This is a very difficult dilemma. Do you support corrupt, unpopular, oppressive dictators? Or do you find yourself with fundamentalists who are democratically elected? The trick must be to create a third option for the Arab world in general and for the Palestinians specifically.
Ari Shavit on Open Source
[Booked for Wednesday February 22]
Click to Listen to the Show (24 MB MP3)
Peering over the separation barrier in Beit Jala. [Tal Bright / Flickr]
Can Israel — must Israel — find a modus vivendi with the democratically elected leadership of Palestine? To wit: Hamas?
Will a watching world — and the democracy-builders in the Bush administration — let Israel ignore, or undo, the popular votes that gave Hamas a clear majority in the Palestinian parliament?
Should the seating of a new Palestinian government be conditional on Israel’s blessing, or on Hamas’ enunciation of a new identity?
The New York Times’ ace in Jerusalem, Steve Erlanger, broke the news on Valentine’s Day that the US and Israel are already talking about ways to “destabilize” the Hamas regime, even before it is named:
The intention is to starve the Palestinian Authority of money and international connections to the point where, some months from now, its president, Mahmoud Abbas, is compelled to call a new election. The hope is that Palestinians will be so unhappy with life under Hamas that they will return to office a reformed and chastened Fatah movement.
Steven Erlanger, The New York Times, February 14, 2006
What sounded like pro-forma denials discounted Erlanger’s scoop. But then over the weekend came details of the starvation diet being planned. The Israeli Cabinet decided to withhold $50-million worth of tax revenues for the Palestinian Authority, with more sanctions to follow if Hamas does not recognize Israel, disavow violence and enlist in past agreements between Palestinian and Israeli authorities.
We want to open a conversation on Wednesday on the threat, if that’s what it is, from a government that Palestinians elected in a spirit of anti-corruption reform, if not of “moderation.”
We’re interested in all the ways that the end of the Sharon era in Israel and of the Arafat/Fatah era among the Palestinians connect historically, thematically, perhaps causally with eachother. And of course we want to know what people observe to be the outstanding hazards and other more promising possibilities that may now be at hand.
Our guests will be Steve Erlanger of The Times and Ari Shavit, the political essayist of Haaretz, the center-left daily paper (and website) in Jerusalem.
Ari Shavit’s profile of Ariel Sharon in the New Yorker last month, drawing on years of recorded conversations between the two wary but respectful men, struck me as a breakthrough in grasping Sharon and a great leap forward in profile style. Have a look at Shavit’s conversation with Amy Davidson of The New Yorker about The Samurai of Zionism.
Note also Ari Shavit’s comment to columnist Tom Friedman in the New York Times last week:
“Ideologically, Israelis have never been more dovish,” said Ari Shavit, an essayist for the Haaretz newspaper. “But that dovishness is based on the condition that there is a partner we can trust. If so, people are ready to give back everything. The overwhelming majority is now for a two-state solution. But we have become sensible at the very moment that Palestinians have lost their senses.”
Then please lay down your own lines here for an evolving relationship between Palestinians and Israelis.
Ari Shavit
-
Political essayist, Clearly Speaking, Haaretz
The Samurai of Zionism, Amy Davidson’s interview with Shavit on the fate of Ariel Sharon in The New Yorker
David Remnick
-
Editor, The New Yorker
The Democracy Game, Amy Davidson’s interview with Remnick on his week with Hamas in The New Yorker
Some consideration in the show — or here at least — should perhaps be given to the Holocaust-denial version of anti-Semitism highlighted by the conviction in Austria of David Irving.
On second thought, this topic probably deserves an hour of its own, hmmm?
Your last show on Hamas showed me that in electing Hamas Palestinians were voting against corruption, tactically and effectively using the ballot as a tool to generate change. It was not (primarily) an ideological statement.
What I want to ask is whether the major players in the U.S. and Israel agree with/recognize this statement in the same way?
If Sharon was a Samurai, he was not like one of Kurosawa’s seven, who in a sense better represent Hamas since they are trying to violently defend their homeland against a bandit occupying force that keeps stealing their lands. But like in the film, we find that the fighting just begets more fighting as to be a samurai is to accept death as the highest goal. If the fighting ends, this too in a way is also the death of the fighter. Sharon may have tried to resurrect himself as a peacemaker, at least in image if not in deed. I wonder if Hamas can transform themselves from warriors into nation-builders. To do this, it seems to me, the Israeli regime and its allies will have to stop threatening them with a starvation diet and give them the resources to fulfill the wishes of a public long tired of corruption, oppression and violence. Isn’t this a time, post Sharon and Arafat, for the Samurai on both sides to lower their swords a little and slowly build trust?
One of my biggest areas of concerns when it comes to Israel and Palestine is economics; in Israel you have a country that already doesn’t produce much of anything.. but what about the forthcoming Palestinian state, what economic source will act as the driving force, that will provide jobs and a sense of pride.. or at least hope for people who want to work and build a country. Or are these simply going to be two charity cases — two nations propped up by outsider doners and creditors?
Israel is one of the world’s preeminent engineering shops. To say it doesn’t produce much of anything is just incorrect.
If the US cut off all financial aid to Israel, Israel would survive. With its aid, the US buys some influence over Israel’s actions. You could argue about the value of that, but I don’t consider it charity.
The tragedy of Sharon is that his settlement policies have cost Israel the moral high ground. Prior to the 1980′s, Israel had just claim in the West to being the good guy. Martin Luther King in 1968 proclaimed: “peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality.â€? This was not a unique voice. Recall that in the 50′s and 60′s France was pro-Israeli, even contributing to Israel’s nuclear technology. Prior to the 80′s, Israel was seen as a place defending itself from repeated Arab attack, rescuing Soviet Jews, making the desert bloom, etc.
Sharon’s settlement policy changed all that. The West, excluding the US, has largely turned against Israel. And Israel won’t regain the high ground until it relinquishes all (or very nearly all) of the West Bank.
None of this of course excuses Hamas and the other terrorists.
Israel should withdraw to its ’67 borders, build its defensive wall on it’s pre-67 land, and let the world see how Hamas responds. Israel needs to regain the moral high ground, to remove the settlements and let the world see it for its once and future true self.
At the risk of alienating myself here, I’m not sure that transforming desert land into an oasis is a good thing. I hear this statement of praise for the current state of Israel often. Ecologically speaking, it only feeds into the environmental damaged we have done to the earth. I understand the political reasons that people want to support an Israeli state, i just wish we would stop claiming that it is ‘marvelous’ example.
When the second attempt at a biodome failed, the scientists learned that the single thing they could not duplicate and had underestimated the value of was the soil ecology of the planet. When you change that very complex and delicate aspect of the earth, you devastate the balance of nature.
From the ecological perspective, I might argue that Israel has proven that it is a destructive force. I say this without judgement, as we have proven to be a detructive force, as well. I simply wouldn’t hold that out as some example of Israel’s higher moral ground. And I would like to see us begin to include our impact on the planet as part of the assessment of the morality and wisdom of a nation.
Oh come on. I’ve heard Israel blamed for pretty much everything, but now for being a destructive environmental force? Israel is tiny; compare its enviromental effects to those of the US, Russia, China, etc. Israel irrigated the desert to grow food, not to build a wasteful Las Vegas.
If you take the position that changing the land by irrigating it and planting trees is a destructive enviromental act, then what exactly are humans allowed to do on the land?
Israel has managed to develop using far less water than we have, e.g. I’d say that their ecological stewardship and accomplishments are positive, not negative. Is there any research to the concern you express, allison, or is it just a revealing gut reaction?
Much of anything is a relative term. I was thinking mostly of the fact that without US loans for both economic and military assistance, Israel would have deficits that would be crippling.
Regardless, my question still stands for Palestine.. with what economic potential is it supposed to stand on its own two feet?
Look at a map of the world, and see what the borders look like. Every single country with stable borders ( that have lasted say 50 years or more ) shares several 2 common features:
1. borders must be mostly convex. The only exceptions are where natural boundaries are not convex ( e.g. a river, a mountain range a shorline.), and even here there are limits.
2. All nations must be bordered by more than one other nation.
3. All nations are contiguous.
For 2 and 3, bodies of water do not count as barriers. Eg. what matters is that you don’t have to travel through another state to get to a remote part of your own state.
You will find that these rules of borders are constant throughout history. And no matter what the rationale for making crazy borders, historically stable borders always share those three properties.
The so called “two state” solution in Israel will never work. The borders of the two proposed states would never be stable. The suggested Palestinian state would be cut into two chunks. It would not share a border with any other nation. Indeed even the tiny bit of border with Egypt in Gaza would remain patrolled by Israel. And the proposed Palestinian state would need to have tortuous borders in order to include the major Jewish settlements.
Israeli policy of land confiscation, resettlement and home demolition makes a two state solution increasingly unlikely. In order to make it work Israel would have to
either give the palestinans the Negev desert and allow them to have borders that extend out to Syria, Jordan and Egypt. This is impossible given that many of Israel’s most important military assets are in the Negev, like Dimona. Or Israel would have to create a Palestinian state that includes just the West Bank, and allow it to extend out to Jordan and Syria. They would have to annex Gaza.
Right now they are trying to do something which is nearly impossible to maintain, and requires huge expenditure. They want to have their current borders, while keeping the Palestinian population confined to a ghetto semi-state, where the people neither have their own state, nor can they claim the rights of Israeli citizenship. I think their hope is that Palestinians will give up and emigrate. Or run out of land to grow.
The Israeli strategy is exactly the same as the South African strategy, of creating a ‘bantustan’ client state which they control – for the same reason – so they can maintain their own version of Israeli ‘Apartheid’
And while I don’t shed a tear for Hamas terrorists, one must remember the IDF kills more civilians – and many more children – than Hamas ever did. Their perennial excuse that all these murders are accidental or unavoidable grows thin with repitition. Indeed in the few weeks since Hamas was elected Israeli snipers have already killed several children.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1697825,00.html
An important point for people claiming that Israel kills many more Arabs or kids or whatever than does the other side: This is ONLY because Israel is pretty good at defense. If Hamas and the others could, they would kill ALL of the Israelis. Israel is of course capable of killing all the Palestinians at any time, but they choose not to.
This distinction is crucial. It goes to the fundamental equation of morals and ethics here.
If you were Israel, and you believed that if you let your guard down you would be murdered, what would you do? And still, the majority of Israelis are in favor of returning substantially all of the occupied territories (as I have suggested as well).
I agree with you. If Hamas terrorists could get their hands on a military helicopter, they would fly to an apartment building and fire missles into it. Of course Israel, does have the helicopters, and has done this.
Israel does have the military might to kill even more Palestinian civilians than it does actually kill, so clearly they are showing some restraint. Then again so are the Hamas terrorists – who have obeserved a cease fire for about a year now.
To me the acts of both sides are exactly morally equivalent. I don’t see the Hamas bombing of a mall or restaurant as any more or less deplorable than the IDF snipering of 9 year old girls. I find all arguments weighing the relative morality of these kinds of acts disgusting. Those who engage in them are monsters deserving of contempt by all civilized people no matter what political justifications they make.
I feel sorry for the every day Israeli or Palestinian civilian who is just trying raise their children in peace and has to live under the daily threat of extremist violence.
I wish there was an edit feature.
I meant to say above that those who commit violence against civilians are monsters. Not people who make political arguments.
Off topic: do other blog sites offer edit features?
Well, I might normally be sympathetic allison’s ecological argument, but in this case I think we are talking about restoring the original eco-system, rather than interfering with it.
When the Israelites moved to Canaan it was described as “a “land of milk and honey.” The current condition ofthe land results from unwise human practices. The area suffers from human-induced desertification.
Modern Israelites are trying to do in the Middle East what I hope we Americans will do in the prairies: restore them to their original, long-term sustainable, healthy condition.
If they are successful in doing this, they will create a knowledge-based economy and an exportable technology that will benefit themselves, their neighbors, and peole all aroundthe world.
And they will be doing it on the basis of a peaceful and useful technology that is entirely consistent with their religious beliefs and foundational teachings.
avecfrites: I didn’t say that anyone else has done a better job. I think I pointed out that we have been a very destructive force.
What can humans do? Learn to live symbiotically with our host planet. It is self-destructive to do anything else.
And the bottom line still remains: if they have transformed what was naturally a desert into something else, that’s not a good thing for the planet’s ecology.
Is it less significant than what other nations have done? Could be. I wasn’t making comparisons. And I’m not anti-Israel. I support the need for a safe haven for the Jewish people, as they have been horribly treated pawns throughout history. I was saying that I wouldn’t use the transformation of the desert into something else as some example of their superiority. It weakens the point being made when you use bad examples.
I would say that not being able to honor my point is more of a gut reaction that me offering what is, perhaps, an unusual perspective on what others may feel is an insignificant point.
These kinds of details can matter….
allison:
I’m sorry if my response struck you as aggressive. Your point just struck a nerve with me (not uncommon in the blog world, unfortunately).
My objection isn’t that environmentalism isn’t important, and than people aren’t causing all kinds of problems. My objection is that this applies less to Israel than to almost anywhere else. Israel has been kinder to the environment than pretty much any other industrial country. So adding the environmental criticism to a general discussion of Israel seems strange.
Israel has been famous for decades for planting trees. The country runs fund-raising efforts abroad aimed strictly at planting trees; who else does that? I’ve read somewhere that Israel is the only country in the world that actually gained trees during the 20th century (I can’t vouch for this info since I haven’t looked into it).
So it’s certainly fair to criticize Israel’s politics. I’ve done it myself on these pages. Whatever else Israel’s shortcomings, it just feels like criticizing their environmental record is “piling on”.
Here’s Hamas’ Arabic language home page; note the home page graphic showing Israel being blown up in a nuclear explosion:
http://www.alqassam.com/arabic/
Israel’s efforts at changing the desert into agricultural land can be quite valuable to the world, especially as the world undergoes global warming. We will be glad someone has spent time and effort learning change desert into agricultural land.
They are not the only ones working on desert terraforming. The worlds largest such effort is in Libya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Manmade_River
pictures of one of the greenscape sites, the project feeds many of these oases:
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=24.160309,23.440018&spn=0.387268,0.506744&t=k&hl=en
I do think we need to be careful about changing terrains. Many kinds of terrains which seem like wasteland to us, have their own instrinsic value. For example the Negev desert is not a moonscape. It has its own unique and complex natural environment, unique native species etc. It has also been used as grazing land which has supported Bedouin herders for thousands of years.
We should remember that at one time wetlands were thought to be useless and were routinely drained and developed. Today we know they are critical for water purification and flood control. So we should be careful about eliminating too much desert.
Is that the cackle of birds I hear outside my window? Yes! The caffeine infused sunlight illuminates my room. A time for Renewal. Hope Springs Eternal.
I think that Rafael’s post hits a nice balance in the argument about Israeli transformation of some of their desert lands. I too have been irked by arguments that claim that Israeli’s deserve the land because they have shown that they can make the desert fourish. ( ie Palestinians don’t for that reason). There is value in being able to transform dessert as there is value in learning/knowing how to live on the land as it is.
It is a Jewish custom world for people to plant trees in Israel, especially upon rites of passage. It hurts me deeply to know of Israel’s destruction of ancient olive trees that belong to Palestinians.
Regarding the Hamas, don’t forget that Israeli’s are going into an election. I hope that this hard stance against the Hamas that they have taken will soften if and when Olmert’s party wins. At first I thought well this is an opportune time to pressure Hamas but I think that could easily backfire and draw ( more) extremists to the scene in the process. Hamas must be given a chance to change from a political party to a governing party. This could mean a sea change especially if we do not interfere. I have heard mixed messages coming from Hamas but it may turn out that they do moderate- and they must be given the opportunity to do so. I don’t see any wiser alternative way of dealing with the situation than waiting to see which way they choose to go while being careful not to pressure too much.
I think Rafael makes some very good points about the geographic problem… nothing new but we keep forgetting how crazy it is geographically to have two states ( at war with each other) essentially on the same piece of land. There have been some space-age proposals to get around this awkward situation but the best solution would be “love and courage”.
transform desert ( sorry I was thinking of a nice dessert!)
Alison et al,
Wasn’t it King Solomon who cut down the forests of Lebenon to build his great temple or was it the Peloponisians who were guilty of deforesting that region to build their ships?
Peggy Sue: the Greeks in general (I should know), not merely Peloponnesians, were atrocious deforesters.
But it started even earlier, in Sumeria when the Gilgamesh character ordered the deforestation of the Mesopotamian lands upstream. Which caused an environmental crash including a massive increase in rainfall (the biblical flood?), subsequent runaway soil erosion, and desertification.
It’s not hard to make the case that the advent of agriculture marks our species’ metastasis from benign symbiont to parasite. (I don’t want to believe it’s quite that bad, though.)
Potter, thanks for the optimism. I hope you’re right that Olmert has a chance in this increasingly fraught atmosphere. Got any links to the Israeli political debate?
Now, if we only had an ‘edit feature’ I could erase the very first post in this thread, that I regretted as a diversionary tangent about 1.9 seconds after clicking the ‘Submit’ button!
I’d like to recommend a film by James Longley called “Gaza Strip” available from Longley’s latest film, ‘Iraq in fragments’ won awards at Sundance this year. “Gaza Strip” offers a point of view we do not often see in the US, that of regular Palestinian people.
NYT “…discloses a wrenching human reality deeper and more basic that any politics”
Here is the blurb from the DVD Case…
“American documentary filmmaker James Longley traveled to the Gaza Strip in January of 2001, planning to stay for two weeks and collect preliminary material for a film about the Palestinian intifada. He threw away his return ticket and stayed for another 3 months, shooting over 75 hours of material throughout the Gaza Strip.
GAZA STRIP follows a range of people and events following the election of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, including the first major armed incursion into “Area A” by IDF forces during this intifada. The film is filmed almost entirely in a verite style, presented without narration and with little explanation, focusing on ordinary Palestinians rather than politicians and pundits. More observation than political argument, GAZA STRIP offers a rare look inside the stark realities of Palestinian life and death under Israeli military occupation.”
hmmm, not sure what happened to my available from … but I meant to say Gaza Strip is available from http://www.arabfilm.com
Democracies do make terrible decisions and do elect lousy leaders — Adolph Hitler is a prime example. Hitler came to power through the democratic process — dysfunctional as it was
After World War I, the allies pushed Germany to a democratic government, then proceeded to undermine it. The elections in the Weimar Republic featured violent battles between socialists and communists on one side versus the Nazi brown shirts. Like Hamas, the Nazi party offered a social safety net for Germans impoverished by the depression. Like Hamas, the Nazi party came to power in 1933 with one foot in the democratic process and one foot in violence.
Ther first great mistake made by France and Germany was to impose hardships that helped the Nazi Party come to power. Their second great mistake was by not taking a stand against the Nazi government at an early stage. Had the allies intervened in the Rhineland, Adoplh Hitler would have fallen and our history would be vastly different.
In the case of Hamas, I believe that Israel and its allies must show firm resolve. It’s up to Hamas to choose the path of peace or the path of war. It is up to the world to create conditions that makes the path of peace the better choice.
We should foster democracy as a long range strategy. We should not be fazed by setbacks such as the election of Hamas. We should disabuse ourselves of the idea that democracy offers some mystical perfection.
Democracy failed in Germany in 1933. Nevertheless, as soon as WWII was over, the U.S., Britian, and France estalished a new democratic government in Bonn. That government has succeeded.
I am reminded of what Hitler said about democratic governments — a hundred fools do not make one wise man. In the end, Hitler proved to be the biggest fool of all.
avecfrites: Israel has been famous for decades for planting trees.
You continue to miss my point about touting Israel’s environmentalism. Planting trees is a great thing if you are planting balsams in a Maine forest. Not if you’re planting them in a desert. Deserts are a critical part of the planetary ecology. Destroying them to create what we consider a ‘better’ environment is not something to be proud of in my book.
And again, i’m not pointing this out to be critical of Israel. I’m pointing it out to trigger some thoughtfulness about how we perceive these things. The fact that they may have had less impact than other countries doesn’t make it a good thing they have done. I simply wish that we would not put that forth as something to admire.
I don’t want to beat this dead horse. I was trying to make a small point. Didn’t think it would become such a distraction. Didn’t think it was that difficult to acknowledge. Letting it go now…..
In this discussion of how Hamas has such a destructive rage against Israel, are we able to explore why they feel this way? I mean, we have people from two different, but related religions wanting access to or staking claim for what they consider their holy land.
It is my understanding that in 1917 or so, when the British had control over Palestine they made a declaration that Palestine would become the homeland for Jews. But in this declaration they stated that people of other cultures and religions would always enjoy equal rights. (I’m terrible at history, so bear with me here and please correct any errors!) Sometime after World War II there was an international hue and cry to allow greater numbers of Jews to immigrate into Palestine. Then after that, there was conflict that led to the Jews proclaiming some of the land as their own and calling it Israel.
Again, I’m so bad at history. So, for my edification, I would like to understand why they couldn’t share the land. Why does there have to be two states? I understand that hostilities have escalated to the point that its nearly impossible to imagine them cohabitating peacefully, but what sparked this inability to co-exist?
Can that spark be put out? Not to sound naive, but isn’t it nearly impossible to create a resolution without trying to address some of the source animosity? Why did Israel feel the need to wrest land away from Palestinians? Why can’t Palestinians abide an Israel? Is it just the concept of an Israeli state ? Or is it a wholly anti-semitic bigotry? Are they both victims of the European colonist of the Arabian Peninsula?
I have so many questions before I feel I can even begin to participate in a conversation. Perhaps I’m too far behind the curve…..
Ok, I just read Rafael’s post about needing the transformation abilities once global warming has created vast deserts. Perhaps. But its a sad argument that we should continue to transform the ecology in order to find ways to balance the damage we have already done by transforming the ecology.
Nikos: I also have thought that once we started in with agriculture, we rapidly moved away from living symbiotically with the planet. And now, here we are. Its tough not to have self-loathing when I admit that I just go along living my modern lifestyle.
chrisbillings: Their second great mistake was by not taking a stand against the Nazi government at an early stage
I think this is the theme of human societies. We don’t take a stand in the early stage of ______. How many atrocities and disasters could have been prevented or minimized? And can we ever learn?
allison and others:
On behalf of a dearly lamented friend whose tragic death prevents her from chiming in: “Whose bright idea was it plunk a country right on top of another country?”
I, for one, have always been an Israel supporter, but my enthusiam has steadily dried to a desert-like trickle as I’ve understood more and more the realities of life in the occupied territories.
