocrisy, and self-righteousness.

I recall a journalist had his career ruined for doing a serious on Bush's military history.

[Tareq88]

doing a series*

[Bevan30000]

I'm afraid you don't understand the entire meaning of democracy. Elections are just a facet of what democracy is about. Continue your research.

[Tareq88]

Yet another unfounded assumption you make about me because of your diseased racism, which would make you an anti-semite.

[Bevan30000]

My assumption is founded on your rhetoric.

[Tareq88]

My rhetoric is you don't believe in human rights of Palestinians. By the way, we have a saying in the Middle East: "If you live in a glass house, don't throw rocks at people."

I could bring up the shameful history of Australia and your chain-dragging ancestors.

[Tareq88]

An Islamophobic anti-semite who believes in social darwinism when it comes to the British occupation of Palestine, is now trying to lecture me on democracy. Rich.

[Bevan30000]

The IDIOM is ''people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones''. Your points of view are baseless, inconsistent and vitriolic. I'm finished having dialogue with you as you are an IDIOT.

[Tareq88]

Stones and rocks aren't different creatures, so it's still the EXACT MEANING lol. The fact you recognized which idiom I was refering to reveals your identity as an uneducated larrikin who openly supports a Nazi ideology. I see you've run out of material, so yes I would advise you to shut up, kafir.