Can Olmert rectify this as Rabin had begun to before the assassin?
Perhaps a question akin to this is appropriate this evening.
And oh, allison: I seem to recall you’re a mother. Which makes shedding your ‘comfy’ agriculturally-benefited lifestyle hardly practical. Let alone ethical.
And me too: I’ve no kids, yet I’m quite happily a computer-loving electricity addict with a vast and growing collection of music on plastic CD’s.
Hardly, therefore, a man in search of a good band of hunter-gatherers.
If the Palestinians really could destroy Israel, if they had enough power to make choices, they might choose not to destroy. Only winners can afford to be generous. Palestinians have nothing but their rage.
Israel has had some mercy, perhaps, but for every Israeli victim, there are about 3 Palestinians victims.
I have a humble set of questions. It’s not meant to be disguised as an attack, it’s meant to understand implications and see some transparency of thought.
I agree that if we engage in what has the street name of “monday morning quarterback” exercises, an instructive and constructive activity to do, we can suggest that taking a firm stand against a beligerent regime like Nazism may be able to cutdown or reduce their effects. A laudable goal for sure. It definitely resonates with my chi. Wouldn’t it have been great to neutralize Nazism, ignoring the unfortunate but perhaps longer term lessons we learned. Lessons so odious that their price disgust me to the core of my marrow.
My question is this: what if a firm stand doesn’t work? What if our actions will not bring Hamas to want what we want, a peaceful coexistence. I am assuming that is the goal. If I’ve misunderstood, please instruct me what the goal is. I’ve also assumed it is out of the question for us to want what Hamas wants, by association with historically beligerent regimes. So, we have what appears an unconditional situation here. I’m not challenging this, I’m simply trying to restate in a way so I understand what is going on.
Could anyone leap frog a bit over the intermediate tactical milestones and tell me their thoughts of how we handle potential failures? Is this situation containable. Will we be able to rely on a sort of status quo, same stuff different day, minor, gradual changes? Will violence have to be increased? What levels and what objectives?
I ask this not to incur ire, but I’d like to see what options are available if we cannot bring Hamas to want what we want. Since this is an exceedingly sensitive issue, I imagine I could get a barrage of flames. This is not the intent. The intent is clarification. And I understand I’m asking them from a particular outlook. I am not asking it from the Hamas perspective. From that perspective, I would inquire, how do we bring the Israelis and it’s allies to want what we want. Which I lack the courage and inclination to state. I acknowledge my ignorance and cowardness. Folks can kick me around on that, or folks can illuminate and help. Which does a lost, drowing individual deserve: a life preserver or a heavy object. Your call.
I will likely observe them without further questions or comments, so don’t be put off by my silence. This is not intended to be a hit-and-run, but I’m in a mode of trying to contemplate things with regard to this matter, not push a particular postion. My continual energy placed on piping up won’t help me or the participants on this thread. Thank you in advance for any consideration…
One quick note before I truly step back. I’m not suggesting the firm stand approach should or should not be considered. There are consequences for both. I’m asking what those consequences are likely to be. Okay, now I really do hope to step back and hit my listen button.
What will an Islamacist govt in Palestine do about this?
Commodifying Honor in Female Sexuality: Honor Killings in Palestine
Suzanne Ruggi
The family constitutes the fundamental building-block of Palestinian society. Family status is largely dependent upon its honor, much of which is determined by the respectability of its daughters, who can damage it irreparably by the perceived misuse of their sexuality
Every year, hundreds of women and girls are murdered in the Middle East by male family members. The honor killing-the execution of a female family member for perceived misuse of her sexuality-is a thorny social and political issue. Palestinian activists campaigning for equality find it difficult to stop the killings altogether. Legitimacy for such murders stems from a complex code of honor ingrained in the consciousness of some sectors of Palestinian society.
http://www.merip.org/mer/mer206/ruggi.htm
The principles of the Hamas are stated in their Covenant or Charter, given in full below. Following are highlights.
“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”
“The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. ”
“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”
“After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.”
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
How does the following statement square with article regarding the article above regarding the “honor” killing of women – wives / sisters?
Article 31: “The Islamic Resistance Movement is a humanistic movement . . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
Factsheet
Feb 8th 2006
From the Economist Intelligence Unit
Source: Country ViewsWire
Annual data 2005(a) Historical averages (%) 2001-05
Population (m) 6.9 Population growth 2.0
GDP (US$ bn; market exchange rate) 123.7(b) Real GDP growth 1.9
GDP (US$ bn; purchasing power parity) 155.0(b) Real domestic demand growth 1.2
GDP per head (US$; market exchange rate) 17,843 Inflation 1.7
GDP per head (US$; purchasing power parity) 22,356 Current-account balance (% of GDP) 0.2
Exchange rate (av) NIS:US$ 4.5(b) FDI inflows (% of GDP) 2.9
(a) Economist Intelligence Unit estimates. (b) Actual.
More economic data
Background: The State of Israel was established in 1948. In June 1967 Israeli troops captured Sinai, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and the Golan Heights, after which Israel annexed East Jerusalem, claiming sovereignty over the whole city. Sinai was returned to Egypt in 1982, and in 1991 peace talks began with Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians. An accord reached in 1993 with the Palestine Liberation Organisation led to Israel’s withdrawal from most of the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank, but has been derailed. A full peace treaty with Jordan was signed in October 1994. Domestic opposition to the peace process created political tensions that led to the assassination of the prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, in November 1995. During the 1990s the right and left alternated in power. Ariel Sharon was elected prime minister in 2001, when Likud emerged as the largest party in the 2003 general election. His original government fell in late 2004, forcing him to build a new coalition, but it collapsed in late 2005, prompting early elections scheduled for March 2006. With Mr Sharon incapacitated, Ehud Olmert has been appointed acting prime minister. The 2003 international “road map to peace� was sidelined by Israel’s decision to withdraw unilaterally from the Gaza Strip and some areas of the West Bank.
Political structure: Israel has a parliamentary system. The formal head of state is the president, who is elected by the legislature for a five-year period, but his powers are mainly ceremonial. The Knesset, a 120-seat unicameral parliament, is elected every four years under a proportional representation system. Since the 2003 election, the leader of the party most likely to marshal a Knesset majority is called on by the president to form a government.
Policy issues: Security issues remain Israel’s top priority. The new government may be pushed to restore the peace process under international pressure. Peace with Syria remains a distant prospect, but outright war is unlikely. The government has made progress stabilising the economy, widening fiscal reforms and accelerating privatisation and market deregulation.
Taxation: Corporate tax on profits is 33%, but this is to be cut to 25% by 2010, and the top rate of income tax will fall from 49% to 44%. Personal income tax exemptions are allowed as part of the Capital Investment Encouragement Law. Foreign investment, venture capital and expenditure on research and development are eligible for extensive tax benefits. Taxation on interest and capital gains is 15%, but is to rise to 20%; dividends and royalties are taxed at 25%.
Foreign trade: After falling sharply in 2001-02, merchandise exports recovered in 2003 to US$30.1bn, surging to US$36.6bn in 2004. The import bill increased in 2003, to US$32.3bn, before rising more strongly in 2004, to US$38.5bn. Overall, the trade deficit fell sharply in 2003 and again in 2004, helping to keep the current account in surplus at US$1.9bn in 2004.
Major exports 2005 % of total Major imports 2005 % of total
Polished diamonds (gross) 33.1 Diamonds (gross) 21.6
Chemicals&chemical products (excl refining) 18.7 Fuel 15.2
Electronic communication, medical&scientific equipment 16.5 Machinery&equipment 11.1
Electronic components&computers 6.6 Consumer non-durable goods 6.8
Machinery&equipment 4.2 Chemicals&chemical products (excl refining) 6.4
Leading markets 2004 % of total Leading suppliers 2004 %of total
US 41.9 US 15.2
Belgium 8.6 Belgium 10.2
Hong Kong 5.6 Germany 7.7
UK 4.3 Switzerland
The new face of Palestine
Feb 21st 2006
From The Economist Global Agenda
Ismail Haniyeh, a Hamas “pragmatistâ€?, has been appointed as Palestinian prime minister. While Hamas is inviting other militant groups to join it in government, President Mahmoud Abbas is urging the new ruling party to swap armed struggle for peace talks with Israel. America and others are threatening to cut the Palestinian Authority’s funds
Palestinians are worried about their prospects—but after Fatah’s dismal failure in everything from running basic services to negotiating peace, they are not about to run back to it. If anything, the outside pressure on Hamas could strengthen solidarity with it. And the funding squeeze may not be particularly effective either. Even if the West cuts off its own aid and persuades the more compliant Middle Eastern governments to do the same—which would further inflame an already angry Arab street across the region—there are many informal networks, through Islamic charities in various countries, business people, or smugglers, that could let cash trickle through.
Furthermore, if Hamas succeeds in cutting the corruption and inefficiency in the PA, which has thousands of fictitious employees on the books, it may find that it can get by with considerably less than before. If so, that could make for a PA that is both leaner and meaner, and perhaps even less inclined to meet the West’s demands—to recognise Israel and renounce violence—than Hamas is now.
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5542655
Sharon helped to bring Hamas to power. Hamas IS the mirror.
The problem now is that we can ask the questions but we cannot expect answers yet.
We are waiting, waiting to see which way Hamas goes and what will be the result of the Israeli elections.
Perhaps most important is which way Hamas goes. Everything pivots on that. Israel I think, is ready to withdraw and end the occupation but not as a pre-condition.
Hamas now says the opposite, first withdraw, then we will agree to a temporary or long-term hudna.
We are almost back where we started EXCEPT that the extremists at least on the Palestinian side are now more part of the process, while the extremists on the Israeli side are being marginalized or weakened.
I think think things are progressing.
Regardless, Israel has to end the occupation.
On my way out the door for a run. But thanks to Winston for his 7:55 post. (Suprise!)
I’m not sure it isn’t a tangent though.
Look hopefully for a future ROS show regarding women in the Middle East (and perhaps a series on women’s status around the world?).
But I’m side-by-side with your sentiment there, W.D.
It’s an issue of basic human rights.
http://www.metransparent.com/texts/arab_feminists_on_women_s_rights.htm
Let’s be clear? Did not Israel support Hammas(in its beginning)as a wedge against Fatah? Dis it not release its spritual leader? Finally,assasinating him?
People voted against corruption of Fatah. Let’s talk.
OK, I admit this a bit of a nit, but I’ve heard it too many times (not just here) to let it pass. The newspaper your Israeli guest works for is not “haretz”, but he’s obviousl;y too polite to correct you. It’s “Ha’Aretz”, two syllables, which mean, respectively, “The” and “World”.
Do you remember when Rachel Corry was killed? She was the young activist, a student from Evergreen State Collage, who was standing in front of a Palistinian Doctor’s Home (In bright orange – I think she had a bull horn – he knew she was there) to try to defend it when an Israeli Bulldozer that was there to destroy the Palestinian homes ran right over her, crushed and killed her. The bulldozer was American made and designed especially for destroying (“clearing”) Palestinian homes. We are so complicit in the suffering of Palestine. Our news is put through the Israeli media strainer. James Longley, the film maker of my above post had to sneak his film out of Gaza through Egypt. It all just feels like a crushing weight to me, like an Israeli Bulldozer with Uncle Sam sitting on it bearing down with the full weight of Israeli/American might. It is not anti-semetism to object to this use of force. I fear what we will do to Hamas.
Democracy can be dangerous, look who we elected.
Winston sez: “If anything, the outside pressure on Hamas could strengthen solidarity with it. And the funding squeeze may not be particularly effective either. Even if the West cuts off its own aid and persuades the more compliant Middle Eastern governments to do the same—which would further inflame an already angry Arab street across the region”.
Agree completly with you on this point!
Please, Mr Lydon, no more braying … especially when guests like AriSavit and David Remnick are so much more civil and better informed than your are
Houragon, I second that. And less fawning, too, please. Though I don’t expect or want fake objectivity, either. Hell, just be the perfect host!
God, why am I so demanding?
just a clarification, when I said “demacracy is dangerous” I did not mean that I think there is anything better.
I’m not certain whether or what the blog component of this show will be. But I’d like to alert the producers of the show & visitors to this thread to the fact that there are many progressive Jewish bloggers blogging about both the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Hamas dilemma to be specific.
In fact, I’ve just written a post based on an interesting Jerusalem Post article (not a source for most of my media material about the conflict I assure you) which states that Hamas is in the midst of rewriting its anti-Semitic charter.
THere needs to be more reason and clear-thinking about Hamas and less of the knee jerk “bring them to their knees” rhetoric emanating from Israel & the U.S. Did you read that Dov Weisglass had the temerity to say that Israeli policy toward Hamas should involve “putting them on a diet but not entirely starving them to death?” This from someone whose government policy has been to bring the Pal. economy to its knees and destroy its abiliity to put feed on the table for its inhabitants.
My most recent Hamas post is here.
I was suprised at Chris’ resistence to the notion that one must take Islamicist ideas seriously.
“Do you remember when Rachel Corry was killed?”
I also remember that she was celebrating suicide attacks on women and children.
Her death btw, was an accident. I know that she has become something of a saintly martyr to the anti-Semitic left.
Rachel Corry’s Death was not an acident. I find it unimaaginable that a peace activist like Rachel “celebrated suicide attacks” on anyone let alone women and children. Do you have proof?
It is not anti-semitic to care about human rights.
“It is not anti-semitic to care about human rights.”
Not if one cares about all human rights and just the rights of some.
This was a good show in my opinion especially given that there are more questions than answers. Ari Shavit is extraordinary and his piece on Ariel Sharon in the New Yorker as well as the web-only interview linked above were extraordinary for their insight.
I really think we are in a wait and see mode: waiting for the Israeli elections and waiting for Hamas to hopefully recalibrate and get on with building a decent society that is not based on destroying Israel. They would be wise to let that dream die. I hope that the next Israeli leader, possibly Olmert, will soften a bit and even pull out of the West Bank to some degree.
Palestinians have been victims of victims for too long. It’s time for both societies to live normally.
Can we stipulate that Rachel Corry was a peace activist that was killed accidentally and stop using the term ant-Semitic when it does not apply? Criticizing Israeli’s or Jews does not make one anti-Semitic. And what do we gain by this form of dialogue? Why bring up Rachel Corry at this point anyway? Many of us are aware of the deplorable conditions in Gaza and that there were many who supported the militants, the suicide bomb factories, supplied the bombers and the cheers when they got through. Terrorism is a powerful weapon too.
We are not about to crush Hamas. Not yet. Let’s see what happens, and not anticipate the worst. Please folks.
Wikipedia has an extensive article about Rachel Corrie. Both cases are made and should be read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie
Peggy Sue: Potter’s Wikipedia article links to this:
http://bsd.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/09/ma_497_01.html
which paints a somewhat condescending but intuitively persuasive picture of a young peace activist imbued with exuberance for what she believed a just cause, and the incaution that naturally comes with it.
The details of Israeli excesses are eye-popping too.
It answered many questions I’ve wondered for years.
I’m not at all persuaded she was consciously anti-Semitic, although the activist group she’d joined supported “the right of Palestinians to carry out ‘armed struggle’ (which sadly implies suicide-bombers) and seeks ‘to establish divestment campaigns in the U.S. and Europe to put economic pressure on Israel the same way the international community put pressure [on] South Africa during the apartheid regimes’.�
But I agree with Potter’s call for moderation, too. (Thanks Potter.)
Enough already.
I’ve learned a thing or two from the strident digital commuter, such as the need to avoid unnecessarily inflammatory language. But that lesson can work the other way round, too, d.c.. So even though you and I share many viewpoints, not least of which is a sense of foreboding over the rise of Islamism (and a certain hotheadedness), I must agree that not everybody who excoriates Israel’s imperialist land grabs are de facto anti-Semites. (I rather doubt, for example, that Israel’s indigenous peace activists are anti-Semites.) We here in the States are as often as not trying to formulate objective opinions based on hearsay and tawdry sensationalism.
Please consider this before filling the virtual air with another volley of ‘anti-Semite’ arrows. The ‘Left’ doesn’t deserve it any more than my neighbor Peggy Sue does – and whether or not Rachel Corrie did.
Meanwhile, Peggy Sue, I’m still hoping to read your take on last night’s show on the EHM thread. (Nudge, nudge.) (If you have commentary you’re comfortable sharing, that is.)
From the Wikipedia article:
“On March 16, 2003, Corrie was in a group of seven ISM activists (three British and four Americans) attempting to disrupt what they thought were house demolitions. The IDF later said it was not intending to demolish houses but was clearing debris and shrubbery to expose explosive devices.”
There was absolutely no reason for the IDF to kill Corrie. The ISM claim is not believable and was meant to further arouse hatred for the Jewish State.
ISM is seen by many mainstream Jews as an anti-Semitic organization.
“The details of Israeli excesses are eye-popping too.”
What excesses, they face situations of life and death every single day and it doesnt’ matter if their in the army or riding on a bus or just getting a slice of pizza.
The whole Rachel Corrie controversy is sickening. I read an article last year about her death and the death of a number of Israelis civilians killed by a suicide bomber on the same day.
I think the article was called “A Tale of Two Rachels,” or The Death of Two Rachels” or something like that. I have been trying to located it but without any luck so far.
In any case one of the Israelis killed was a younf girl named Rachel. The Israeli Rachel was killed deliberately because she was a Jew. Rachel Corrie’s death wasn’t deliberate.
On ISM’s anti-Semitism
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/11/AR2006021101014_pf.html
Why Is Georgetown Providing a Platform for This Dangerous Group?
Sunday, February 12, 2006; B08
“This month Georgetown University plans to host the annual conference of an anti-Israel propaganda group called the Palestine Solidarity Movement (PSM). The PSM certainly is controversial. It is also dangerous.
The purported aim of the PSM is to encourage divestment from Israel. To this end, its conferences boast a cavalcade of anti-Israel speakers whose speeches often degenerate into anti-Semitism. At the 2004 conference at Duke University in North Carolina, for example, keynote speaker Mazin Qumsiyeh referred to Zionism as a “disease.” Workshop leader Bob Brown deemed the Six-Day War “the Jew War of ’67.” Not to be outdone, Nasser Abufarha praised the terrorist activities of Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
The PSM maintains that it is a separate organization from the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), which sends foreign students to the West Bank and Gaza to foment anti-Israeli sentiment.
All the same, the two groups seem to have intimate ties. At the 2004 PSM conference, for instance, the International Solidarity Movement ran a recruitment meeting called “Volunteering in Palestine: Role and Value of International Activists.” In that session, the organization’s co-founder, Huwaida Arraf, distributed recruitment brochures and encouraged students to enlist in the ISM, which, she acknowledged, cooperates with Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Another ISM co-founder, George Rishmawi, told the San Francisco Chronicle in a July 14, 2004, news story why his group recruits student volunteers….”
Hey D.C., I’ve got a mixed bag of reaction for you, starting with the inarguable:
“ISM is seen by many mainstream Jews as an anti-Semitic organization.�
This perfectly understandable considering ISM’s support for Palestinian ‘armed struggle’, which is a pretty transparent euphemism for terrorism. (As if the act of self-immolation somehow morally counter-weights the slaughter and maiming of civilian innocents. I’d very much like to read the ‘Two Rachels’, btw, if you can find it.)
Yet I would suggest that however understandable the feeling, ISM’s sanction of terrorism isn’t a ‘hatred of Jews’ (anti-Semitism) but a frustrated and excessively zealous reaction against what it believes an imperialist, apartheid state. (Let’s not argue again over the apartheid question – I’m only reflecting the view of ISM as I understand it.)
This was my take from the Mother Jones article, though some of this take came from ‘reading between the lines’ – which I admit is at least partially (if not wholly) subjective.
As for the ‘eye-popping details of Israeli excess’ you seem content to blithely excuse away: It seems to me that these excesses are the ‘disfiguring mirror’ (thanks Potter) that blinds people like ISM to the hypocrisy of their claim to be ‘peace activists’.
Young people from comparatively naïve places like Olympia Washington will hardly find the Mother Jones-described account of IDF violence easily ‘excusable’. Well-meaning if overly zealous kids like that are surely prone to misjudgments.
This does not make them anti-Semites.
Reporters of IDF excesses are not anti-Semites – many of them are Jews.
What worries me as someone who respects not only you-the-blogger but many of your views, is that perhaps you haven’t stepped back far enough from your understandable outrage against atrocious and inexcusable (and hateful) slaughter to discern the distinction between patriotism and jingoism.
Your reflexive defense of the IDF feels not a little like the latter.
Please consider the deleterious effect on the legitimacy of your cause that the taint of jingoism confers. A morally even-keeled series of contributions here will benefit Israel much more than anything that smacks of jingoism.
Now then, I thought the show tonight excellent – but it did nothing to ease my pessimism, despite Potter’s consistently hopeful efforts.
If Israel thought that Arafat wasn’t a ‘partner’ then what the hell is Hamas? – an anti-partner of the most worrisome kind!
Just got home so will have to download tonight’s show and last nights on my slow as molasses on a cold night connection. Could take a while but I do want to listen to both. We just got Perkins book into the bookstore in paperback today. But… that’s the other list.
I almost didn’t contribute to this list because I do get so steamed up about it and I knew I could get hammered but I thought of Rachel (Potter) because her death, besides being a personal tragedy as anyone’s death is, seemed like such a metaphor to me about the entire crushing situation.
Based on eyewitness accounts I do not believe her death was an accident but I do not wish to belabor the issue esp. when it is so obvious that to do so would be completely pointless and annoying.
Maybe if the Israelis get rid of their nuclear weapons the Palestinians will agree to quit throwing rocks at Israeli tanks.
OK there goes some sarcasm. I couldn’t help it. Nikos, someone told me last night that the root meaning of sarcasm was “to tear flesh” I remembered you saying you were trying to rein it in – though, you haven’t seemed overtly sarcastic to me. But, I know, it is probably not the most persuasive form of discourse.
I wish I knew more about global hip-hop. After these brutal topics that looks like a fun one – hopefully not such an arena for the tearing of flesh.
PS. Nikos: I wonder if our state representatives think of Olympia as a naïve place;)
Btw, D.C., I don’t actually know where you live or your citizenship, but even were it Burkina Faso, the ‘feel’ of your constant willingness to excuse Israeli excesses while throwing ‘anti-Semite’ around like a polite ‘f.u.’ is the feel of jingoism.
Whether it’s ‘my country right or wrong’ or ‘my people right or wrong’, it feels the same.
Patriotism on the other hand is best when objective, not subjective. (This is why conservatives always attack the patriotism of progressives – they’re jingoists, not objective citizens willing to admit their country’s faults. Let alone try to rectify these flaws.)
All I’m suggesting is that you try to view of the Greater Israel settler-movement and the linked actions of the IDF in the territories objectively. Perhaps these aren’t so ‘excusable’ after all.
But I’ll stop preaching now, ’cause it’s not my fight, but yours.
All I’m really saying is that you ought not sabotage yourself and your credibility here as I did that night of the inflammatory Nazi comparison.
You taught me something valuable – perhaps I can now return the favor.
Peggy Sue
Tali Hatuel is the name of an Israeli woman, a Gaza settler who was murdered by Arabs, terrorists, along with her 4 children in a van on her way to a peaceful protest in Israel.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/02/gaza.shooting/index.html
On both sides of this conflict there are names that stick out. Remember the little boy Mohammed al-Dura who was an innocent killed in a battle? He became a poster boy for the Palestinians and it gave more energy to Palestinian anger as did Tali and her children’s murder for settlers and their supporters.
There are worse examples to cry over, much worse.
When I asked you why you brought this up right now your answer was that ( for you) it was a metaphor of this whole situation. The example you picked however was not a neutral example. Though it passed me by because I am not looking for such things, for Digitalcommuter, who is apparently very sensitive to these things, it meant that you had more sympathy for the Palestinians than for the Israeli’s. This is rather typical these days unless you are Jewish and feel intimate connection to Israel or are familiar and sympathetic to the long and painful history, 2000 years of it. They have been carrying that history with them. Add that to the Holocaust which proved to many Jews that the world does not care about them and that they needed to take care of and defend themselves. This conflict has deep roots on the Jewish side which many do not understand.
Palestinians gained their identity, their struggle from Jewish nationalism, Zionism.. The last thing Jews wanted or needed was more war and pain and suffering or to inflict it on others. But they were greeted with war from the Arab countries after they refused partition of the land. Jews were forced to fight for their survival. Turns out that they were good at it.
It’s a long long story and ( Alison) there are many books to read. One book that comes to mind is “Arab and Jew, Wounded Spirits in A Promised Land” by David Shipler. There are many others that tell the history of Israel, the conflict, the long history of the Jews. For me this is endlessly fascinating because it’s my history too. I would hope that anyone interested would read a scholarly neutral source or more than one telling of these histories.
But Peggy Sue from your previous posts I think of you as a peace advocate and an idealist as I am. So I want to point out that unless you are from one side or another in this conflict, if you sympathize only with one side and do not see the other side at all or choose to emphasize on side’s position, then you are open to such criticism as digitalcommuters ( though I wish for the elimination of “anit-semiteâ€? from this conversation). And peaceful solution to this conflict has to take into account the suffering, the fears, the needs of both sides.
I understand that Palestinians have suffered greatly under occupation. And it hurts me to know of the ongoing harsh and unjust situation. More than hurting me, it hurts Israel. Israeli’s have become, in much of the eyes of the world, oppressors. They seem to be surviving well though in their minds they are not without fear and anxiety. Israel is a tiny country surrounded by those who wish to do her in still.
At this point Israel holds the cards in a certain sense and is the stronger. But the Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, PFLP, Fatah/Al Aksa etc have shown that terrorism is a formidable weapon. The terrorism has added, perhaps greatly, to the suffering of the Palestinians too Peggy Sue. Maximalist positions ( on both sides) and corrupt stubborn insincere leadership not fully in control has also had a lot to do with why more moderate and peace-seeking Israeli leaders have found no partner for peace. The terrorist groups, vying for supremacy amongst each other, helped to elect Sharon ( the mirror works both ways) in fact and practically destroyed the Israeli left, silencing the Israeli peace movement. The majority of Israeli’s would give up land for peace, if that were possible.
Peggy Sue, Israel will not get rid of her nuclear weapons ( or even admit to them) especially now as long as Iran is threatening (now) and Pakistan and N.Korea have weapons. Israel will have to feel a lot more secure for that. I wish that Israel would come clean about them and agree to negotiate as a first step.
Another first step might be recognition of Israel by the surrounding countries. Jordan and Egypt already do- but the others might do so as well and might stop supporting the terrorists. We are a long way from that especially now with the war in Iraq.
But again, your line “Maybe if the Israelis get rid of their nuclear weapons the Palestinians will agree to quit throwing rocks at Israeli tanks.” uses Israel’s most powerful ( though unusable) weapon/deterrent in comparison to Palestinian rocks. That is not fair- and it incites and invites criticism. In fact Palestinians are quite armed, including with rockets and homemade bombs.
If only they would use their ingenuity and their energy to help rebuild Gaza and show that they can and want to live peacefully. They have been given a bit of an opportunity in Gaza- and Israel and the rest of the world should be helping. There may be further unilateral withdrawals as wel. Palestinians have received much aid by the way over the years. What do they have to show for it ?
Why am I optimistic? I think everyone is tired of this on both sides. They want normal life- the majority, I believe do. And now we have the extremists in charge on one side and they may very well moderate. On the other side, in Israel we have a weaker Likud, and a new party emerging, Kadima, that already has a majority of support, that understands the need to separate and get out from under occupation. This give me reason to hope at least for calm.
The English called it quite plainly and proudly The British Empire. In Japan in the 40s it was referred to as The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Hitler’s Germany refered to it as Lebensraum. The US. today calls it Democratization. Israel refers to it as Settlement. Call it what you may, a land grab is a land grab. Someone moves in and someone is force to step aside. Maybe that’s what humans have always been doing, stepping in and stepping aside. I don’t know.
“What worries me as someone who respects not only you-the-blogger but many of your views, is that perhaps you haven’t stepped back far enough from your understandable outrage against atrocious and inexcusable (and hateful) slaughter to discern the distinction between patriotism and jingoism.�
What worries me, Nikos, is your overstatement of “Israeli aggression� and your excuse of ISM activists as naïve young idealistic people.
I don’t intend to get into an argument about this with you because my position isn’t exactly popular on this blog. I will just point out that your comments reflect the growing antagonism between main stream Jews and the left in the West.
That the ISM is an anti-Semitic organization isn’t just the opinion of a few Jews but of most Jewish organization and these range from groups on the left to the centrist ADL.
Much has been written about this group’s Jew hatred. I link to one article among many:
http://netwmd.com/articles/article253.html
Anti-Semitism in Solidarity Movement Conference at Ohio State
By Diana Appelbaum, Guest Columnist, October 27, 2003
“The International Solidarity Movement, its American, student affiliate the Palestinian Solidarity Movement, and other radical left-wing groups label every inch of Israeli territory as “occupied Palestine,� advocate destroying the Jewish State by “any means necessary,� and openly condone terrorism and Muslim suicide bombers as a means for accomplishing this goal. These groups are working to eliminate a population of six million Jews.�
What is the difference between the ISM’s position on the Jewish State and that of Hamas?
As the so called “human rights� conference at Durban (where copies of the notorious “Protocols of the Elders of Zion� as well as other equally egregious anti-Semitic pamphlets were being sold openly) showed that ideal too can be diverted to anti-Semitic ends. But as I said arguments are useless between people who use the human rights label “human rights� as a cover for their anti-Semitism.
“I almost didn’t contribute to this list because I do get so steamed up about it and I knew I could get hammered but I thought of Rachel (Potter) because her death, besides being a personal tragedy as anyone’s death is, seemed like such a metaphor to me about the entire crushing situation.”
The use of this tragic accident is certainly being used by the ISM and other anti-Jewish groups to stir up even more hatred towards the Jewish State.
“On both sides of this conflict there are names that stick out. Remember the little boy Mohammed al-Dura who was an innocent killed in a battle? He became a poster boy for the Palestinians and it gave more energy to Palestinian anger as did Tali and her children’s murder for settlers and their supporters.”
Yes, but the issue of who killed al Dura is still being debated while there is no doubt as to who killed Tali and her children and why.
On the Durban human rights, so called, conference:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/durban1.html
The UN World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Durban, South Africa
(August 31-September 8, 2001)
By Elihai Braun
“In addition to the UN government conference against racism, Durban simultaneously hosted a UN conference of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The NGO conference, according to the UN, aimed to publicize the “voices of the victims.” In this forum, the Jewish Caucus proposed that Holocaust denial and anti-Jewish violence caused by Jewish support for Israel be labeled forms of anti-Semitism. The proposal was almost unanimously defeated. Anne Bayefsky, a NGO participant, and a representative of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, commented. “The only group that voted for it was the Jews. Of all the ‘voices of the victims’ put into the resolution, only one voice was deleted – the Jewish voice.”3″
http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief2-5.htm
Durban’s Troubling Legacy One Year Later:
Twisting the Cause of International Human Rights Against the Jewish People
Irwin Cotler
Digital Commuter,
There is no debate about who killed Mohammed al-Dura. It was an israeli sniper in a tower across the street. There is no debate about who riddled his father with bullets either. There is also no debate about who killed the clearly marked Palestinian medic who was trying to cross the street to help them. It was an IDF sniper. Any honest person who has seen that video comes away with no doubt whatsoever.
I don’t see any doubt about who murdered Rachel Corrie. You can make all the excuses you want, I don’t see how a bulldozer driver can fail to see a brightly colored protester in front of the bulldozer – especially as she screams while he kills her. Sorry – thats just cold blooded murder.
I don’t see any doubt about who killed Tom Hurndall, another western peace activist who was snipered by the IDF while trying to get some Palestinian middle schoolers out of a volley of IDF sniper fire.
I don’t see any doubt about who killed 13 year old unarmed schoolgirl Iman al-Hams. It was IDF captain ‘R’, who is heard on a military recording ordering the snipers to shoot her even after being informed that she is a young unarmed girl running for her life. There is also no doubt that he went out to where she was wounded to ‘confirm the kill’, which in IDF parlance means to execute a wounded enemy. And he in fact did then go out and empty out his entire machinegun into her mortally wounded body.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1643573,00.html
In the past 5 years the IDF has killed 708 children. Let’s not count the 3,000 or so adults – because I’m sure you will argue that all of them must have been ‘terrorists’. At least of the children we can have no doubts.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/children.html
I can’t understand how anyone can continue to believe that these are all just ‘tragic accidents’. This is a pattern of willful murder.
To apologise for or justify Hamas’ terrorist murders is disgusting. To apologize for the IDF’s murder rampage is every bit as disgusting.
You make the often heard argument that to be concerned about Palestinian Human rights, more than the human rights of people under similar or worse attack around the world is somehow anti-semitic. The implication being that we chose to be outraged by the murder of Palestinian children because of a secret desire to ‘attack the Jews’. That is baloney – designed to change the subject when all the other whitewash fails.
I didn’t put up with that baloney from white south africaners when I campaigned against apartheid then. I didn’t put up with it from Indonesians when I worked to stop their genocide in Timor. And I won’t put up with it from Zionists.
As an American, my government gives Israel more aid and more military aid than any other nation on earth. I feel a greater reponsibility for the crimes commited with my money in Israel than I do for the crimes being committed in Tibet or Darfur – which I at least am not forced to finance.
Its been 500 years since the Catholic Church participated in the Inquisition – and they are still stained with it. The memory if this kind of mistake lives for a very long time. Those who love Judaism, should work to limit the damage that these crimes are doing to the reputation of Judaism.
Rafael what is the point? There are numerous cases of brutality on both sides. No question.
We are talking about war and young fighters on both sides, not fully in control of themselves. The Israeli’ government had not ordered it’s soldiers to go out an kill peace activists or innocent Palestinians.
Do we go on to list these cases and ennumerate or adjudicate whether some of these were accidental or purposeful? Certainly every single case of suicide bombing was pre-meditated and aimed at innocent civilians. Is this not a pattern? How do we distinguish an IDF “murder rampage” from a legitimate operation with unintended innocent deaths? How do you ajudicate war?
What IDF murder rampages are you speaking of by the way?
My point in bringing up these others names – which you have added to, but only from one side of the conflict, was to say that certain names stick out for each side. And those names become a rallying point to cry for vengence and justification for more of the same to happen.
Indulging in this here just perpetuates this and it misuses my post and I object to it.
By the way – not that it matters I suppose- but apparently the IDF soldier that shot Tom Hurndall was a Bedouin Arab.
About al Dura:
here is a balanced view of the evidence:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200306/fallows
Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura?
Here is a more partisan view, but well argued in my opinion:
http://www.masada2000.org/al-dura.html
WHO REALLY KILLED
Mohammed al-Dura?
I assume Rapahel that you are familiar with the Palesitnian and anti-Israel point of view.
“In the past 5 years the IDF has killed 708 children. Let’s not count the 3,000 or so adults – because I’m sure you will argue that all of them must have been ‘terrorists’. At least of the children we can have no doubts.”
Depends on how you define “children,” Raphael.
Here is one answer to you indictment:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf19.html#a1a
“During the “al-Aksa intifada,” the number of Palestinian casualties has been higher than the figure for Israelis; however, the gap has narrowed as Palestinian suicide bombers have used increasingly powerful bombs to kill larger numbers of Israelis in their terror attacks. As of September 2005, nearly 3,500 Palestinians and 1,061 Israelis had been killed.
The disproportionate number of Palestinian casualties is primarily a result of the number of Palestinians involved in violence and is the inevitable result of an irregular, ill-trained militia attacking a well-trained regular army. The unfortunate death of noncombatants is largely due to the habit of Palestinian gunmen and terrorists using civilians as shields.
What is more revealing than the tragic totals, however, is the specific breakdown of the casualties. According to one study, Palestinian noncombatants were mostly teenaged boys and young men. “This completely contradicts accusations that Israel has ‘indiscriminately targeted women and children,’� according to the study. “There appears to be only one reasonable explanation for this pattern: that Palestinian men and boys engaged in behavior that brought them into conflict with Israeli armed forces.�
By contrast, the number of women and older people among the noncombatant Israeli casualties illustrates the randomness of Palestinian attacks, and the degree to which terrorists have killed Israelis for the “crime” of being Israeli.22 Israeli troops do not target innocent Palestinians, but Palestinian terrorists do target Israeli civilians.â€?
For a breakdown of casualties see:
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/mostly.html
Here are some statistics by a respected human rights group B’Tselem:
http://www.btselem.org/english/Statistics/Casualties.asp
These are stats from the beginning of the intafada, 2000 to the present. Note that 674 minors ( under the age of 18) were killed by IDF forces in the territories and one additional in Israel. Of those some if not most were most assuredly either fighting or at the scene. It is well known that the kids flock to these scenes of battle because of the excitement. But ALSO it must be true that some children were killed because they got caught in the line of fire in a close, more urban situation. The question is how many were aimed at purposefully? None of us can say.
By the way you can do the same thing for the war in Iraq and probably you will not have statistics such as these to even begin.
Also note foreign citizens killed by Palestinians, and foreign citizens killed by Israeli security forces.
Rafael perhaps if there was not so much anti-semitism still left in the world, especially in the Middle East, we would not feel the need to support Israel. Perhaps we can work on that.
We do not judge Christianity on the inquisition, I don’t anyway, but that point in history is not comparable in any way to this conflict.
You know, after digesting this thread and the history behind it over a night of decent sleep, and then waking to the next seven posts, it strikes me that both the Greater Israel apologists and the Hamas apologists (who are only represented here by the proxy introduction of ISM and Corrie, btw) are playing Blame The Victim so hard that neither can even begin to have an iota of empathy for the other.
D.C.: I read everything you post with interest, because you’re articulate and an excellent cherry-picker (that’s not a flaw because without cherry-picking, our posts’ word-counts would run into the tens of thousands of words), and because the positions you advocate must be understood (even if not universally accepted) for an objective person to craft an opinion. So kudos to you for that.
But I also know the slant you bring. I know that your slant dictates the cherries you pick, and I’m okay with that.
The cherries picked by others are just as founded on slant.
So if someone posits a position that has unfortunate (and accidental) links to an ISM-like group of subjective do-gooders or worse – to butchers like Hamas – I’m willing to bet that said contributors didn’t have the time to write a 5,000 word apology for the misfortune that these links exist, and to disavow their position from the extremists that seem allied with the position.
Accidental parallels do not on their own imply ‘secret’ ethnic hatred.
So one last time: dissent over the actions of an internationally funded, powerfully-armed militarily-supported land grab isn’t ethnic hatred, even if outrage over the land grab and its tactics explode regrettably often into an accidental (or even just a seeming) acquiescence of violence against civilians.
Israel’s expansionist policies bred this mess, and like Potter said earlier, Hamas is the mirror of it.
If I could snap my fingers and make Hamas go away, I’d do without qualm.
And I’d reverse the demolition of Palestinian homes in that same finger-snap, too.
That’s a metaphoric razor’s-edge for this mess, perhaps.
And naïve Americans like me need to understand the mess from every angle, because even though the polices are crafted behind closed doors, and then sanitized and spin-doctored before their articulation by the talented obfuscators of the diplomatic bureaucracy, American voters are the enablers of American foreign policy.
So keep up your efforts to illuminate us, but please drop the implied ‘f.u.’ in your oft-repeated use of ‘anti-Semite’ and ‘anti-Semitism.’
Lest the zeal behind your laudable efforts discredits your cause.
Over and out.
While people here are obsessed with the Jewish State:
Muslims are committing genocide in the Sudan.
Iraq is on the brink of civil war.
Nigeria is o the verge of civil war between Muslims and Christians.
There are Muslim gangs attacking Jews in France.
There are Jews being killed by Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel.
There are fatwahs being issued against artists and writers who don’t adhere to Islamic orthodoxy.
Riots over cartoons have destroyed embassies and killed Muslims across the globe.
One of Shia Islam’s holiest shrines was attacked by bombs and practically destroyed.
Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power, and its president is threatening Israel on a regular basis.
America has turned on its own Constitution and the international agreements it has signed.
Our own government has been running secret prisons throughout Europe, torture chambers in Iraq, and a camp full of non-terrorists who were turned in for revenge or rewards in Guantanamo Bay.
Methinks something is wrong when so much energy by the left is spent on (from a global perspective) a minor conflict. Besides hundreds of times more people had been killed in wars between Indians and Pakistanis (and other conflicts) yet only a small fraction of the time has been spent on these other conflicts by “human rights” organizations.
Is it any wonder that main stream Jews feel that there is much more than a desire for peace and human rights behind the animosity towards Israel in the world?
“Here are some statistics by a respected human rights group B’Tselem”
I am aware of those statistics, Potter.
They don’t change anything.
Digital,
I followed your links. Here are some quotes from that article:
Of Mohammed’s father:
“Apparently the thought of his son enjoying endless sex with Heavenly Virgins (as guaranteed by the Koran for all martyrs) AND the $2000 bonus (provided by the Palestinian Authority for all children who are martyred) has somewhat clouded Jamal’s objectivity!”
and later:
“New Revelations Suggest He May Not Even Be Dead!”.
and finally:
“Don’t be so surprised… THIS sort of barbarism is to be expected from a cruel, insane, hideous, psychotic religion that preaches “Jihad” and martyrdom and whose leaders are filthy, ugly, stinking, murdering, diseased Arab Moslem Nazi butchers!”
Why would I believe anything on such a site? This is clearly a deranged anti-muslim hate site. Do you really read this kind of garbage? Are you so proud of it that you would actually link it? And you wonder why you have no credibility on this blog.
“it strikes me that both the Greater Israel apologists…”
I am not a greater Israel apologist, nor advocate.
I don’t know who you have in mind. Methinks you need to come up with extremes in order to offer yourself as a middle of the road guy, Nikos.
In my case you couldn’t be more wrong. I am just nor ready to sit back and allow people to defame the Jeiwsh State in the name of “human rights.” Jews, even Zionists, have human rights too, Nikos.
“Why would I believe anything on such a site?”
Believe what you want, Raphael. Your side indulges in hyperbole also.
Still the analysis of the shooting was first rate.
btw: I linked to two websites, did you read both of them or were just looking for quotes to dismiss the whole argument?
“So keep up your efforts to illuminate us, but please drop the implied ‘f.u.’ in your oft-repeated use of ‘anti-Semite’ and ‘anti-Semitism.’
Lest the zeal behind your laudable efforts discredits your cause.
Over and out.”
Nikos, there is no “fu” in my posts, overt or implied.
Digital:
I’m stunned. You continue to support the lunatic ravings of what is apparently the Jewish equivalent of the KKK – complete with its homemade bad web design of lunatic fringe hate sites.
D.C.: your 2:24 PM post is EXACTLY why I value your input here. Until the the final two paragraphs, that is, where I disagree.
If only the Israel-Palestine conflict were a ‘minor’ fracas!
‘Jews, even Zionists, DO have human rights.’
No argument.
You’re barking up the wrong tree.
Here’s an olive branch:
So do the girls slaughtered by their honor-besmirched and sexually obessed men-kin.
I doubt you’ve an argument with that.
It’s also not relevant to this debate — just as your implication that I deny the human rights of Zionists.
Sorry, I don’t.
I’m troubled by the expansionism and the tactics used, not by the people in whose name the policies are formulated.
Cool down for bit.
See you later.
While you support anti-Semitic ravings by pro-Palestianian groups you insist that any counter argument is a sign of extremism.
Rafael, being Jewish to you is already like being a member of the KKK.
Nuf said.
Potter,
I have the highest respect for B’Tselem. And my point about naming those particular four incidents is that I wanted to answer those who are defending those crimes and trying to rationalize away the murder of so many people. I can believe that some of the 4000 Palestinians killed were accidental. But I can’t believe that all of them were. More importantly I see a pattern which at the best can be described as a willful disregard for the safety of civilians, and at the worst, and unfortunately the more credible end is a deliberate policy of targeting civilians.
I can understand how those who support Israel would rather no see it that way, and would wish to find another explanation. But then I look at the evidence, I don’t see another explanation. I can imagine that one of the world’s best trained armies could kill so many people by accident. You have to look at the whole picture also – the 30,000 Palestinians maimed, the home demolitions, the land confiscation, the discriminatory laws. I’m sorry, but the picture just isn’t very pretty.
I don’t want to minimize the murders committed by Palestinian terrorists either. For the record, these are monstrous crimes. Hamas terrorists should be in jail, not governing. But no one here is defending terrorist bombings, or trying to justify them. We all agree here that there is no justification for Palestinian bombings.
But I can’t leave it unanswered when DC tries to justify even the most egregious and well documented cases – cases so well documented that I don’t believe any honest observer can dispute, which are the four I mentioned.
Also I think you really have to question yourself about the assertion that Palestinian children would be attracted to shootouts. Those children are no different than our children, and we know that any of us, and especially children would flee from gunfire. It is uncomfortably similar to the argument that Palestinian parents send their children to die so they can claim a $2000 martyr bounty – like on DC’s hate site. Anyone who is a parent knows that this is also a monstrous lie.
“I’m troubled by the expansionism and the tactics used, not by the people in whose name the policies are formulated.”
I have no idea what you are talking about.
“Cool down for bit.”
Please, do.
See you later.
Potter: I try to keep peace as my path or goal. It is always a challenge. My sympathy for Palestinians does not mean that I condone killing innocent Israelis. I do not. But I do tend to root for the underdog in an occupation situation. I have always sympathised with the Irish too. I thought it was unjust for Britian to expect the IRA to give up weapons when the British would never consider giving up their weapons. When the Irish killed it was called terrorism but when the British kill it is called policy. And the British killed many, many innocents. (I’ve switched to the British example so as not to ignite more flames here) But I see this same discrepancy in the Palestinian/Israeli situation. I’m certainly not anti Semitic. Or even anti English for that matter. (I am a decendent of William Wallace, played by Mel Gibson in the movie Braveheart – perhaps where my warrior energy comes from). I am anti occupation. I love your optomism and I also hope that both sides in this conflict are weary enough of violence to work it out.
PS to Nikos if you are still checking this list – I did listen to the Hitman show and find it all very plausible. CL seemed in fine form. I like it when he kicks the tires.
“But no one here is defending terrorist bombings, or trying to justify them. We all agree here that there is no justification for Palestinian bombings.”
No, but you make it difficult for people to defend themselves against suicide bombings.
“But I do tend to root for the underdog in an occupation situation.”
And who is responsible for the “occupation?”
Its axiomatic: the occupiers.
I found time for one last post to D.C.:
I don’t think of myself as a ‘middle of the road guy’, cause I’m still tryin’ to FIND the road! After I’ve gained enough insight to discern the road, I’ll slide into the lane most appropriate to my conscience. And despite your anger at me today, your input helps me sort it all out.
Now to explain this product of haste:
‘If only the Israel-Palestine conflict were a ‘minor’ fracas!’
The Islamic world considers Israel an invasion and an affront. This alone makes it major instead of minor.
But I agree with the long-gone Lee Judt that a show exposing Islamic anti-Semitism – which IS ethnic hatred – is appropriate, because it fuels the magnification of Israel-Palestine into a ‘major’ conflict from a regional one.
It’s why I made the very first post in this thread.
It begs for a damn good examination.
Gotta go.
Digital,
You wrote: “Rafael, being Jewish to you is already like being a member of the KKK.”
Thats the second time now that you have accused me of being an anti-semite. I take that seriously. I’m not an anti-semite, and I object to that characterization.
Anonymous blogging gives some people a false feeling of omnipotence. And they end up saying things they don’t mean and would never say if they had to take responsibility for them.
I stand behind everything I’ve written. And I write it without malice for anyone. Its just the way I see it. Maybe I’m wrong. I’m willing to be educated about it. My mind is open to being changed.
Finally, unlike you I am not anonymous. My name is Rafael Baptista. My phone number of 781-367-9051. I’m easy to find on the internet. You’re welcome to give me a call and say that slander to me directly, and we can discuss it.
“I’m troubled by the expansionism and the tactics used, not by the people in whose name the policies are formulated.�
I meant the settlements and the IDF role.
Now I’m late.
But thanks for the give and take. Believe it or not, I think we’re making some sweet progress.
Optimistically yours,
N
“I meant the settlements and the IDF role.”
You are arguing about tactics that are no longer in use. There is a historical context to everything that happens in Israel and I wish you’d refer to them in your posts.
I am not sure people are aware of that context.
“Finally, unlike you I am not anonymous. My name is Rafael Baptista. My phone number of 781-367-9051. I’m easy to find on the internet. You’re welcome to give me a call and say that slander to me directly, and we can discuss it.”
I don’t know why you posted a phone number. I am not intereted in calling you.
We are just having a discussion here, sometimes its friendly sometimes its contentious, let’s leave it at that.
Its more than a just a discussion when you start slandering people.
You won’t call, nor will you blog with your real name because clearly you don’t have the courage to stand up for what you say. But you are willing to slander me, from behind your curtain of anonymity. You should stop doing it, and you should apologize.
Rafael why would Israel willfully disregard the safety of innocent civilians? What cause would that serve. I have and do accuse Sharon of using a heavy hand especially in the bveginning- but they have gotten better since. We can argue whether that is “willful disregard”- I do not think so. And we do not know how many deaths occurred as a result, if so.
So I find that you are painting with a broad brush and so you make yourself vulnerable to accusations of being unfair or one-sided in your sympathies. Fair enough. Peggy Sue admits to feeling more for the underdog. This is what has happened overall. People do not see the whole picture anymore. The know or care less of the history. They do not even know the geography. Look at a map. See how tiny Israel is and the configuration of the 67 borders. Take note of Arab/Muslim anti-semitism, very real, very virulent.
For accuracy according to B’Tselem lets say 3500 Palestinians were killed from 2000 to 2006
during this recent violent period, the intifada ( which by the way the Palestinians started right? I think you will agree that those 500 more matter.
I would be the last one to justify any of the killings on either side. When I post I try to be sympathetic to both sides. You do not show that in your posts so that invites DC’s comments. Yes you make a statement “for the record”. But it seems just for the record to appear fair. Are you really being fair?
For instance, without knowing, you already ask me to question what I know from reading, that Palestinian children are often drawn to the excitement of what is going on. They do become involved and get hurt.
We see that now happening in the Israeli side as well in the settlements with their kids especially when the IDF moves in.
On both sides those that hold extreme views or feel under attack, train their kids from early on that they have to fight.
So I think your bent of mind tends in one direction and DC picks up on that. I notice it too and I pride myself for trying to be fair. I am a real critic of Israeli policy, especially failed the policies of Sharon. The Palestinians have shown over these last few years that they are strong and that they can give as good as they get. Now I would like to see them get their act together and live normally, productively and peacefully.
Sorry I should have edited that better.
“Its more than a just a discussion when you start slandering people.”
Hey, you equated Jews to members of the KKK! Now that’s slander, it’s also an anti-Semitic comment.
“You won’t call, nor will you blog with your real name because clearly you don’t have the courage to stand up for what you say. But you are willing to slander me, from behind your curtain of anonymity. You should stop doing it, and you should apologize.”
I want call because I am just having an argument on a website.
Now just because you post a “name” and a Phone number doesn’t mean that you are who you say you are. Not that I care.
You are taking yourself too seriously, Rafael.
Peggysue:
I am a decendent of William Wallace, played by Mel Gibson in the movie Braveheart – perhaps where my warrior energy comes from.
Hey peggysue, got a birthcertificate or some dna material that can prove you descent?
‘I thought it was unjust for Britian to expect the IRA to give up weapons when the British would never consider giving up their weapons. When the Irish killed it was called terrorism but when the British kill it is called policy. And the British killed many, many innocents.’
How do you sqaure that with the descendent of William Wallace occupying Ireland?
Speaking of “occupations” as the cause of political violence, here is an amazing document:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/41/00/acns4113.cfm
“Reaction of the President of the Christian Association of Nigeria, The Most Revd Peter Akinola on recent events in Nigeria
Having watched with sadness and dismay the recent development in some States in the Northern part of this Country where many Christian Churches and other property have been wantonly destroyed by some Islamic fundamentalists, the Christian Association of Nigeria is compelled to issue the following statements:
From all indications, it is very clear now that the sacrifices of the Christians in this country for peaceful co-existence with people of other faiths has been sadly misunderstood to be weakness
We have for a long time now watched helplessly the killing, maiming and destruction of Christians and their property by Muslim fanatics and fundamentalists at the slightest or no provocation at all. We are not unaware of the fact that these religious extremists have the full backup and support of some influential Muslims who are yet to appreciate the value of peaceful co-existence.
That an incident in far away Denmark which does not claim to be representing Christianity could elicit such an unfortunate reaction here in Nigeria, leading to the destruction of Christian Churches, is not only embarrassing, but also disturbing and unfortunate.
It is no longer a hidden fact that a long standing agenda to make this Nigeria an Islamic nation is being surreptitiously pursued. The willingness of Muslim Youth to descend with violence on the innocent Christians from time to time is from all intents and purposes a design to actualize their dream.”
So are the Nigerian Christians occupying the Muslim Nigerians?
The idea that “occupation” is the main cause of sectarian violence is nonsense.
Potter,
You wrote “Rafael why would Israel willfully disregard the safety of innocent civilians?”
It seems like an insane policy. I agree. But then you must look at the evidence.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=190550&contrassID=3&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/28/mideast/
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/33457_mideast01.shtml
These are just three reports I grabbed in a few minutes about Israel shooting rockets into occupied buildings in Gaza. In all cases Israel claimed it had a legitimate target, and in all cases civilians died. I think that if you fire a missile into an occupied apartment building, you can expect that many occupants will die. This kind of act to me shows at least a disregard for the lives of bystanders. Imagine if the police in your town fired a missile into a bank once they heard there might be a bank robber inside, and then claimed this is a legitimate method of fighting crime.
I believe this policy, like the equally criminal Palestinian policy of suicide bombings, is born of frustration. Israel is not the first to try this tactic – of killing a multiple of civilians on the other side for each person they lose on their own side.
Also, I don’t believe everything I read. If I read a report about children being attracted to gunfire, I really have to question its veracity. I would not believe it unless I actually saw it. All my experience with children leads me to believe that they flee from gunfire. I imagine my own children. I’m quite sure that in this situation they would be hiding under their beds crying.
And you are asking me that in order to prove my impartiality that I should have posted more repudiating Palestinian violence. There was no reason to do it. No one is defending it. The only reason to post about it here would be to assure you that I am against it. I am against it. Its wrong. Anyone who defends it is crazy.
I’ve heard the justifications for suicide bombings against civilians, that its legitimate resistance, that the bombers are driven mad by repression. I reject those arguments.
What I won’t do, is go a step further and say that Israeli attacks on civilians are justified as a defense against attacks by terrorists. I reject that argument also.
I have a great deal of sympathy for Israelis. If you zoom in to Israel itself they are dominant, but just zoom out a little, and you see that they are very small, in a very hostile area. Worldwide Jews as a people are small in number and shrinking as a percentage of the world population. Even as jewish populations grow slowly in Israel, and shrink in most of ther parts of the world, the populations of Islamic countries are exploding. Long term, I see it the way you do, the Jewish people are beleagured against a much larger world.
I understand their desire for a safe homeland. I sympathize with the request, can’t the Jews just have this one little piece of oil-less desert that they have been waiting to return to for 2000 years. Can’t we finally let them have their Jerusalem?
I understand why Jews feel the need to watch each other’s back.
But at the same time I see what Israel is doing is counter productive. Populations under economic pressure grow much faster than rich industrialized populations. Ironically the poor can afford many children, the rich can afford only a few. So as Israel deprives its Arabs, their population grows much faster than the Jewish population. In order to combat this they encourage as many Jews as possible to emigrate to Israel. This helps even things out demographically in Israel, but is depopulating the world of Jews. Jewish populations in Russia, Europe and Argentina are shrinking as young Jews emigrate to Israel.
If the Israeli’s had found a way to give the Arabs in Israel a first world standard of living they might be winning the demographic race in Israel.
Instead the strategy has been to starve the Arab ‘cancer’. Deny them permits to build houses, knock down their houses, take the agricultural land. The rationale is that eventually they would literally have no more room to grow. Or that they would get the message and leave.
DC:
You wrote: “Hey, you equated Jews to members of the KKK! Now that’s slander”
The blog is here for the world to read. I clearly equated a rabid hate website you linked to with the KKK. I think most Jews would repudiate the insanity on that web site.
I think you don’t post with your name because you would hate to have your friends and family find out that you sympathize with racist hate groups.
Which web site is that?
It would be this one:
http://www.masada2000.org/al-dura.html
but do feel free to explore their other fine offerings, like:
http://www.masada2000.org/cancerwithin.html
“But at the same time I see what Israel is doing is counter productive. Populations under economic pressure grow much faster than rich industrialized populations. Ironically the poor can afford many children, the rich can afford only a few.”
In part that is because the poor in rich countries (Europe, Israel) get state support. We should have a discussion on this issue sometime.
“So as Israel deprives its Arabs, their population grows much faster than the Jewish population.”
This is true only if you factor in the Arabs in the territories which Israel is now trying to shed for that very reason.
“In order to combat this they encourage as many Jews as possible to emigrate to Israel. This helps even things out demographically in Israel, but is depopulating the world of Jews. Jewish populations in Russia, Europe and Argentina are shrinking as young Jews emigrate to Israel.”
This is only partly true. Jews have immigrated from countries were they have been encountering hardhips. Anti-Semitism in Russia and now in France is driving many out of those countries. If it weren’t Israel they would immigrate elsewhere either to the US, Canada, or Australia.
“If the Israeli’s had found a way to give the Arabs in Israel a first world standard of living they might be winning the demographic race in Israel.”
Well, Israel has made many mistakes in regard to its Arab population but not giving them a first class standard of living is not one of them.
This is because the Arabs in Israel proper had for a long time apted for their traditional village life.
Also many Arab elected officials tend to be outspoken in their support of the Arabs in the territories which created tensions between Arabs and Jews. This is the biproduct of the conflict.
Still, Israel had started to institute a program to hire Arabs in different segments of the economy when the Intifada hit.
I hope they will reinstate the program.
“It would be this one”
Masada is a right wing website and I don’t agree with most of their posts. However, they did offer a cogent analysis of the shooting which they probably got from elswhere.
Here is another one:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/2120/Doriel_Investigation.html
“I think you don’t post with your name because you would hate to have your friends and family find out that you sympathize with racist hate groups. ”
This is funny. I’ll tell my family about it.
DC: “Masada is a right wing website and I don’t agree with most of their posts.”
So you admit to being a regular reader? You troll their pages and pages of racist vitriol, looking for the occasional pearl of cogent analysis? I wonder what that would be, because for the short time that I could stomach it, I didn’t find any pages that didn’t reek of depraved racism.
Your second link, to a loopy conspiracy web site, with the same lunatic fringe webdesign, does stay away from the most base and rabid racism. Definitely a step up. They do repeat the lie that Palestinians encourage their children to go get Martyred by Israel.
Anyone who wants to check out the credibility of this new web site is welcome to start at their index page to get a sense of who they are dealing with:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/2120/index.html
Anyway I don’t know why you didn’t link to their other page on the Mohammed Al-Dura:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/2120/netzarim.html
It must be because in their efforts to show how it couldn’t have been an Israeli sniper, it becomes so easy to see how their argument if full of holes. Plus this page is also redolant with the accusation that Mohammed’s father wanted his son to be gunned down.
Here you go again. I google my queries like most web users.
In any case the view that al Dura may not have been killed by an Israeli sniper is not as controversial as it once was.
Did you read the Atlantic article or do you only refer to articles that you can trash if you don’t agree with its conclusion?
Here is more on al Dura:
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000520.html
German TV: Mohammed Al-Dura was killed by Palestinians
Here is another article with sources at the bottom of the page. (caution of them I already linked to)
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_alaqsa_dura.php
I wish the left would have done their own investigation, but like ISM they are too busy manufacturing invective against the Jewish State.
Rafael I am beginning to think that you’ll dismiss anything that doesn’t accord with your belief system.
“They do repeat the lie that Palestinians encourage their children to go get Martyred by Israel.”
The above is no lie:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=1536576
“Suicide Bombers’ Mother Elected to Palestinian Parliament
‘Mother of the Struggle’ Says She Would Sacrifice Remaining Sons for Jihad
GAZA, Jan. 26, 2006 — – Mariam Farahat, who was elected to the Palestinian parliament, can work a crowd like a veteran politician — shaking hands and greeting supporters. When she gets on the stage at a Hamas rally, she is the star attraction. She was one of Hamas’ most popular candidates in Wednesday’s election.
In Gaza, Farahat is known as Um Nidal, or Mother of the Struggle — a mother who sent three of her six sons on Hamas suicide missions against Israeli targets.
“We consider it holy duty,” she told ABC News. “Our land is occupied. You take all the means to banish the occupier. I sacrificed my children for this holy, patriotic duty. I love my children, but as Muslims we pressure ourselves and sacrifice our emotions for the interest of the homeland. The greater interest takes precedence to the personal interest.”
She is most famous for her presence in a Hamas video, showing her 17-year-old how to attack Israelis and telling him not to return. Shortly afterward, he killed five students in a Jewish settlement before he was killed himself….”
I cannot respond to the Atlantic article. It requires a subscription. I don’t know why you are posting links to racist web sites, if they are so easy to demolish – unless you believe those web sites are credible.
Your first site is clearly only for the insane. Your second site while less rabid, is rife with racism, like the following:
“The only scenario which makes any sense at all is that this was a pre arranged ‘photo op.’ With the boy, and his father, to be presented as ‘victims’ of Israeli violence. After all they count the lives of their children as nothing.”
The palestinefacts web site echoes this same racist argument but with slighly less
provocative language:
“a Palestinian shot the boy in cold blood to create a needed martyr to advance the Palestinian cause. The event, including the Palestinian film crew, was staged for maximum effect. The boy was “just another martyr”.”
And gives support to the lie that “al-Dura may still be alive and well.” I mean who are you going to believe your own eyes when they see a videotaped and documented murder? Or some fringy partisan web site? Conveniently “palestinefacts” then links to the more overtly racist web sites you have already linked.
Your link to tomgrossmedia, just makes the suggestion that there exists a german documentary that explores the Israeli’ military’s own report that maybe the soldiers across the street were not responsible. It also includes Mohammed’s father’s own statement that:
“I am 100 percent certain that the Israelis were to blame,” he said. “I have medical reports, X-rays and reports by eyewitnesses confirming that we came under fire from Israeli soldiers.”
Your own partisan exploration of the internet for evidence that Mohammed Al-Dura was killed in a ‘staged martyrdom’ by his father so that he could collect $2000, seems to show that the only people who give credence to this theory are fringe web sites with blatantly racist agendas.
DC: Please don’t keep cutting and pasting text from the sites you link. We can all follow the links and the the text in its orignal context. It just wastes space.
When Chris Lydon asked what we must do to solve the Hamas problem, neither David Remnick nor Ari Shavit had an answer. But they both agreed that the problem was deadly serious (cited picture of atomic cloud over Israel in Arabic-language material from Hamas, etc.). My question: If the Palestinian people elected Hamas on this “platform”, how will they respond when Hamas is unable to deliver? The only way Hamas can destroy Israel would be with an atomic bomb – which would also lead to their certain destruction. Do the Palestinian people want this? Remnick and Shavit seem certain that they do. My feeling at program’s end was that the “experts” feel we are living in a mad and hopeless world. And it’s all the fault of the Palestinians and Arab extremists from other areas. Is this the final assessment? Is this where we are? I feel there must be rational non-violent solutions that the USA and Israel can provide that will engage the Arab world in cooperation.
Rafael you said that Palestinian parents don’t encourage their childred into “martydom.”
You ar ewrong. I linked you to an article from abc news that showed that.. Are they racist also?
As for al dura enither The Atlantic nor Tom Gross are “racists.”
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000520.html
But you won’t talk about that.
btw: what wrong with syaing that Palestinian radicals do look for martydom? This is something that they say. Do you think that they don’t mean it?
Besides why is it so important for you to believe that al Dura was killed by the Israelis?
“DC: Please don’t keep cutting and pasting text from the sites you link. We can all follow the links and the the text in its orignal context. It just wastes space.”
This is just a red herring, RB.
For those who can’t access the Atlantic article here is the reference:
The Atlantic Monthly | June 2003
“Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura?
The image of a boy shot dead in his helpless father’s arms during an Israeli confrontation with Palestinians has become the Pietà of the Arab world. Now a number of Israeli researchers are presenting persuasive evidence that the fatal shots could not have come from the Israeli soldiers known to have been involved in the confrontation. The evidence will not change Arab minds—but the episode offers an object lesson in the incendiary power of an icon”
by James Fallows
Here we go again:
The US and Israel are being blamed for another atrocity; this one in Iraq.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060223/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_iraq_shrine;_ylt=ApOLHdflQrLGRc_EwcvX670LewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA–
Iran: U.S., Israel Destroyed Iraqi Shrine By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer
Thu Feb 23, 4:26 AM ET
TEHRAN, Iran – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blamed the United States and Israel on Thursday for the destruction of a Shiite shrine’s golden dome in Iraq, saying it was the work of “defeated Zionists and occupiers.”
He is not the only one:
“”We cannot imagine that the Iraqi Sunnis did this,” said the influential Sunni cleric Sheik Youssef al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian who lives in Qatar. “No one benefits from such acts other than the U.S. occupation and the lurking Zionist enemy.”
It’s all the fault of those evil Zionists. Muslims never kill they get outraged because they are under “occupation.”
I saw nothing racist at tomgrossmedia.com, but I saw nothing to support your argument either. The other sites are clearly racist sites. Come on. If someone said that Jews “count the lives of their children as nothing”, you’d say that person was an anti-semite. You’d be right, and I would support you in that.
Your article from ABC, documents the racist vitriol of a far right Hamas political candidate. You’re right she’s a nut job. But it would not be right to take the words of one person, a political candidate at that, and to say that this is what all Arabs believe. That makes about as much sense as linking the racist blatherings by Meir Kahane and claiming that they represent the views of most Jews.
And nothing in my arguments hinge on who killed Mohammed Al-Dura. You are the one who got all worked up about proving that it wasn’t Israel. There are hundreds of other children killed by the IDF.
I’m trying to be reasonable with you, and have been patiently reading through some pretty radical websites you keep linking. Surely you have to see that the people posting these arguments are hardly impartial.
“I saw nothing racist at tomgrossmedia.com, but I saw nothing to support your argument either.”
and what’s my argument, pray tell?
“Your article from ABC, documents the racist vitriol of a far right Hamas political candidate. You’re right she’s a nut job.”
Maybe, but she was elected to public office.
Besides, children don’t automatically wake up and decide to become suicide bombers. They must learn and be encouraged by their environment. Not to mention that they must a support network to be able to carry it out.
You just don’t want to accept the fact that there are cultures whose values are totally different from yours or mine.
“And nothing in my arguments hinge on who killed Mohammed Al-Dura. You are the one who got all worked up about proving that it wasn’t Israel. There are hundreds of other children killed by the IDF.”
I already answered the issue of “children killed by the IDF.”
As for al Dura my position is that we will never know one hundred percent who killed him. He was a victim of the conflict. He probably got caught in a cross fire as the Atlantic article argues.
Blaming the Israelis alone for his death or the death of children who were sent out to attack Israelis is a one sided view, to say the least.
fiddlestix: no DNA link to Wallace just family lore. I can’t prove it but the Wallace line is on my Mom’s side. Wallace fought the English occupation of Scotland back in the 1200s. After the English took over Scotland they gave some of the displaced Scots Protestants land in Ireland – that’s who we know as the Scots-Irish – that was another English tactic to keep the Irish down and maintain their occupation of Ireland. (Like the Chinese moveing settlers into Tibet, not to mention other troublesome occupations using settlement as a way to maintain an occupation). But I believe this all happen quite a bit later than William Wallace’s time. Maybe in the 1500s? I’d have to check. You may also be thinking of William of Orange who was actually Dutch and Protestant who raised havoc in Ireland. My own family didn’t leave the Highlands of Scotland until the 19th century.
(VERY loosly linked to this thread by the topic occupying territory and maintaing occupations through settlements)
“(VERY loosly linked to this thread by the topic occupying territory and maintaing occupations through settlements)”
gee, and I thought this thread was about how best to deal with Hamas.
As for occupations the Muslim Arabs of course never conquered any land nor set up settlements nor forced people to convert to Islam.
They were never occupiers. They never conquered Palestine, North Africa, or Spain.
They just spread out of Arabia on a magic carpet and like pollen drifted to the various parts of the world were governments were just turned over to them.
DC, you should get out of the house more and make friends with some muslims in your neighborhood. You might become less prejudiced.
Hello Thomas 4430. I agree with yhou.
Pardon us we’re having a heated “discussion”.
Good point DC above.
I’d like to mention the horrible Ilan Halimi murder case in France this week as an example of muslim anti-semitism.
The conversation may be getting better. Maybe not.
Rafael
What I won’t do, is go a step further and say that Israeli attacks on civilians are justified as a defense against attacks by terrorists. I reject that argument also
I agree. I don’t believe that these attacks were aimed at civilians per se. There were some horrible scenes of, Jenin for instance, during the early intifada and during the height of the suicide bombing campaign that were broadcast worldwide. This did Israel a lot of damage in world opinion and gained Palestinians a lot of sympathy at Israel’s expense. I think that is one reason why Shaton finally had to change his strategy belatedly.
Terrorists hide themselves amongst the civilian population in densely populated areas- and they hide their bomb factories there too. It’s a tough situation from a defense point of view. Don’t forget also that the Palestinians wanted this second intifada after the 2000 peace talks failed, the first was so successful. This turn to violence again was in part if not mostly because of Arafat. Palestinians were angry and in despair about occupation but but also about their own corrupt leadership. A lot of money, billions were stolen from them by their own leaders.
The Sharon strategy that failed was to totally devastate the Palestinians in the territories so that they would accept a peace on Israeli terms. I was very much against this as were many Israeli’s and Jews in diaspora.
Another goal was to get rid of Arafat who proved himself to be no partner for peace. This Sharon did and he may have done the Palestinians a favor as well.
By the way I’ll repeat something that I and others often said: During these years, where was the Palestinian peace movement? Why didn’t they turn to demonstrations and passive resistance?
But at the same time I see what Israel is doing is counter productive. Populations under economic pressure grow much faster than rich industrialized populations. Ironically the poor can afford many children, the rich can afford only a few. So as Israel deprives its Arabs, their population grows much faster than the Jewish population. In order to combat this they encourage as many Jews as possible to emigrate to Israel. This helps even things out demographically in Israel, but is depopulating the world of Jews. Jewish populations in Russia, Europe and Argentina are shrinking as young Jews emigrate to Israel
If the Israeli’s had found a way to give the Arabs in Israel a first world standard of living they might be winning the demographic race in Israel.
Instead the strategy has been to starve the Arab ‘cancer’. Deny them permits to build houses, knock down their houses, take the agricultural land. The rationale is that eventually they would literally have no more room to grow. Or that they would get the message and leave. .
Again- what happened to the billions in aid that the Palestinians received? Why was it not used to better their lives instead of providing a first world luxury style for their leaders? In addition, many Palestinians lost their opportunity to work in Israel because of the intifada and terrorism which were choices. The switch to violence was tantamount to shooting themselves in the foot.
As far as Jews emigrating to Israel most have done so because they were not welcome in their native country. Why would Jews emigrate into that situation in Israel unless they had to? Of course there are others from the USA who move there for ideological reasons and to support Israel, to help it survive and also to cause trouble in the settlements.
Jews, like everyone else, do not emigrate so easily if they are content and flourishing where they are. They tend to assimilate unless of course they become fundamentalists.
If the Israeli’s had found a way to give the Arabs in Israel a first world standard of living they might be winning the demographic race in Israel.
Instead the strategy has been to starve the Arab ‘cancer’. Deny them permits to build houses, knock down their houses, take the agricultural land. The rationale is that eventually they would literally have no more room to grow. Or that they would get the message and leave.
Firstly Israeli’s themselves do not have a first world standard of living. Secondly, “giving them”? This is a gargantuan requirement. Don’t they have to want it and show that they can earn it in peace and coexistence? Is it not better for Palestinians to make their own standard of living in their own state and not be dependent? Many Palestinians got into the groove of living as victims, waiting for the day when they could have it all back as promised holding on to the keys of their long lost homes. Others, more educated, more ambitious and enterprising left and got on with their lives. There is a large Palestinian diaspora, a brain drain. Who would want to live under all that dysfunction anyway, the occupation and chaos during the Arafat years?
You can lay a lot on Israel, but Palestinians ultimately need to look within, especially now.
Israel came to be when Jews finally after 2000 years took responsibility for themselves and their own future.
I am usually heavy on criticism of Israel but I gueess it’s good to argue the other side for a change.
“DC, you should get out of the house more and make friends with some muslims in your neighborhood. You might become less prejudiced.”
Take your own advise and make friends with some Zionists. You may decide that they are human beings after all.
I know a number of Muslims, btw, and this is not about me or you.
Here is a link to the James Fallows Atlantic Monthly article that was posted on another site
“Who killed Mohammed Al- Dura?” http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2003/05/who-shot-mohammed-al-dura-james.html
James Fallows is a very reputable reporter.
What is it about Muslims that they are so easily deluded:
(Please note I have skipped the hypocritical “some.”)
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/wl/020106danishcartoons/im:/060222/481/kar10202221608;_ylt=AiO8FQgO7B5wDoh9QjagSoZgWscF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3dmhrOGVvBHNlYwNzc20-
“Pakistani Shiite Muslims burn United States and Israeli flags to condemn the bombing on the Golden Mosque, one of Shi’ite Islam’s holiest sites in the Iraqi city of Samarra, at a rally in Karachi, Pakistan on Wednesday, Feb. 22,”
Thanks for posting the link, Potter.
It seems to a distant eye here in Tokyo that that the US and its allies get what they deserve, even if it is not what they wish for. Of course the innocent victims on all sides don’t.
Iran was a democracy of sorts before the Shah was put back into power and then came khomeini. The CIA helped Saddam and when he didn’t behave and started negotiating oil contracts and cutting the US out, Cheney had him removed. Now you have…? There are socialist democracies breaking out all over Latin America in response to unequal globalization and the US and Israel helped to bring Hamas to power.
Look to the source of the problem and you will probably find the solution, don’t you think?
Potter,
There is much in your post of last night that I agree with. The Palestinian Authority under Fatah was notoriously corrupt, and squandered money that could have done much. I think this is the primary reason Palestinians have turned to Hamas. I disagree with those who say that Hamas came to power because if Sharon, and that Israel ‘deserves’ to get Hamas in power. It was the failure of Fatah. It would have happened under any Israeli government. To some extent those of us who support the Israeli peace movement should be glad that Hamas came to power during a Likud government – because had it happened with a left wing government then the Israeli peace movement would have been blamed.
Why hasn’t the Palestinian Peace movement been more successful? I don’t know. Nothing has hurt the Palestinian cause more than their terrorist actions. Without those, and if they had a charismatic peace movement leader – a guy like Ghandi – this whole problem might have been solved by now.
The violence against civilians perpetrated by both sides, and the land confiscations by Israel is what keeps this problem from being solved. I don’t see an answer, because neither side will stop completely from engaging in all of these actions. We have gotten to the point many times where both sides refrain from violence for a period of months. We have never had a period where Israel stopped confiscating land.
“The Sharon strategy that failed was to totally devastate the Palestinians in the territories so that they would accept a peace on Israeli terms. I was very much against this as were many Israeli’s and Jews in diaspora.”
I agree with you here. And in the other passage where you cite the destruction of Jenin. Yet you insist in other posts that Israeli violence against civilians was never intentional. Anyway, we both agree that like Palestinian terrorism, this strategy has failed.
About my suggestion that Israel would be in better shape if Palestinians had a first world standard of living, you point out that they have mismanaged their own affairs, and that anyway it is not Israel’s responsibility. I don’t disagree – and the issue of how they would get there, and who should help is a complex one. All I mean, is that if they were at that level economically – their birth rate would decrease – and the demographics of Israel would be more favorable toward Jews.
“Israel came to be when Jews finally after 2000 years took responsibility for themselves and their own future.”
I have always admired Israeli’s optimistic can-do attitude. Despite all the obstacles, the poor climate, the small size of the country, the political problems, Israelis set for themselves the highest goals – and often achieve them. Beautiful cities, high technology, first class educational system. Roll up your sleeves and get to work, lets build a whole new world. Its inspiring.
I have harsh criticism for the way Israel has treated the Palestinians, but I observe much which is good also.
Sidewalker: Rarely is so much truth written in so short a post.
Sidewalker in Tokyo thanks – my thoughts on your post:
If Hamas would have come to power in any event as Raphael says ( I am not sure about that) perhaps Khomeini would have also. Was Iranian democracy strong enough to keep an Islamic revolution in check?
People are not all entirely or always innocent either. They support or they do not support their leaders. Palestinians strongly supported Arafat and they came to support and trust Hamas. In this would you say that they deserved what they got? They lost a lot.
The problem in Saddam’s Iraq was a reign of terror that the people could no longer act against. ( I was not for the invasion.) After while you had to think that the people did not deserve it regardless.
With regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict going to the source can be a selective subjective exercise. How deep into history do you go for the source?
WW2?
The 1967 war was a turning point for Israel. A self-destructive force began to take hold with the capturing of land and the “Greater Israel” movement which turned into the settler movement and a messianism. This all without considering the Arab population.
Another source in the conflict would also have to be Arab refusal to accept Jewish/Israeli presence at all throughout the years especially when there were many offers made in which Israel would have, in exchange for a true peace, been content with her original sliver of a country.
“The 1967 war was a turning point for Israel. A self-destructive force began to take hold with the capturing of land and the “Greater Israelâ€? movement which turned into the settler movement and a messianism. This all without considering the Arab population.”
Good serious of posts. However, I must point out that while you are objectively right that the capture of the West Bank and Gaza turned out to be white elephants for Israel it’s hard to see how that country could have avoided the dilemmas it is facing now. Hindsight is always 20/20, but hindsight sees events in the rear view mirror and never has to face events as they occur, in their concreteness.
After 67 Israel offered to return the captured lands in exchange for a peace treaty. The Arabs States at the time did not want to negotiate with the Jewish State.
It is important to remember that from 67 till the mid 70’s there were no settlements built on the West Bank. That policy was adopted after they decided that the Arabs would not negotiate with Israel.
You are right when you say that first came the settlers, then came the religious zealots offering ideological support for that move.
I also don’t believe that Israel is responsible for Hamas (or the US forTaliban in Afghanistan). In a conflict you make choices and they aren’t always the choices you would have made under peaceful circumstances. The US made an alliance with Stalin against Hitler. At the time it was the right thing to do. I doubt Israeli policy makers had any more of an idea about Islamicism in the mid 80’s than did the US. This doesn’t mean that they created these fanatical movements.
I do agree for the most part with what you say but I fault Israeli’s for coveting land beyond what was due to them at the expense of others who had legitimacy on that land and had a right to their part of it’s division. That land should have been held in escrow so to speak. But the government, over the years used it own people as pawns in this struggle, allowed them to believe that it was forever theirs and no wonder that they felt betrayed. I cannot argue with settlers for these feelings ( though they might have suspected and known better).
It was greed all around and we might as well include the Arabs in that too. Each side wanted the whole enchilada. It was a power struggle. And, let’s face it, it was the terrorism, finally, that gave the Palestinians the weapon that gave them some power. They were not going to allow Israeli’s to live a normal life. No way. The adversity gave them strength to struggle even as living conditions deteriorated much like the Jews who managed to survive through it all.
As Israel pulls back to reasonable lines, the test will be for Hamas to know when to go for it, go for legitimacy for thenselves and a decent life for their people. If they go off the deep end and connect with global extremists in the hope of getting rid of Israel all bets are off.
I can’t see how Israel can let her guard down for many years to come, but she must get out of the occupation business.
“I can’t see how Israel can let her guard down for many years to come, but she must get out of the occupation business.”
I agree.
Potter, you asked, “Was Iranian democracy strong enough to keep an Islamic revolution in check?”
That is a difficult question to answer, but by banning democratic dissent and killing and torturing political opposition, the US backed Shah dictatorship helped ferment that poisonous brew of Islam as the mosque was the one safe place to gather and one institution left more or less untouched.
In this case, as with Saddam and the Taliban, again the US is complicit in helping to bring these cruel types to power. This is what I meant by going to the source. I think we can all agree that the US can be a great beacon of democracy, but it can also be the searing torch of self-interest and greed. It lights a path for those who struggle for freedom in oppressive societies and yet it blinds itself to the harm it causes in its relentless pursuit of wealth and economic supremacy.
I agree with Rafael that Hamas could have come to power under any US backed Israel government, especially one that continued to build a wall, refused to, unilaterally or not, remove the settlements from the West Bank, take the sharing of Jerusalem off the negotiating table and continued to support the corrupt Fatah.
Digital Communicator, please don’t think I am against an Israeli state. I think Hamas has to renounce violence and its wish to destroy Israel, but I don’t think this need be a precondition for negotiation. The occupier and its financial backer have to end the occupation first–or show bold moves in that direction. This is, of course, much easier said than done.
Potter wrote: “The problem in Saddam’s Iraq was a reign of terror that the people could no longer act against. (I was not for the invasion.) After a while you had to think that the people did not deserve it regardless.”
No arguments here. No people deserve a regime that suppresses freedoms, kills its own people (and those in other lands that do not attack or threaten) and tortures.
But let’s not buy into the rhetoric of democratization. It’s about the oil and exploitable markets.
Here is a short piece from Haaretz about who has and who hasn’t “the right to exist.”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=686185
“Israel has no ‘right to exist’
By Bradley Burston
Friday, 24 February (32 days to election day)
Today’s quiz: Nearly 200 nations hold membership in the United Nations. How many have a right to exist?
Let’s ask the question differently. How many of the world body’s member states have a capital which even its closest ally cannot bring itself to recognize?
This is it.
One hundred and ninety-one nations, and only one lacks the “right to exist” in the eyes of fellow states.
No other country even has a “right to exist.” No other country needs one.
Next up: What does a country have to do to lose its inherent right to exist?
A cautionary note. This is a trick question.
If you answered genocide, arguably the worst-case scenario, you’d be way wrong.
No one questions Turkey’s right to exist. This after the deaths of more than a million Armenians beginning in 1915.
Nor did they expect Cambodia, which under the Khmer Rouge may have killed 2,000,000 people, to lose its membership in the community of nations.
Pakistan has no right-to-exist issue. This, after Bangladesh, 1971. The Rape of Nanking during Japan’s wartime occupation of China? Japan gets to stay on the map.
Germany? Let’s not even go there.
So why is it so hard for some people to recognize the right of Israel to exist?”
Read the rest…
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=686185
DC-Many if not most people, it seems to me, do recognize Israel’s right to exist.
Arabs, Muslims, have seen, some continue to see, Israeli’s as colonizers and invaders, part of the West moving in on their land. I think you have to accept that Israel is on a fault line between east and west, a difficult place to be for anyone. And you also have to understand Arab and Muslim history I guess- the feelings of humiliation of their defeat and decline and their possessiveness about the land.
Jews have (re)conquered what they feel is their land. This land has been conquered and reconquered so many times. It holds a lot of meaning for more than one people.
The question should not have to be asked. The answers should be understood by now.
Did Jews expect to be welcomed with open arms and everyone would simply move over one notch?
Jews found it very hard to recognize the existence of Palestinians right?
Not recognizing another’s right to exist is psychological warfare.
Obviously Israel exists. Israeli’s and Jews might stop letting this get their goat so much.
“Jews found it very hard to recognize the existence of Palestinians right?”
This has been said so often that it’s almost become a fact. However, it is not a fact at all.
You need to realize that in terms of 19C (and at least half of the 20th) thinking about peoplehood the land called Palestine which now includes Jordan as well as Israel and the area in between was sparsely inhabited by people but it was not inhabited by a people.
What this means is that the people living there did not see themselves as belonging to a larger nation, rather they saw themselves as belonging to small local associations of family groupings which is were their loyalty lay.
Ironically it was their struggle against the Jews that unified many of them and gave them a sense of identity as a people. During the British mandate the Arabs living there did not want to be called Palestinians a term reserved for the Jews in their midst. It was only about 1960 that some groups began to call themselves Palestinians and in 1964, I believe, the PLO was formed.
Hence while most Zionists always recognized the fact that people were living in Palestine they didn’t see them as “a people,” certainly not as a “Palestinian” people since that term didn’t come into existence as a designation of an Arab nation till much later.
Moreover, and here is more irony, if Hamas ever got its way they would change the designation of the people living there to a more Islamic appelation. This isn’t unusual in the third world. Think of Zaire (a name adopted after decolonialization) which changed its name back to the Congo after many decades. Zaire is of course a French name while Congo is the more indigenous name.
Likewise, Palestine is a Latin name for the territories (it roughly translates the name of the ancient people of the coast–the Phillistines). It was given to the area by the Romans after the wars they fought against the ancient Judeans which they won and after expelling the Jews from most of the land.
Still, the Jews maintained a sense of peoplehood after the dispersion and will so in the future.
There is no end to irony in the Middle East.
In other words we can take their land because the word “Palestina” was invented by the Romans. Brilliant.
Sidewalker:
Muslim rage may be more about what the US represents than what it does.
There was a long period in history when the choice was either to conquer or be conquered (unless you lived in a very remote place and even then you could not avoid it).
Muslims conquered for awhile. Then they lost.
Which of the two choices would you make if you had to make one- to conquer or be conquered?
Sidewalker: I agree with Rafael that Hamas could have come to power under any US backed Israel government, especially one that continued to build a wall, refused to, unilaterally or not, remove the settlements from the West Bank, take the sharing of Jerusalem off the negotiating table and continued to support the corrupt Fatah.
The US backs Israel for numerous reasons (beyond lobbying from American Jews – 2% of the population). If the US did not back Israel, Israel might not be. This commitment goes back to President Truman’s administration. Israel has been a reliable friend during the cold war up to the present day in that part of the world. It is in our interest to have a strong friendly Israel. Israel will not take orders from the US either and the US will not put Israel in that position. This has been tested.
The wall you mention has to be spoken of with some context. It is a symbol of the failure of the peace process and it does punish the Palestinians, but it was a last resort effort to prevent terrorists from penetrating Israel, saves lives on both sides in so doing, and is a beginning of a separation of the two peoples, sadly. I was vehemently against it at first. Now I see the need. I really do not want to see it in person so painful is it for me.
The settlements will probably be removed in phases and there has been a substantial down payment on that. We have seen the beginning. Some credit is due for that right?
Jerusalem was on the table at one point and might be again. It should not be on the table until there is some stability and movement on the other side. The negotiating table was deserted by Arafat. Sharon did not want to deal with him after 2000 and took the table away completely. Few Israeli’s if any would have trusted a peace with Arafat. As far as we know now, Hamas wants it all unless it moderates this position.
So there would be no Hamas, if there were no Israel. There would be no Palestinians (Palestinian Arab people wanting to have their own nation state)if there was no Israel either.
Surely the Israeli’s would have thought twice about a prolonged occupation after 67 had they foreseen the future.
My question was about the inevitability of this Islamic Revolution which is at least in part, maybe large part, a reaction to modernity. Wouldn’t this reaction surely have had one thing or another to help it ferment as western civilization moved on and out while the Middle East stagnated (see the recent UN Report on this state of affairs) at least until the discovery of oil?
Is this is about our blindness or greed alone? Doesn’t it go back deeper into history?
Bernard Lewis’s article “the Roots of Muslim Rage” appeared in the Atlantic Monthly about 15 years ago and though he has been criticized for his support for Bush’s war, I don’t think his scholarship is discredited.
Islam had it’s revolution and now it needs a counter-revolution (if we will get enough out of their way) to make peace with modernity/globalization and us. We would be wiser to back away from war with them and become more conscious of their needs and larger historical processes at work.
Arabs and Muslims may have a right to be angry with us, but they are also angry with themselves it seems to me. That’s what the cartoon rioting makes me feel.
Sidewalker: But let’s not buy into the rhetoric of democratization. It’s about the oil and exploitable markets.
On oil, who knew this situation when the car was invented or when we happily switched from coal fired furnaces and cutting down our trees for our wood stoves to oil tanks, oil spills and wars in the Middle East? Can we blame modernity? What will happen to the Middle East if we somehow get to a point where we can live without oil or they run out of it?
Who’s oil is it anyway? How do we divide up the earth’s remaining resources and not exploit those who sit on top of them or get into wars with those who also depend on it?
If resources do belong to those who sit on top of them what are they going to do with them? Whose technology is it that is going to develop them, find uses for them ship them market them?
It is ultimately about oil but it should not be about exploitation. The two do not necessary have to be coupled. Oil can be a way up and out for societies that have decent leadership.
Ted Koppel wrote an interesting opinion piece in the NYTimes on this:
Will Fight for Oil by Ted Koppel
DC- I was specifically referring to Golda Meier’s remark that there is no such thing as a Palestinian people ( which she also wrote in her memoirs). And this argument has been and is used up to this day by some.
Also I have not done the research at this hour but I believe that Palestinian nationalism began earlier than you seem to indicate.
Golda Meier’s remark caused an uproar. That was after 1969.
“In other words we can take their land because the word “Palestinaâ€? was invented by the Romans. Brilliant.”
Who is “we” and who is “they.”
No use in answering someone like Rafale who is so biased against the Jews’ point of view.
Potter, though I probably have not expressed it clearly, I don’t discount the role of Muslims and Arabs in the historical process. There have been many players in this ongoing drama. What I want to emphasis is that at this point in time the US has been cast (grasped) in the leading role. True, larger geopolitical forces form the backdrop and stage, Modernity is a major theme and the drama is littered with technical props. But the powerful actors have faces and do not just blandly follow some preordained script. They intervene. They manipulate the audience with sweet songs of their heroic deeds. Yet one person’s hero is another’s devil and we too often find out in later acts that these great deeds had tragic outcomes.
How can you say “Arabs and Muslims MAY have a right to be angry with us”? But I agree that more moderate people are angry with the violent reaction. But
Oops,
But at the same time, why are Americans not more angry with the violence of their State? Why are Israelis not more angry?
” Oil can be a way up and out for societies that have decent leadership.” I thought that was what Iran was trying to do when they moved to nationalize their oil resources and the US moved to bring back the Shah? And how can people find decent leaders if every time they elect someone the US does not approve of that person is overthrown, exciled or assassinated ?
Building an empire is of course not a pretty affair. But why not just come out and call it for what it is rather than singing songs of virture (I am not saying you are doing this Potter, though I do think you don’t give the US enough credit for the problems in the Middle East).
Sidewalker, Potter, et.al., just in case these two books can provide new resources to the world’s curious citizenry…
The role of the US in the makings of the Middle East is [i]somewhat[i] relevant vis a vis Saudi Arabia — see Robert Baer’s Sleeping With The Devil: http://www.powells.com/biblio/17-1400052688-1 –
but the tapestry was cut into its ill-suited (gerrymandered, essentially) states by none other than Winston Churchill in the aftermath of World War I:
http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-0805068848-0
A Peace To End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East.
The second book ought perhaps be considered ‘essential reading’.
PS to Potter: thanks again, friend, for so patiently expanding my understanding.
okay, Potter: what’s your italics trick again?
[i]This?[/i]
Or this?
PotterRocks!
Watch out, Brendan.
We are an increasingly armed rabble of bloggers.
Luckily, we’re the bookish types that think knowledge is a weapon.
Sidewalker: we continue…… Muslims and Arabs have a much longer history than the US and a larger role in this conflict than the US. Perhaps your emphasis on the US role is too great. Because the US has been “grasped� to play a leading role does not mean that we are up to it. It’s unfortunate that we have this title and role of “The Superpower� because it hangs like an albatross around our necks. We cannot make any false moves or learn our lessons without causing all sorts of lasting trouble and reaction. There is just no room for that. Clinton tried so hard to force a deal between the Arabs and Israel. But a deal cannot be forced before the sides (including the people who have been trained to hate) are ready.
Bush was more interested in getting rid of Saddam and he was roundly criticized for that priority but no one could have prevented the 2nd intifada and these last five years of Palestinian-Israeli low level war from happening.
When you say the US, you are talking about administrations. Bush has well-deserved low credibility everywhere now especially in the Middle East. But the parties are not ready in any case.
When I said that Arabs and Muslims “may� have a right to be angry with us I was referring to our past geopolitical maneuvers that did not take into account what was good for the people. But how much can they use us as an excuse for not getting their act together? The “may� also has to do my defending somewhat (not entirely) against expecting us to have been more advanced in our thinking than we were as we look back. We were all naïve.
By now we should have learned SOME lessons however and this invasion of Iraq never should have happened based on lessons we have already learned (supposedly). If you are looking for sources here in the US you can look at how and who we choose to lead us by the way.
Sidewalker: And how can people find decent leaders if every time they elect someone the US does not approve of that person is overthrown, exciled or assassinated ?
We are not supposed to (by law now) overthrow any foreign leader. There is a lot to discuss about regime change, “preemption� and Saddam ( Bush should be impeached imo). The last regime change that I can remember Noriega of Panama. I think Haiti came after that with the Aristede episode. I will familiarize myself with the details. Any more that you can think of?
So “Every time�? Who else have we deposed lately besides Saddam whose people, 65% of them, said recently in a poll that it was worth all the hardship they are going through? (I was not for the invasion- another discussion). What are we to make of that?
Will we scheme to get rid of Hamas? I cringe to think of that. Israel tried and (Sharon especially) made them stronger.
I think you place too much blame on the US, not that we deserve none, and there is too much pointing to past which we cannot change in order to blame instead of learn or discuss more deeply. There is plenty of new baggage to replace the old baggage. But also, there is this great expectation for an obviously very fallible too self-interested US to do exactly the right things before we have learned to think and act globally in an enlightened way, and elect leaders who think accordingly. We do not have that wisdom in our leadership now. We could also profit an evolved more involved United Nations. No power could do alone what true alliances can do.
Nikos: Congratulations! I knew you could do it! Now if we could only edit…….
The left-wing idiots here make me truly depressed about the future. I know that George Bush and Company are up to no good — but the cant from the left shows me that there is no help from that perspective either.
Okay Seattle Man- you have the floor….
Potter:
“Golda Meier’s remark caused an uproar. That was after 1969.”
She did and she also added, “I am a “Palestinian.” She was of course referring to the time when under the British Mandate the Jews and not the Arabs were thought of as “Palestinians.” She herself had a “Palestinian” passport isued by the Brits. I believe that many Palarabs called themselves “South Syrians” at one time too, and perhaps some still do.
It must have been confusing to her in 1969 when all of the sudden the people who had rejected the Palestinian identity decided to call themselves “Palestinians.”
Btw: I don’t believe she denied that there were people in the land.
“Also I have not done the research at this hour but I believe that Palestinian nationalism began earlier than you seem to indicate.”
As far as I know it was only in the sixties that Arab organizations there began to call themselves “Palestinians,” perhaps under the influence of leftist ideology.
The PLO was founded in 1964, I think, and the name is ironic if you remember that that was before the 1967 war and before Israel conquered the West Bank and Gaza.
They surely were’t trying to liberate “Palestine” from Jordan and Egypt given that these two countries sponsored the organizations.
Even today, Potter, not all Arab Muslims on the West Bank of themselves as Palestinians:
Muslim Preacher on Temple Mount: Restore Worldwide Islamic Rule
11:59 Feb 26, ’06 / 28 Shevat 5766
By Hillel Fendel
“Nawahda called upon the Arabs of the Palestinian Authority to rise above their personal and party interests, and [b]said that Moslems must return to Islam and join forces in the struggle against the West[/b]. He praised the worldwide protests against the anti-Muhammed cartoons, and encouraged the Moslem public to continue such activities. He implied that those who insulted Muhammed are liable for death. The Sheikh designated the Moslem masses as a strong point that can be utilized in the fight against the West.”
Re-edited:
Even today, Potter, not all Arab Muslims on the West Bank of themselves as Palestinians:
Muslim Preacher on Temple Mount: Restore Worldwide Islamic Rule
11:59 Feb 26, ‘06 / 28 Shevat 5766
By Hillel Fendel
“Nawahda called upon the Arabs of the Palestinian Authority to rise above their personal and party interests, and said that Moslems must return to Islam and join forces in the struggle against the West. He praised the worldwide protests against the anti-Muhammed cartoons, and encouraged the Moslem public to continue such activities. He implied that those who insulted Muhammed are liable for death. The Sheikh designated the Moslem masses as a strong point that can be utilized in the fight against the West.�
Got it!
DC- this Fendel article point to pan-arabism, a weak movement, if not a dead one. I do believe that Palestinians have a strong national identity, even those living elsewhere. Most are not Islamists.
Regarding Palestinian nationalism did it develop in opposition to Zionism? I think the answer is yes. Did it have other roots? Did it develop as an independent “philosophy” ? I do not know. I count anti-zionist the stirrings as an embryonic nationalism from the mid 1800′s on. Others would begin at 1948, Israeli statehood. Maybe the true beginings lie somewhere in between. I would say then before Isreli statehood.
Regarding Golda Meier it sounds like not only was she a new Israeli but she was also claiming to still be a Palestinian ( as she surely was prior to Israeli statehood under the British Mandate ) ( She was an American too). So it sounds like she did not want to give up the name “Palestine” to the Arabs. She wanted both! Identities changed with Israeli statehood, leaving the name Palestine open for grabs ( or to the dustbin of history). The indigenous Arabs took it.
Saying ” there is no such thing as Palestinians” or “I am a Palestinian” after 1964 ( by your account above) would be denying their existence or right to exist as a people which was my original point. That would be like others, maybe Arabs, saying ” there are no such things as Israeli’s” in 1952 or anytime after 1948. It’s a way to deny the other’s existence. And my original point is that even today you hear this argument put forward by some extremists, regardless of how Gold Meier meant it.
This is an interesting quote:
“When Herzl wrote “The Jewish State” in 1896, no Palestinian national consciousness existed, and scarcely any Arab consciousness. If you had asked a man from Jaffa or Jerusalem what he was, he would have said, “I am a Muslim from here”. He didn’t know that he was a Palestinian, or an Arab. Not long before you would have received a similar reply throughout much of Europe. A man from a village near Bratislava or Zagreb would have said “I am a Christian from here”. He did not know that he was a Slovak or a Croat, or that the dialect he spoke made him a member of a nation.” (Reference: See Geoffrey Wheatcroft, “Israel v Palestine: which side is the left on?” New Statesman – Volume: 128. Issue: 4459 – October 18, 1999)
“National consciousness is much misrepresented by historians and by nationalists, who project their consciousness on to people of another age. At the time of the Risorgimento in the 1860s, very few “Italians” knew they were Italian (or spoke anything recognisable as Italian).” (Wheatcroft)
Note that Seattle Man called us “left wing idiots” despite the fact that we are having a discussion that embodies different points of view ( elsewise no discussion). He was invited to enlighten us with his wisdom but has not yet. For instance I would love to know what he means by Bush and company being “up to no good”. I would like to know what is particualr depresses him about the future that we may or may not share. Why are we idiots?
I have to say I object to people posting these farts and leaving the scene.
Thanks Nikos for the references. I will check them out.
Yes, Potter, I probably do blame the US too much at times, and of course I am referring to the administration (present and past) and the base that supports aggressive US foreign policy when I criticise America. I do think that most people in a democracy that is functioning somewhat are complicit in the acts of their nation, but that does not mean they are directly responsible. And I am well aware there is a large, home-grown opposition to empire building. But when I hear someone like Mr. Lydon rave about Sharon or Regan, I really start to wonder if there is any hope for an alternative media moving the public to speak out and demand that their representatives be more accountable.
You’re quite right to think that quick fix solutions won’t work and that other peoples, such as the Israelis and Palestinian, must want a solution and want peace for it to be sustainable. Yet if US foreign policy is always about supporting political groups that will directly benefit the US–such as creating favorable trade law or giving US companies access to their resources–rather than supporting groups who want to improve the welfare of their people and build a foudation for a stronger middle-class, even long-term efforts will not succeed.
Potter: The “may� also has to do my defending somewhat (not entirely) against expecting us to have been more advanced in our thinking than we were as we look back. We were all naïve.
But Potter, I think the Right in the US is very advanced in their thinking about how to sustain and grow their empire. If anything, this is a problem of the centre-left. It can’t or doesn’t want to believe just how ruthless the leaders of its nation can be.
[i]Any more that you can think of? [/i]
There was the attempt on Chavez.
“Note that Seattle Man called us “left wing idiotsâ€? despite the fact that we are having a discussion that embodies different points of view ( elsewise no discussion). He was invited to enlighten us with his wisdom but has not yet. For instance I would love to know what he means by Bush and company being “up to no goodâ€?. I would like to know what is particualr depresses him about the future that we may or may not share. Why are we idiots?”
People who divide thought and ultimately the world into left and right are mentally lazy, in my opinion.
There may have been some excuse for using such terms before the fall of the Soviet State, but today the terms seem anachronistic to me.
‘I have to say I object to people posting these farts and leaving the scene.’
Well, don’t take it personally, Potter.
Btw: I’ll post a reply to your previous comment ass soon as I have some free time.
Sidewalker enclose the ‘i’ and ‘/i’ in these instead of these []
Sidewalker: they didn’t show up! they’re the ‘arrows’ above the comma and period on those keys Let’s try it this way: … –
Those brackets.
NO!
They don’t show up!
LOL!
Trust me: the left enclosing bracket is the arrow on the comma key; the right enclosing bracket is the arrow on the period key.
As Potter said to a frustrated jazzman: try it.
“The left-wing idiots here make me truly depressed about the future. I know that George Bush and Company are up to no good — but the cant from the left shows me that there is no help from that perspective either.�
Don’t fret Seattle Man, epithets like “left wing idiots� are not conducive to productive discussion. Besides, I don’t what left wing and right wing in the context of contemporary domestic politics of the war on Islamicism means.
The is a preferred mode of thinking in the main stream media, but it doesn’t correspond to anything real. This is especially true since many so called left wing parties have made common cause with the barbaric Islamicists. This type of alliance would make Karl Marx flinch since he viewed traditional societal ideologies especially in Asia as retrogressive. Marx was a modernist which is something most so called left wingers either forgot or never knew.
In any case we can agree that Bush and company have screwed up big time and hopefully we can throw the bums out in Novemeber.
Sidewalker: We seem to think and act for the short term. Politicians want immediate results so they can gain support and reelection. This is an inherent problem in our system. The late George F. Kennan suggests a non-partisan panel of appointed elders to guide our foreign policy. He fleshes that out a bit and it’s a good idea I think.
Clinton and Barak wanted immediate peace in the Middle East for their own political timetables. And Arafat knew all this and knew that he would be blamed ’cause he was not ready ( or ever would be). But at least they all tried and there was some communication and understanding of positions and it was not all for naught.
But Potter, I think the Right in the US is very advanced in their thinking about how to sustain and grow their empire. If anything, this is a problem of the centre-left. It can’t or doesn’t want to believe just how ruthless the leaders of its nation can be.
The left-wing idiot in me could not believe we had selfish idiots at the helm. Imagine a president choosing war when it was not absolutely necessary. I don’t think the Right knows how to sustain or grow an empire at all. They are heading us for disaster. I can’t imagine why there is no strong opposition; there is so much material to work with. It’s confounding.
“DC- this Fendel article point to pan-arabism, a weak movement, if not a dead one. I do believe that Palestinians have a strong national identity, even those living elsewhere. Most are not Islamists.�
The Palestinian Arabs did elect an Islamic party and that tells me that no matter their private views they felt comfortable enough with the Islamicists to vote for them.
As for pan Arabism the view that the Arabs constitute one nation is still relevant but it has been incorporated into the Islamic movement.
“Regarding Palestinian nationalism did it develop in opposition to Zionism?� I think the answer is yes. Did it have other roots? Did it develop as an independent “philosophy� ? I do not know. “
From what I read Arab nationalism as opposed to Palestinian nationalism was introduced into the area by Arab Christians who were influenced by the various European nationalisms and of course anti-Semitisms. This was especially true in Syria and Lebanon. (Did you ever hear of the “Damascus Affair” in 1840 which spurred early leftist anti- Zionist writers like Hess to promote the Zionist cause.)
I doubt Muslims would have been interested in Arab Nationalism at this time since it would have meant the break up of the Caliphate.
“I count anti-zionist the stirrings as an embryonic nationalism from the mid 1800’s on. Others would begin at 1948, Israeli statehood. Maybe the true beginings lie somewhere in between. I would say then before Isreli statehood.�
I know of no Arab anti-Zionist or even nationalist organization in the mid 1800’s. If you know of any, please let know. I also know of no Palestinian Arab nationalist organization using that name before Israeli statehood. Do you?
“This is an interesting quote:
“When Herzl wrote “The Jewish Stateâ€? in 1896, no Palestinian national consciousness existed, and scarcely any Arab consciousness. If you had asked a man from Jaffa or Jerusalem what he was, he would have said, “I am a Muslim from hereâ€?. He didn’t know that he was a Palestinian, or an Arab. Not long before you would have received a similar reply throughout much of Europe. A man from a village near Bratislava or Zagreb would have said “I am a Christian from hereâ€?. He did not know that he was a Slovak or a Croat, or that the dialect he spoke made him a member of a nation.â€? (Reference: See Geoffrey Wheatcroft, “Israel v Palestine: which side is the left on?â€? New Statesman – Volume: 128. Issue: 4459 – October 18, 1999)
“National consciousness is much misrepresented by historians and by nationalists, who project their consciousness on to people of another age. At the time of the Risorgimento in the 1860s, very few “Italians� knew they were Italian (or spoke anything recognisable as Italian).� (Wheatcroft)
Did you read Wheatcroft’s “The Controversy of Zion?� Lots of good information and bibliography in that book.
I agree that nationalism for most people either in Eastern Europe or the Middle East did not mean belonging to a nation state. I am familiar with the above quotes from other sources. But that was my point.
This history is interesting but isn’t really relevant to today’s conflict which has in a sense gone back to a period when Arabs thought in terms of a religious identity rather than a national one. In this sense the election of Hamas marks a milestone in the conflict.
DC- You make my point when you agree that nationalism may not mean belonging to a nationa state. When, at one point, Palestinians became the Palestinians is as irrelevant or relevant as when zionists became Israeli’s. One can be exacting or looser about it. I prefer to allow them their national consciousness before that moment in time ( whenever it was) when they were actually called Palestinians, meaning the people who had roots on that land who were not Israeli’s.
If most people elected the Hamas, not because of their religious aspect, but to send a message and for their lack of corruption does it count as a milestone? I would not count it as such, not yet. If they push their religious agenda and there is little to no resistance-I’ll give the point to you.
DC: I know of no Arab anti-Zionist or even nationalist organization in the mid 1800’s. If you know of any, please let know. I also know of no Palestinian Arab nationalist organization using that name before Israeli statehood. Do you?
According to Howard Sachar (A History of Israel) “In December 1920 Moslem-Christian Associations sponsored a convention in Haifa, a gathering that transformed itself into a Palestine Arab Congress. Here at last the demand was expressly submitted that Britain institute a national- that is, Arab- government in Palestine. The Congress afterward proceeded to elect an Arab Executive, a body that from 1921 on implaquably opposed the British mandate and the Jewish National Home.”
These Moslem- Christian Associations were local branches of the national movement. ( see ibid- page 170 of the paperback) They came to be monopolized by the Husseini clan. In the 20′s a rival clan organized a “National party”
How far back these associations or their beginnings go- I do not know- perhaps in reaction to the first wave of Jewish immigrants in the late 1800′s.
This, by the way, in my opinion, is an example of taking this history and distorting it so as to deny Palestinians their legitimacy. http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~peters/mythology.html
Here again is a piece that weaves facts with the language of propaganda to deny Palestinians legitimacy:http://www.masada2000.org/
But to be fair, there is this kind of stuff on the other side as well.
This book by Rashid Khalidi ( or the reveiw of it) appears to be a fair presentation of the history the Palestinian national movement. He takes that history back deeper into the 19th century. I read this review, but not the book. ( I have heard Khalidi on the radio- I forget whether I gave him my personal okay or not)
http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/journal_vol6/9902_schad.asp
Here again is a piece that weaves facts with the language of propaganda to deny Palestinians legitimacy: http://www.masada2000.org/
“But to be fair, there is this kind of stuff on the other side as well.”
This is an understatement, Potter. There are thousnads of Arab and Muslim web sites not to mention the left wing anti-Semitic ones that continuously demonize Jews and the Jewish State.
Of course, people on this thread seem negatively obsessed with the Jewish State which is why they know more about Jewish web sites that post anti-Palestinian lore than those that vilify the Jewish State.
“This book by Rashid Khalidi….”
I am aware of Khalidi’s workd and I don’t consider him a dispassionate and objective historian.
“DC- You make my point when you agree that nationalism may not mean belonging to a nationa state.”
No, nationalism means advocating national state.
Your quote from the Sachar book is interesting. I am not sure how independent such organizatios were. For example, when Jewish leaders wanted to discuss Arab Jewish ties they did so in Cairo with “prominent Syrian nationalists, including Sheik Rashid Rida….” (p.168)
The British, btw, according to Sachar worked against such meetings.
However, there is good news:
Andrew Sullivan has a link to a woman on Arab tv defenging western values:
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/02/wow.html
“I’ve never seen such a stout, courageous, unadorned defense of the West – and the Jewish people – as that from this secular Arab-American woman on al Jazeera, and now, Memri TV. Her name is Wafa Sultan, a psychologist in L.A. She reveals that the best remedy in our current situation is to speak the truth about the failure of extremist parts of the Muslim world to respect basic human norms of civilization. There really is nothing to discuss until they rejoin the ranks of sane humanity. She throws it back in their faces. It’s a wonder to watch. More of the transcript here.”
I second Andrew’s comments.
DC Of course, people on this thread seem negatively obsessed with the Jewish State which is why they know more about Jewish web sites that post anti-Palestinian lore than those that vilify the Jewish State.
Were you referring to me?
I do not find anyone here “negatively obsessed” leaast of all myself, quite the contrary.
The web sites I cited were ones I happened to run into, I do not go looking for them, while trying to back up my point to you which I feel I made quite well. The fact that there are more Arab web-sites devoted to an anti-semitic line ( there are many more Arabs btw) does not in any way disprove the truth of what I was saying which was about Jews and Israeli’s negating Palestinian identity. I said both sides do it. I do not stick my nose into any of these sites. I got a whiff of them and they turn me off- both sides.
You can draw your line about when exactly Palestinians were a legitimate national movement as late as you would like. It seems to be that by 1920, it was a fact.
Your quote from the Sachar book is interesting. I am not sure how independent such organizatios were. For example, when Jewish leaders wanted to discuss Arab Jewish ties they did so in Cairo with “prominent Syrian nationalists, including Sheik Rashid Rida….� (p.168)
The British, btw, according to Sachar worked against such meetings.
This is a weak point.
I will quote Sachar again (p . 169) here and no more. Regarding British opposition and when I feel it is proper to say that Palestinian nationalism was a fact:
This opposition ,too, was at first essentially a projection od Syrian nationalism; it followed the lead of Arab politicians in Damascus during the unsuccessful 1919-20 effort to establissh an independent Syrian kingdom. Accordingly, the collapse of Feisal’s regime in the summer of 1920 and the transfer of nationalist headquarters from Damascus to jerusalem, play a critical role in the development of an authentic Arab nationalism,
I do not want to argue this point anymore DC.
Regarding Khalidi, I am not ready to dis his work. Sachar himself is not entirely dispassionate or objective. It’s relative. When we read history we have to be able to read through this kind of feeling that any writer of history carries and pull out some truth. It is best to read the more reputable sources on both sides if you want to get closer to the truth. I picked Sachar because I did not want an argument about the source.
“It seems to be that by 1920, it was a fact.”
One group calling itself “Palestine Arab Congress” after the urgings of the British doesn’t make Palestinian nationalism a fact.
It became a fact sometime in the 60′s and it is certainly a fact today.
“This is a weak point.”
The point was that Jewish groups speaking to Arab nationalist groups met Syrians and not “Palestinian Arabs.” That’s not a weak point. It goes to the heart of the issue.
“Regarding Khalidi, I am not ready to dis his work. Sachar himself is not entirely dispassionate or objective.”
No, yet he does present the Arab point of view which you yourself quoted.
I can see that this discussion is at an end, Potter.
OK Nikos, I see. It is basic HTML code.
Thanks.
Nikos, Just thought I would check to see if we can change the font color.
It seems as if only the bold and itlaics tags work.
The other day on C-span I heard the Israeli foreign minister answer a questions about the 2-state “solution” and the Palestinian refugees and I wonder Potter and DC what you think about the possibility of building more inclusive societies in these two states. The Foreign Minister said that it would be impossible for the refugees to return. I guess both for demograpic and security reasons. Do you think that ethnic nationalist thinking is pervasive now or is this only in the thinking of extreme elements? The building of the wall, while also for security reasons, also seems a physical manifestation of this move to exclusion. And will the Palestinians give up the right-of-return for the removal of the settlements?
I am now visiting the US and a Jewish friend of mine said that his friend in living near the Syrian border in Israel has never even heard a gun-shot and he thinks the violence and fear portrayed in the US media is overblow. Have you heard similar things? What is your take on this? I am wondering if the “terror threat” is being played up in Israel (I am not talking about the occupied territories) as it is in the US by those affiliated with the military and security industries for their own benefits.
Sidewalker: Family and friends in Israel feel it is true that the violence and fear is played up in certain media. This is not to minimize it either. I will tell you this, the heartbreak comes when you hear, see, know about how these two peoples can and do at times get together and forget all else. That is why the wall makes me so sad. There are those on both sides who do not hate or fear the other but want and need the contact in fact. I think the Palestinians would give up the right of return if it was presented to them in the right way, so that they were sacrificing for the good of the whole and perhaps with some monetary or other compensation to sweeten things.
Sidewalker- Thanks for the conversation.
DC’s general comment about how people on this thread are “negatively obsessed with the Jewish State” is so obviously wrong as evidenced your post above.
I’ve become sour on any further discussion with DC on this subject after one too many ill-conceived remarks Blind defensiveness of Israel right or wrong negates the discussion. Period. No point of mine could have merit or could be conceded. Naturally the name calling had to kick in.
“I’ve become sour on any further discussion with DC on this subject after one too many ill-conceived remarks Blind defensiveness of Israel right or wrong negates the discussion. Period. No point of mine could have merit or could be conceded. Naturally the name calling had to kick in.”
There was no name calling, just boredom, Potter. Stop imagining things.
“The other day on C-span I heard the Israeli foreign minister answer a questions about the 2-state “solution� and the Palestinian refugees and I wonder Potter and DC what you think about the possibility of building more inclusive societies in these two states.�
I agree with the foreign minister, Sidewalker.
Israel is already and inclusive society where Jews Muslims and Christians live side by side. This btw is not true in the Palestinian territories where no Jews are aloud to live. Moreover after the Hamas victory it seems that even Christians are keeping a low profile in those areas.
There really are no states with a Muslim majority which is also multicultural.
Now to allow the refugees to “return� to Israel would mean the destruction of the Jewish State. I would mean that the Arabs would have another Arab state while the Jews would have no State at all. They will become again a stateless people with all that that means.
“The building of the wall, while also for security reasons, also seems a physical manifestation of this move to exclusion.�
Excluding suicide bombers is of the utmost importance.
“And will the Palestinians give up the right-of-return for the removal of the settlements?�
Israel absorbed about half a million refugees from the Arab world while the Arabs with vaster resources and space refused to absorb an equal number of people.
I am all for removing the settlements, but I doubt that the Arabs will respond with an offer to give up the right of return. The refugees have been kept in camps on purpose to be used both as a bargaining chip and as a means for the ultimate destruction of the Jewish State.
Well, I had to jump into this sometimes heated but intelligent discussion. Generaly I think Potter is right in that the majority of Palestinians and Israeli people want to live in peace and could benefit from greater day-to-day human contact. Ironically, I think this is the “Thrid way” that Ari Shavit was alluding to in the program. The politics of the Middle East has become dominated by the logic of extremism.
So what to do? I think the first thing is to remain steadfastly in the present. Recrimination is endless in this part of the world and only brings up more pain. Adopt a radical stance of non-violence. This will be labeled absurdly naive, even traiterous by many, perhaos the amjority at first, on both sides of the conflict. But does the current status quo seem any better? Couple that with a radical humanism adn realism: we both are living here and not going anywhere anytime soon so what now?
Finally the conflict must be solved from the inside out. Both religions in their dogmatic form are exclusive of the fundamental humanity and sacrednesss of the other. Again this sounds very naive. But before borders change, hearts have to. There needs to be a fearless, non-vioelnt grassroots movement on both sides that will discredit fundamentalism, fear, revenge, and violence with a simple alternative of non-violence, hope, true reconciliation and peace.
How this will come about, I don’t know.
But this is the holy land, miracles happen.
Somehow I feel the whole world is needing, waiting for this.
There was no name calling, just boredom, Potter. Stop imagining things.
If you were bored you should have stopped arguing. Another bit of nastiness DC. I jumped in to try to soften your harshness to others in the beginning of this thread and I even took your side. You started here with subtle and not so subtle name-callling and had to be dragged into respectful discussion. When your point was weak, you “got bored” and dissed everyone here, me included. Not my imagination-
Dave Weinstein– I agree with you. There needs to be calm and a cooling off period, Total separation is almost impossible and even the ingenious futuristic plans that have been devised cannot work in my opinion unless hearts and minds change. What is discouragintg is the that the seeds of hate and fear have been planted for another generation. I don’t see a turnaround point yet. One of my hopes is that the Hamas will be reasonable and practical and think of the well-being of the Palestinians over their own impossible dreams. Some of the leaders have shown signs of reason. Israel needs to talk with them and be very careful about putting a financial squeeze on Palestinians that will drive them to other sources and extremism. It will be a tough policy to get right for Israel.
Potter, you just didn’t like what I had to say. You seem too interpret disagreement as name calling and nastiness.
That, though, is your problem. Nuf said. Want be answering your attacks any more.
“But this is the holy land, miracles happen.”
There are no miracles especially in the “holy land.”
Like every where else that are those who work hard and those who envy those who work hard.
Potter: thanks for an engaging and informative series of contributions here.
Your patience with a consistently snide and vituperative correspondent is nothing short of miraculous. (You must be a mom.) Most everybody else gave up. I continued to read, but primarily to glean as much as I could from your sensibility.
See ya.
Digitalcommuter- there is more than respectful mere “disagreement” in your posts, I don’t buy it. Read you posts again.They are laden with insult.They attribute the worst motives to posters here, one after the next. In the end you wrapped your opinion of us up in one condecending spitball.
This after you were offered discussion and friendship.
Yes, nuf said.
Nikos, Thanks pal.
“Digitalcommuter- there is more than respectful mere “disagreementâ€? in your posts, I don’t buy it. Read you posts again.They are laden with insult.They attribute the worst motives to posters here, one after the next. In the end you wrapped your opinion of us up in one condecending spitball.”
Right, you gotta have the last word, Potter, don’t you.
I am glad you have your cheering section. I am not surprised since most people here agree with your point of view.
I am just offering a contrary view which you don’t want to hear.
To you any view point that is unapologetically pro-Israeli is an insult.
So be it.
You can the last word, though.
dc: the viewpoint content of your posts was half of what made the thread so worthwhile.
Your imperious proclivity for insult, however, drove away the very people I’d guess you might have been intending to influence.
Potter’s ‘cheering section’ are simply sick of your attitude.
Not the viewpoint.
The attitude.
After a dozen or so posts, it’s simply insufferable.
So, like it or not, the perspective you’ve worked so hard to represent (which Potter was glad to engage in a friendly dialogue but not a vituperative one) is now thoroughly tainted instead of understandable and acceptable.
Good work.
Try a little politesse and see if it doesn’t help the reception of your future posts.
I, too, have to agree with Mr. Weinstein about remaining firmly in the present and not rehashing the past, except where non-violent retribution is possible. Some people want to take this back to Biblical times. If we do this, then we can probably say that 90% of the people on the planet, directly or ancestorally, have stepped in and stepped aside. If we look at the more recent past, then we would have to blame the British and their allies for screwing up the Middle East. And we could blame the Europeans for not accepting the Jewish in their midst. Then there is Hitler, etc., etc.
I can’t agree with Digital Communicators position that the whole world is against Israel and want to wipe Jewish people off the map. Sure there are extremists. But many take extreme positions not for ideological reasons but for socio-economic reasons or for revenge. These are the extremists that could be neutralized if the Israeli state acted with more caution and ended their occupation and if the rest of the world helped raise the living standards in a new Palestinian state. Recognition must be coupled with social justice.
I met an elderly man at an internet cafe last night with an New York accent. When I was heading back to my hotel he asked if I would give him a ride to his home down the street and he offered to buy me a beer. We got to taking and he indicated he was Jewish (he brought it up). We were already chatting lightly about politics and so I thought I would ask him about his position on Hamas and present conditions, with this thread in the back of my mind. You know, the first thing he said was that Israel could wipe out the Arabs, but the US won’t let them! Here was the mirror image of Hamas rhetoric.
This logic is one of mutual non-recognition, when it is the very opposite that is needed at this time. And this will only come by engaging with the other on a respectful level, as, for example, Potter has tried to do with Digital Communicator here. This is one reason I am totally against a physical wall or the a wall of communication created by insult. Both are the death of the self and of discovery.
I really should re-read before I post. Sorry for all the typing errors.
Nikos:
Didn’t DC get just take the last word while at the same time offering it to me? Okay I’ll take it. What a nice gesture!
I agree Nikos. I also appreciated the viewpoint and even some of the exchange. It caused me to look again deeper into the history of the origin of Palestinian nationalism for instance.
The major problem with DC’s attitude is that DC feels stubbornly and “unapologetically” that DC has the only pro-Israeli viewpoint here. The rest of us are anti-Israel because we don’t hold HIS views.
Discussion was doomed from the beginning.
I would really like to have someone who holds this uniquely “pro-Israeli” viewpoint come here and argue it respectfully without the insults but on the merits. I would gladly concede points or agree to disagree in peace. It would be worth it because when I have so engaged I have learned a lot.
This type of problem here however is not uncommon in these discussions and the why of it is a discussion in itself. Jews are very divided one from another, one side being defensive and in almost a state of perpetual siege. Jews who do not feel this way are the “traitors”. Word’s like “self-hating Jew”, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel get thrown around to the extent that they are stand-in’s for f.u., discussion closed. If you do not know your stuff or you are not Jewish and God forbid you get caught in one of these “thangs” you can get a bloody nose ( Nikos as you have observed- I read you comment on the Seattle thread).
I apologise. (in the words of James Joyce)
Ah well……. thanks DC, I feel better.
Sidewalker: This is one reason I am totally against a physical wall or the a wall of communication created by insult. Both are the death of the self and of discovery.
Yes.
DC: Of course, people on this thread seem negatively obsessed with the Jewish State which is why they know more about Jewish web sites that post anti-Palestinian lore than those that vilify the Jewish State.
Ha! We only know about the Jewish anti-muslim hate sites because you insist on posting links to them. I had never heard of http://www.masada2000.org before you recommended it to us!
“I met an elderly man at an internet cafe last night with an New York accent. When I was heading back to my hotel he asked if I would give him a ride to his home down the street and he offered to buy me a beer. We got to taking and he indicated he was Jewish (he brought it up). We were already chatting lightly about politics and so I thought I would ask him about his position on Hamas and present conditions, with this thread in the back of my mind. You know, the first thing he said was that Israel could wipe out the Arabs, but the US won’t let them! Here was the mirror image of Hamas rhetoric.”
You do meet a lot Jewish people don’t you? It’s useful I suppose if you want to make an anti-Jewish point.
Jews are just like Hamas. It’s the old mirror image routine. Both sides are equally evil only we are right.
Yea, sure Rafael, Peggy Sue, Potter, Sidewalker, Nilos all a model of moderation.
Enjoy talking to each other abour your moderation. You all make me sick.
unsubscribe
Sidewalker: Israel is a quite a success story in so many ways. Tragically, as Israel has grown and become more powerful, winning several wars and conducting an often cruel occupation, Jews can no longer ask for the sympathy they once deserved. Even after the suicide bombings it was hard to get the level of sympathy from the world that Israeli’s deserved. As someone said early on in this thread, she sympathizes with the underdog. Most do. Israel is not the underdog anymore.
This is good in my opinion. It’s a chance to move on. Jews are not suffering the horrors of the past. Jews are, for the most part thriving. It’s time to be gracious and compassionate as well as strong and vigilent.
Sidewalker your story is instructive. Your acquaintence loved the power that Israel has on the one hand but complained if only it were not for the US forcing restraint…..
In fact Israel’s “better angels” are at work. It would be a pretty self-destructive move, even if it were possible to “wipe out the Arabs”. The Hamas comparison is apt but the Iranian president’s recent threat is an even better comparison for a mirror image. It’s saber rattling.
But there is a dissonance in being able to to rattle your saber and at the same time claim the role of victim.
DC, I guess I am a lucky person because I am open to meeting and talking with all people and I try not to pre-judge them as much as I can. If I knew at first he was Jewish, that would not make a bit of difference, whether you believe it or not. My point in mentioning what that fellow said was not to be anti-jewish, though it seems that since you follow the Bush doctrine of either you are for us or against us you would interpret my words in such fashion. It just hit on the problem of extreme beliefs on both sides.
DC: Jews are just like Hamas.
I never generalized here. What I said was that HIS statement was similar to those of eradication that Hamas or the Iranian president make. It is pointless to speak of whether one is right or one is wrong when you are talking about the genocide of any people, don’t you think?
If I had met a Palestinian person who held such a belief, I would equally have mentioned it.
You may want to assume that I take sides on the issue because I think Israel should end their occupation and they should not build a wall, especailly in the manner they are. If so, should you not also admit I take sides when I feel nothing but disgust when a suicide bomber kills innocent people in Israel? I think this is what Potter (correct me if I am wrong) has tried to convey to you.
This is not about conversion to a beleif system, but an opportunity to consider issues from various points of view and then form and reform one’s opinion. For me, I really want to understand how someone like you can cling, as if in desparation (I don’t know, you may be) to such certainty in your truth.
We read of how the family members of the victims of deathrow murderers can forgive. Personally I don’t know what I would do if my child was killed, say, by a suicide bomb. Perhaps I would want to seek revenge. But I have to believe I would turn my grief into something useful and not further destruction. This is really the choice: to harbour hatreds and old vendettas or to seek closure and move on.
Well said Sidewalker. perhaps DC will read your heartfelt message.
I just needed to claim #200 as well.
YEAH! — a remarkable thread inho in many ways.
Potter: But there is a dissonance in being able to to rattle your saber and at the same time claim the role of victim.
There is an analogy here with the position of the US after 9/11 and then when it rattled its saber and shook the ground in Iraq.
Instantly the US lost all credibility, as has the Israeli government when it has used excessive force. The sad thing is that there really are victims, whom we should not overlook in condemning the leaders of their country.
We have to hope that the “better angles” and the political strategists on the Palestine side also prevail and keep the militant side of Hamas in check, as has happened in Ireland with the IRA. The best way to do this is to give the Palestine people a better life and reason to keep the peace and not starve them in to greater desparation.
Potter, thank you too for our discussion.
If only ALYB were around to further spice things up. Do you know what happened to her?
Sidewalker: ALYB has been MIA for about a month. I’m not sure about the exact timing except that he (and he was a self-proclaimed ‘he’) had been in a couple of heated exchanges within a few days. One of them, sadly, had to do with a misbegotten attempt by me to serve as an undeclared moderating foil between the positions of he and DC, at which point, feeling that dc was challenging me to take sides (it felt like junior high, I swear), I chose instead to drop out of the thread. I fear ALYB took that as a slight or as a friend’s betrayal – but it was neither. It was a simple, dumbfounded recoil. (Imagine, as an example, how Potter might feel if she’d been asked to side with dc or you!) I don’t recall the thread, but it’s likely a ‘public record’ in the archives somewhere.
In short: I miss ALYB – especially that rapier-wit of his – but not his apparent welcome of contentious exchanges. (I much prefer mutually respectful discourse, even when heated.)
I’m not airing dirty laundry for its seeming gossip value (I hate gossip.) There’s a moral in this story, and it’s particularly pertinent to the unfortunate dynamic that carried on in this thread for days.
As the folksy adage says: “You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.�
(And thanks to my old friend Janet for drilling that one into my often overly hot head.)
That maxim captures precisely the distinction between defensive truculence and its reviled offspring called war, and the humanistic diplomacy that has knitted the world’s countries together since 1945, despite all the bigotry trying its hardest to rip to shreds the growing fabric of peace and understanding.
(Oh…Sorry for the sermon-like homily! Did I just write that? It must be the blond ale talking through my fingers…)
Anyway, this forum works best when that level of respect permeates each post. It’s not as common a level of politesse as we might like, but it’s well worth consciously striving for — as I must, fairly often, in my struggle to bite my sarcastic electronic tongue. (I’m a ‘work in progress’, it seems to me.)
See ya.
Interesting letter from today’s NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/02/opinion/l02plo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
March 2, 2006
Blame in the Mideast
To the Editor:
Re “What the P.L.O. Has to Offer” (Op-Ed, March 1):
Saeb Erekat, the P.L.O.’s chief negotiator, speaking of Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, repeats the old, worn mantra: “Mr. Abbas, however, is not ultimately to blame” for the situation of the Palestinian people.
Of course it is the Israelis who are to blame for adopting measures to protect themselves against suicide bombers who target pizza shops and hospitals, with the financial support, encouragement or justification of Palestinian leaders.
And of course it is the Israelis who are to blame for the theft of hundreds of millions of dollars by Yasir Arafat and his kleptocratic colleagues.
The Palestinian people voted for Hamas, whose doctrine calls for the destruction of Israel and the creation of an Islamist state.
To suggest that the Palestinians did not know what or whom they were voting for is beyond disingenuous; it is insulting.
This was not a vote for peace. Historically, the Palestinian leadership and people have walked away from peace, walked away from a separate state, and showed themselves irrevocably wedded to rejectionism, violence and fanaticism by their overwhelming support for Hamas.
Gary Epstein
Miami Beach, March 1, 2006
My dear departed Dad used to say “You catch more bees with honey than with vinegar”. Flies sounds more correct, though bees also go after sweet, they make the honey, flies get caught in it. If my Dad embodied that message instead of preaching it he would have saved himself a lot of personal heartache. If you feel right about something or want to get a point through then the question becomes how to accomplish that. It can’t be done with insults.
ALYB did have a bite to his posts ( I always thought of him as a her). He was very creative in and at times brilliant, but at times also hard for me especially since ALYB’s point of view on this situation was the other extreme opposite (of DC’s): unforgiving or harsh towards Israel.
I was not on the thread or that part of it that caused the stir. I can only imagine if it had to do with the Middle East. It is a real challenge to converse about this situation without it ending poorly and personally. Some Jews are very defensive ( as are Arabs- hey we do not have Arabs represented here yet). I can say some things freely (as a Jew) and defend myself more easily. If you said some of the things I say you will get accused or bullied. You have to be able to take it or defend yourself with cool and calm and respect, like Sidewalker above for instance. Chris Lydon has been so accused to the point that I keep thinking he will never do another show on this topic. But to his credit, he absorbs it and moves on,
In the end the accusation from DC was ( please note) that we are moderate. Big sin.
Since this is a lifelong subject of interest with me I get riveted into these threads. Robin butted in once and said ” same ol same ol” while admonishing someone for getting out of bounds. This surprisingly put me off a bit since I am under the delusion perhaps that it’s not the “same ol same ol” in quite the same way and we do get somewhere ( or we can). I think we have here and this is why I think the thread is remarkable. I do not mean to allude to DC leaving as a result. This is unfortunate. But DC was bullying and we finally rejected that. I would personally welcome him back perhaps under another name and a clean slate but for the point of view not the insults. I would like to see ALYB post again as well. Maybe in both cases it was either boredom or lack of commiseration for a viewpoint.
Are we moderates so exasperating? Is peace so boring?
I agree with Nikos about maintaining a level of respect in the end. This has to do with giving others the benefit of the doubt as to where they are coming from. Sometimes it takes a number of posts to get a better feeling of the person.
Fiddlesticks: Interesting letter.
That the Palestinians voted for Hamas knowing their doctrine leaves me with mixed feeling since I know they also do not buy that doctrine entirely and had little choice if they wanted to send a message to the PA. So were the Palestinians voting for Hamas extremism or to get rid of years of entrenched corruption of the PA?
I agree with Epstein about Saeb Erekat. He’s part of the blame game. Erekat is a prime example of what the PA had to offer at it’s best- the same old blame game mantra and nothing positive or concrete from it. He’s a sharp dresser though.
I believe there will be a solution one day – it will be a one state solution. All the people currently within the borders of Israel, including the Palestinian territories will be part of Israel. I bet that somewhere between now and then we try the ‘two state solution’. But the two state solution will fail because:
1. The borders of the two states will make no sense.
2. The Palestinian state will not be allowed to have a military, or its own foreign policy, control over its airspace or control of any of the aquifers.
3. Israel will insist on controlling the border between the Palestinian state and its neighbors.
For all these reasons the Palestinian state will never be a proper self standing state.
The Arab Israeli population will continue to grow faster than the Jewish Israeli population. The Palestinian population will continue to grow fast also. Demographics will shape the final outcome – and Israel will become more like the United States – a peaceful multi-ethnic state.
We should do everything we can to encourage Israel to be more like us. A place where there is no majority ethnic or religious group. Where there are equal rights for all. Where no one group can claim a special god-given right to rule.
All over the middle east there are Muslims who would like to drive the Jews off the land. They would like to push them all back the Europe. Similarly there some Israelis who follow Meir Kahane – and would like to eject the Arabs out of Israel. Both are morally wrong – but if your goal is to make an ethnically pure state – then in practical terms violence and explusion is the only way to do it.
There are some people who would like to achieve an ethnically pure Israel through some complex negotiated solution – where each ethnic group will have its own territory. Those people are kidding themselves. Their strategy has been tried for 50 years and leads to constant war.
Hey Potty, your shouldn’t be talking about people who are not here to defend themselves.
fiddlesticks: I’ll take that as a rebuke to me, not Potter, and will embrace the opprobrium without another whimper. Point taken. Nuf said. See you around the threads.
Oh, wait: I don’t know if you’ve seen it, but I’ve thanked you at least twice and probably thrice for linking me to Middle East Transparent.
What a goldmine of Arab liberalism.
Thanks yet again!
Thanks Nikos and Potter for letting me know about ALYB. I followed that exchange between him and DC and also thought it got out of hand unnecessarily. I neared one of those overheated exchanges with Mr. Dodson and just decided to back off (though the urge was there) when the personal insults arrived. So many BBS threads degrade into the petty and if it happens here I’m sure many will migrate elsewhere, which would be a great shame since there are so many thoughtful posts on the various threads.
ROS is still very US centric, but as someone who grew up next to the American elephant and who now lives uncomfortably under the US military umbrella, I really want to try and understand this powerful force, so I appreciate input from all points of view and I think its great if we point out the weaknesses in each other’s argument, but respectfully. If I’m blathering on (like now) or missing important points, I want someone to let me know, as I expect most contributors here do. But can’t we do this without a first-strike attack?
sidewalker: you weren’t blathering, and thanks for the feedback…
but what’s a ‘BBS thread’?
Nikos, it is a line of conversation on a theme on a BBS (electronic bulletin board system). Though here we post comments in a blog, it is the same as posting to a BBS. Sorry if this is a statement of the obvious and you were looking for a better explanation.
Sidewalker: no, no, I’m a newbie to geek-speak. So your explanation of BBS is revelatory, and thank you!
Wannabe-geekily yours,
N
Fiddlesticks- I apologise if I offended you by speaking of others. I spoke of my Dad too. I was trying to make a point and I do not believe I said or meant anything bad, but rather neutral and noticing the spectrum of views, in fact wishing we could have them.
Potter said on March 1st, “I would really like to have someone who holds this uniquely “pro-Israeliâ€? viewpoint come here and argue it respectfully without the insults but on the merits.” I think this is absolutely on-target. It is a challenge, however, since there are not that many individuals who have the combination of a deep enough knowledge of this subject to separate fact from mythology, the time that is required to be a faithful contributor to this blog site, and at the same time a cool temperment. Such people are of immense value to this debate, and most likely command the stature to be on-air guests of ROS. Although I’m sure many will take issue with this, I do think that Alan Dershowitz’s book, “The Case for Israel” might fulfill at least in a more passive way what Potter is seeking. Think of it as a sort of pro-Israeli voice (or even “handbook”) to which to turn when a historical issue (i.e., prior to the book’s publication date) arises on these threads. In many instances, asking the question, “What would Dershowitz say?” may provide a reasonable first approximation to what a good many scholarly (dare I say lawyerly) pro-Israeli voices would say. No, it’s not a satisfying substitue for a vigorous blog debate–but it might be a very useful starting place–particularly for arguments that keep recycling and recycling, although without the increasing understanding (and humor) that Bill Murray was able to bring to life repeating itself in Groundhog Day.
Jon- I agree about Dershowitz. There are others as well. I wish that you would encase “pro-Israeli” in quotes however. This is a peeve of mine perhaps, but what is “pro-Israeli”? I think that my views are “pro-Israeli”- deeply so. Does any criticism of Israel ( of which I have much) mean that I or others am anti-Israel?(insert USA for Israel to bring it home).
This is what I mean about bullying. ( not you Jon- not at all).
Anyone who is willing to give the benefit of doubt can do it actually. Just cut the insults and the name-calling. Why is this so hard?
Raphael. I wanted to answer you but was pretty near exhausted from this thread and iot required a long post. I may yet.
Thanks. Jon.
I used to be a fan of Alan Dershowitz when he was a brilliant civil right lawyer. I lost all respect for him when he wrote came out in support of torture, and became an advocate of “torture warrants”
In his own words here:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/dershowitz/Articles/torturewarrants.html
The idea is that through the use open judicial processes and the issueing of warrants, that torture might be practical and ethical.
It is interesting to note that the various infamous Catholic Inquisitions in europe were all legal, and involved public accountability and warrants for torture and execution at every stage.
rafael: hear, hear!
Dershowitz has lost all credibility with more folks than just you.
Rafael, thanks for the link–it is indeed chilling. But I would also observe that just because one brings to public debate a topic that is intrinsically loathesome, doesn’t equate in my book to a total loss of respect for that person who is trying to stimulate us to think critically about the issue. Dershowitz may well have gone too far in this essay–I’m not here to defend him on this. But I think he was extremely transparent in his reasoning, and this isn’t a situation where he allows mythology to cloud history. His ending words in the essay, for those who are interested, read as follows: “The use of torture in the ticking bomb case, like the shooting down of the hijacked airplane, involves a horrible choice of evils. In my view this choice should be made with visibility and accountability, either by a judicial officer or by the President of the United States. It should not be made by nameless and unaccountable law enforcement officials, risking imprisonment if they guess wrong.”
I suppose if we are weighing Ghengis Khan style arbitrary torture against torture authorized by a bureaucracy, we might conclude that Spanish Inquisition style is better than Khan Style.
The Inquisitors of old thought they were only doing what was legal and necessary to protect themselves. I’m sure they considered themselves to be highly moral men who were forced by circumstance to engage in torture for the greater good.
Dershowitz is merely giving a modern context to that old argument – an argument that I had until recently assumed had been wholly discredited and would never be made seriously by any civilized person.
Those, like Dershowitz who make that arguments may not be stupid, and their argument may be lucid, but I do not consider them to be either civilized, respectable or credible.
There is a school of racism which is born of ignorance and frustration, and which is rabid and irrational. American KKK and neonazi’s are of this kind. They ideas are laughably ignorant. There is another more dangerous kind which is lucid and rational. If looked from the perspective of racial self interest they make a lot of sense. The racism of Hitler or Meir Kahane is of this kind. The fact that they are educated and rational only makes them more immoral.
I heard Dershowitz on the radio the other day about preemptive and preventative war, the subject of a recent book ( yes another book). I had my own strong feeling to overcome b/c of Bush’s war in Iraq. But I listened and felt it very worthwhile listening and even to listen again. Not that Dershowitz really changed my feelings, but he presented the issue fully and made a strong case for having laws that are more articulated, using good judgement to execute them. This is not to say that laws cannot and will not be misused and misinterpreted, nor was he claiming that they would not be. I think he wants law to advance a little further and deeper into these issues than they currently do.
What troubles me is how law is (mis)interpreted ( even to the point of redefining words) by the folks in the executive branch currently for instance. The lack of “visibility and accountability” that can exist despite the law is what troubles me. More articulated law might help and we should have that but the law can do only so much when the politics is not to be trusted.
Whatever, Dershowitz does get to the heart of a controversy or issue and manages to argue forcefully but has, it seems, learned how to pull back from personal insult. (This was not always the case.) You can disagree with him precisely because his positions invite that and so this clarifies and can even modify your own views. This allows you to think. This is the point for me.
Potter, thanks. This is why I originally suggested the Dershowitz source as a sort of handbook for this flavor of a ‘pro-Israel’ position (please note the use of the quotes, as per your request).
I’ve been checking this thread ever since the ‘Israel Lobby’ thread closed down. This place is still ‘post-able’ and could serve a the ‘Israel Lobby Thread in Exile’.
I’ll continue to check here, because I can say for certain that although I’ve little if anything to contribute to a conversation here, I know I’ve still plenty to learn.
Continuing my interest of this subject.
I must say that I reject totally the notion that Israel (those in control as seperate from the common israeli) is working for peace or a “mutual” settlement with Palestine.
I base my opinion on my own lying eyes and ears acute observation of the dance Israel has done with provocations and then excuses for the past decade.
Leaving out any mention of past actions of either side…as it stands today, at this exact minute..here is the score:
Hamas it’s self, the main body, has observed the cease fire for over a year, even prior to their election. Since their election they have not fired a shot or made an agressive move toward Israel. Since their election Israel has arrested duely elected Hamas members traeling in the territories on no charges except being elected. As of last week israel fired rockets into Abbas’s headquarters….as of yesterday Israel raided Gaza on three occasions with missiles. This is alway in retailation for the ‘rockets’ fired into Israel by the Abbot and Castello gang that has been firing rockets into Israel for 4 years and has yet to hit a single target.
To date…4-8-06 Hamas has not struck back for any of these actions.
Not even after Israel refused to turn over tax money owed to Palestine, not after the IDF General said Israel would consider assassinating Hamas leaders, not after the US congress suspended all aid to Palestine…
Israel will only return small ghetto terrorities to Palestine and continue their plan to annex the largest settlements. They will step up their efforts to provoke Hamas into fighting back as an excuse for their two mantras…”security” and ‘we have no partner”.
Even monkeys recongize “repetition” when they see it. If Hamas can resist the Israeli provocation and not strike back they may be able to eventually build more support from the EU and be able to circumvent the Israelis setting the borders they want with out Palestine agreement.
Carroll: I’m troubled by the news you cite, but would prefer to learn about the context of the attacks before judging that Israel is rashly sabotaging all hopes for peace. Perhaps I’m simply an overly naive lefty, but I cannot for the life of me understand why Israel would not want to establish not merely a lasting peace but an economic relationship with their nearest neighbors. There might be more behind this new violence than we know at the moment. It might not be as it seems to you today.
Perhaps dayan can illuminate me. Or Potter.
Oh, and the vote for Kadema was clearly a vote for peace — even in the face of the recent Hamas electoral victory. I don’t think we ought to conflate the actions of hawks in the Israeli government with the will of populace.
I’m much more ignorant than I am knowledgeable about this topic and all its details, and not afraid to admit it.
Yet I’m also interested in knowing as much of the full truth as is available.
My understanding of the activity described by Carroll is that some Israeli’s (maybe most and surely the ones in power) feel that every hostile action has to be answered with at least equal force. This is a longstanding policy ( right or wrong) There is always as well the ongoing vigilence against terrorists who will never observe a ceasefire. Abbott and Costello types as Carroll calls them are still dangerous. All it takes is one suicide bomber. What you do not hear or read about is all the attempts that have been short-circuited. And we do not hear or know about arms being secretly smuggled or bomb factories. So I think at least some of these actions are preemptions. I am not defending- I am supposing, giving benefit of the doubt for the exact reasons that Nikos surmises- Why would Israel not want to work for peace? ( I am sure there are those who would respond to that cynically). However it takes time to turn a big ship around. Kadima is at the pivoting point. There was an election recently and the period building up to it was also about those in power showing that they will not be soft. This was a message to those in the electorate that are afraid.
People on both sides are traumatized, the Palestinians, moreso from the recent past. Jews/Israeli’s carry alot of baggage in the form or trauma that they have inheritied added to years of feeling/believing they will be “pushed into the sea”-( true or not- thus the military build-up). There is this seige mentality that is slowly, very slowly ebbing, morphing to more confidence on the part of israeli’s. Noone wants more normal life than Israel. On both sides it will ebb as incrementally things start moving more in the right direction. It will not happen with one blow or one signing of a piece of paper as we thought with Oslo or Taba, though those exercises pointed the way, made a path.
I want also to add to the above the fact that in Israel there are many refugees from the Soviet Union ( as well as from elsewhere). They have strong opinions on security that lean to the right (listen to Natan Sharansky). These people also need time to “relax” their minds.
So there is just so far the new leaderships on both sides can go at once. The hope is that Olmert will start talking to Abbas and make some sort of deal. Elsewise israel will start moving unilaterally to withdraw to something a lot more reasonable leaving the final settlement for neogtiations. This latter may happen after 2010 with a new government depending how things go in the meantime. ( This is what people are saying anyway_
Gradually Hamas, we hope, will soften. They want to succeed one would assume. It seems there are divisions within Hamas as well. this takes time to work out.
So Abbas presents an opportunity for Israel and an opportunity for Hamas at the moment.
This is my understanding. Compared to the past, the situation looks hopeful to me. I personally hope that both sides can get on with growing secure prosperous societies that will meet each other in peace and cooperation. Israeli’s have shown what they are capable of. Palestinians need to be given the chance. They certainly have great potential. And they have potential to become a good democracy or an Islamist state. this is another battle that they have to fight within. Palestinians ( like Jews) are a strong people. The struggling has shown that to be true, or has made them so. Now they need to be wise and realisitic. I think they are moving towards that. Israel must be prepared to risk, and can afford to risk, and let go. Both sides have to control their own extremists.
(Potteranalysis)
By the way our country, the big and powerful USA is going all pear-shaped about what many feel were “Abbot and Costello” types on 9/11. (Look at the barbarity around Moussaoui and Reeves, two nutcases that should be under observation and diagnosed. We love to get our retribution, show our toughness, from the mentally ill using the death penalty.)
Regarding the Abbot and Costello gang- read this article. http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/703998.html There are several named groups still operating including Islamic Jihad.
The IDF is also preparing for the possibility that this week’s Passover holiday might be marked as the Netanya Passover bombing of 2002 was. Holidays often mean tragedy for Israel.
Regarding the “squeeze” that Israel ( and the EU and the US) is trying to put on the Hamas government to renounce terrorism an d accept Israel, this may backfire. They have to put some pressure on Hamas on the one hand, on the other the people might suffer. This is a tough one.
from a Reuters report just in featured on Google news:
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=uri:2006-04-09T170005Z_01_N07289356_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST.xml&pageNumber=1&summit=
In a sign of tensions among militant groups, the political leadership of Islamic Jihad said it had overruled plans by its armed wing to suspend rocket fire from northern Gaza into Israel for one week.
Hamas is sworn to destroy Israel but has largely abided by a year-old ceasefire that other groups have ignored.
Israel has vowed not to negotiate with Hamas unless it recognizes the Jewish state’s right to exist, renounces violence and accepts interim peace deals. Hamas says talks with Israel would be futile.
Palestinian political analyst Hani Habib said Hamas faced a dilemma.
“It is neither able to feed the people nor defend them,” he said, referring to decisions by Israel, the United States and the European Commission to halt direct aid to the new government.
While Israeli officials described the prohibition on dealings with the Palestinian government as a blanket ban, Israeli sources said contacts would be permitted in cases of humanitarian emergencies, such as combating bird flu.
Israel also said it would not block humanitarian aid from reaching the Palestinian people, so long as it did not go directly to the Hamas-led administration.
Sorry for my prolonged abscence. I’d just like to add that whereas Carrol felt that one must look only at the situation as it stands now, ignoring what may or may not have happened in the past, I don’t feel that anyone can really understand anything with regards to Israel/Palestine without the proper historical context. Even Carrol in her quote made indirect reference to history by talking about Israel’s decade long dance with regards to concessions and force. (though I disagree that this has been the case. If it appears so I feel that it is only due to the Palestinian leadership’s rejection of every Israeli overture) As Potter said, Israelis/Jews carry alot of historical baggage, baggage which informs every aspect of Israel’s relationship to the Palestinians. And if I may go off just a little, (perhaps this is on my mind because of the newspaper discussion now at the top of the site) often I find that the news coverage upon which many of us rely for our information regarding this conflict suffers from a complete lack of historical context. It is simply impossible to cover over a century of Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a brief TV news report, or newspaper article, and yet without this history the reality of a given situation is almost entirely lost. Take the large settlements that Carrol made reference to. The largest, by far, of these is the Gush Etzion block not a ten minute ride from downtown Jerusalem. Today it is home to tens of thousands of Israelis, the vast majority of them peace loving people who moved there for a better quality of life. Israel is never going to give this settlement block back to the Palestinians, not only because of the current situation there, but because of the settlements history. Gush Etzion actually is a reestablished settlement. It existed before 1948 but was overrun by the Jordanian Arab Legion supported by Arab irregulares in Israel’s war of Independence. Nearly all of the settlement’s defenders were massacred after their surrender. (This was done, I believe, by the irregulars despite the efforts of the Arab Legion soldiers to try to prevent it) All of this is meant to suggest that there is so much history tied up in this conflict that one must look at in order to gain understanding, and while one can wish that this wasn’t the case, or say that the history must be ignored for the parties to move on towards peace, this simply is not going to happen. History is vital to this conflict and to its resolution.
dayan, thanks. You’re dead right about the history, and its absence from most media coverage.
A question: are there decent parcels of adjacent land Israel could add to say, Gaza, to ‘pay’ or trade for the big West Bank settlements?
From my reading on the subject Israel offered land that was part of pre-1967 Israel for just this purpose as part of the deal rejected by Arafat at Camp David and again at Taba in 2000 and 2001. The land would have come from the northern Negev and would have been added onto the southern part of the West Bank. As for Gaza, there was a suggestion made by an Israeli general tasked with coming up with creative solutions for the current conflict (whose name I cannot remember for the life of me) who suggested that Gaza will never become a stable area given its current situation (Gaza is the single most overcrowded piece of realestate in the world) His suggestion was that Gaza be expanded by adding to it a small sliver of land from the North East corner of the Sinai Peninsula, currently part of Egypt. This land is virtually uninhabited, and would give the Palestinians living in Gaza the excess room necessary to improve conditions there. As for adding land to Gaza from Israel, this seems unfeasible. North of Gaza is Israel’s heartland along the Mediteranean coast, and to the East is Beer Sheba, one of Israel’s major cities. This is to say that the Israeli territory surrounding Gaza is inhabited, and is geographically in the heart of the country, making it impossible for Israel to offer such territory in a swap.
Thanks Dayan, good to see you back and well said. You articulate what I have been feeling about some of the posts that I read here and elsewhere. The newspapers tell the story of today and it is devoid of the context of history. Sympathy naturally goes to the “underdog”. Palestinians, to their own detriment, have been playing victim. They simply have not been ready for peace or a settlement any more than some Israeli’s. It’s been a slow and painful evolution today and there is plenty ahead yet. We were all so naive to think that because it was wished or politically expedient that an agreement could happen prematurely ( before the people were ready).
That should read “It’s been a slow and painful evolution up to today and there is plenty ahead yet.”
Check this out. Written by an Italian, printed in an Italian source, dated 4/ 28/06, it also appeared in Haaretz.:
What to Do with Hamas?
http://www.cipmo.org/print.php
We see some interesting political developments in Isreal and it is hard to predict what it all will mean.
Last night Israel’s ultra-religious Jewish party, Shas, voted to join with Mr Olmert’s government, giving him a workable coalition.
With the Shas on board, Mr Olmert now controls 67 of parliament’s 120 seats.
But the deal came only after Mr Olmert agreed they would not be obliged to back the evacuation of West Bank settlements, Haaretz newspaper reported.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4962274.stm
How long with a coalition of Kadima, labour and Shas hold and what forms such an aliance besides a desire for political power? Is there something else that binds them?
How will Hamas take this signal? Does this put the possibility of peace further beyond reach?
From my distant shores, it does not appear to be a welcomed development, but there should be something more to this.
Sidewalker: I am sticking my nose back in ( I cannot take too much too long of this ongoing conflict and take breaks from it) but last night I read something interesting so funny you should bring this up. This is from a knowledgeable poster on Haaretz:
Regarding an article about this: “62 percent of Israelis support government-backed Arab emigration” on Haaretz yesterday
The Jewish population is slightly over 80% of the total. 62% of Israelis translates into 77% of the Jews. But consider the composition of the Israeli Jewish population:
1. Some 50% are Sephardim, with a particular animosity towards the Arabs and a tendency for rightwing emotional stands and wishful thinking.
2. Almost 20% are from the Former Soviet Union, people unfamiliar with democratic values and with the Western humane tradition, quite the opposite.
3. Some 13% are Ashkenazi Haredim or Orthodox supporters of the settlers (to judge by Knesset representation). These people have a different, pre-modern moral code which allows them view non-Jews as less than first class humans.
There is a slight overlap in the numbers I cited, so about 80% of Israeli Jews were brought up with the view of Palestinians as “squatters”. Fits the results of the survey. (Note that there are only few Ashkenazi Likudniks.)
Israel is a real democracy. The people rule there more than in any other place that I can think of ( not that I know all places). But those numbers tell the story from the Israei side of why things cannot move too fast. One can ask ( on both sides) where is the leadership. But again, on both sides, leaders are not as free to lead too boldly because they do not hold absolute power. In Israel, Olmert can lose his coalition if he moves too much one way or another. So whatever moves he does make in the right direction ( out of occupation) will be welcome. Olmert may not last long anyway.
P.S. Shas is largely Sephardim. Labor is largely secular Askenazi ( European Jews). Labor has traditionally been the party most for compromise. Their members are NOT mostly “immigrants” but “Sabra’s” ( native born). It figures that immigrants for various reasons would hold the stances that they do. Kadima is a big moderating centrist force for those who cannot quite bring themselves to get on board for some of the further compromises that need to be made.
Hamas will either moderate or fail. I am convinced. So I still think that things are moving, albeit glacially, towards an end of this conflict especially since the surrounding Arab countries also seem to be willing to accept Israel after there is an equitable solution for the Palestinians.
A piece of this now is the Israeli public. They have to get comfortable with giving up land.
Another piece is the Palestinian public who are feeling the effects of having elected Hamas in their pockets. The squeeze is on Hamas to moderate.
Unfortunately terror has brought about the withdrawal from Gaza and Palestinians may resort to it again full force if there is no movement. Abbas can still be a partner for some agreement.
( long PS)
Thanks, Potter. I wish you were contributing to MSM articles on the BBC and elsewhere so that those less familiar with the details of this complex politics, like me, could get a much richer understanding.
I agree that Hamas will have to moderate, if for no other reason than they need the funds to appease Fatah or risk, dare I say, civil war. But will any Palestinian Authority commit political suicide and agree to allow Israel to keep the largest settlements, as Olmert has vowed they will?