A Talk with 'Peace Now' in Israel

[Spinoza]

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001246.html

IMO a very interesting picture of the left in Israel today.

>snip "Israel is often thought of, in the West, as an unhinged fanatically right-wing country, like the U.S. on speed. Israel is far more ‘European,’ though, than it is ‘American.’ If Israel were not constantly under fire and constantly embroiled in conflict with eliminationist enemies, Israel would resemble a Jewish France or even Sweden of the Levant. The country was founded by democratic Labor Party socialists, and only rather recently has become more capitalist and complex."<snip

Referring to the 1982 Sabra and Chatilla massacres:
>snip "“It was a tremendous shock to Israel,” he said. “Hundreds of people were being massacred and slaughtered. This caused the trauma for many many people in Israel of the Holocaust all over again. But in reverse. People said how could our country allow this to happen? Even if the people who did the actual killing weren’t Israeli soldiers. But the Israeli army was in control of that area. And they let them in. That was the largest demonstration in Israel.”

“Ever?” I said.

“Ever,” he said. “There were 400,000 people. At the time the population of Israel was less than four million. Ten percent of the population went to Tel Aviv and demonstrated.”<snip


Very informative.

[Tom Joad]

1. Then they elected the man responsible for the murders in Sabra

and Chatilla (and more directly, several other atrocities)Sharon.... and for some, even he was not punitive enough toward the Palestinians.

More like South Africa by oily Mediterranean

[The Magistrate]

2. And Why Do You Think They Did That, Mr. Joad?

[Tom Joad]

3. Ask them. Just a report of the facts, sir.

[The Magistrate]

6. But You Must Have Some View Of Your Own, Mr. Joad

Please share it; your opinions interest me greatly.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. Why? n/t

[The Magistrate]

8. Many Reasons, Ma'am

He claims intimate and personal knowledge of the area, for one. He comments frequently on all events there: he clearly thinks about it a good deal, and surely his conclusions would be worth sharing with us all here.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. 'Us all here'?

Who's us all? Not me, coz I'm not interested in participating in the baiting I'm seeing aimed at Tom. You appear to doubt with yr 'he claims' comment that he does have intimate and personal knowledge of the area. Let me assure you that I know for a fact that he does. He made a valid point in his post and one that I totally agree with.

[cali]

14. Violet,

Asking someone politely to expand on their statements and thoughts is hardly baiting. Furthermore, the Magistrate did not state that he doubted Mr. Joads intimate knowledge of the area, though as you've pointed out to Pelsar, on more than one occasion, that in and of itself does not lend instant credibility to anyone. Or is that a selective sort of thing?

It's puzzling that you should be so belligerent and defensive regarding such a simple request.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Cali...

Letting someone else know politely that I've noticed a pattern of baiting emerging towards Tom in various forums is hardly belligerent and defensive. Furthermore, I did not state that Mr. Magistrate doubted Mr. Joad's intimate knowledge of the area - I said he appeared to be in doubt as he made a point of saying that Tom *claims* intimate and personal knowledge of the area. I know what I've pointed out to Pelsar, but what's that got to do with anything I said in my post? Absolutely nothing...

[cali]

16. I suggest you

review your own posts. There was nothing polite about them.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. I just read post # 12 again. There's nothing wrong with it...

There's nothing impolite or belligerent about it. Deal with it...

[bemildred]

18. Well, it is, actually. "Baiting" I mean.

Which The Magistrate is entirely allowed to do. And Mr. Joad is entirely allowed to ignore or respond to, as he chooses. That is how debate is conducted, or not, as the case may be. One can think of many suitable responses, but then off you go, and it doesn't really get you anywhere.

One is however, also allowed to simply present the facts, when one actually has facts ready to hand, and let them speak for themselves, or in confidence that others will elaborate on what they "mean" for you.

I personally am fond of letting the facts speak for themselves, it saves a good deal of time and energy in many cases. Israelis should be embarassed by electing Sharon, as we here are embarassed by Bush and what his election says about us.

[The Magistrate]

21. As You Say, My Friend

Inviting someone to expand on remarks is a wholly legitimate technique, employed very often in exchanges of this sort.

The matter of "just the facts", though, is not really such a simple one. Facts, by themselves, are wholly neutral and meaningless: they take on meaning only when arrayed within an organizing framework of theory, and can, placed in different such frameworks, be taken to mean quite different things accordingly. One of my favorite old books is a history of ancient chemistry, bought long ago for its wealth of information on early metal-working, that contains some extracts of texts from the Roman period explaining things like the heating of plaster while it dries in terms of interaction among the Four Elements: the explainations read as perfectly sensible and even predictive, so that the things engaged serve as excellent illustrations of why that is an accurate assessment of what goes on in the material world. Modern theories of matter and chemical action explain these facts very differently, and make them mean very different things than the ancient philosophers made them mean. But the fact that plaster heats as it dries, or that some concretes can set under water, remain unchanged, and people working under the guidance of either theory can wield the materials sufficiently well to achieve a purpose.

Thus, when someone simply presents a few isolated facts and does no more, the question of what meaning that person assigns those facts, of what framework of theory he or she employs to endow them with signifigance, will naturally arise, because by simply stating a few isolated items, meaningless in themselves, that person will not really have communicated very much. It would be possible to speculate on what frameworks the person might be employing, and there might even be some apparent grounds for guiding that speculation to certain lines, if familiar with a good deal of that person's commentary on the matter over time, but it seems to me a fairer exercise to invite clarification from the person who has raised the question of just what signifigance he or she assigns to a few isolated facts presented piece-meal.

[bemildred]

24. It is a figure of speech, Sir.

Meaning no more than to allow others to form their own conclusions, according as they have the means to do so. "First thought, best thought", that sort of thing. As you point out in your discussion of plaster, explanations are often superfluous to the business at hand, it's still plaster we are dealing with, however one wishes to "explain" it. Explanations are as often designed to obfuscate as to enlighten.

I have an old book on "Practical Blacksmithing" which it amuses me to read now and then, although I don't expect I am up to the job anymore.

[The Magistrate]

26. True Enough, Sir

But persons engaged in debate, particularly one in which they display strong feelings, will have some conclusion they would prefer others draw from what they present, and the key to this will be the meaning they themselves assign to the facts they choose to present, which will flow from the theoretical framework they employ to organize facts for themselves. That is not really a light to be hidden under a bushel, it seems to me.

Blacksmithing interested me in those days as well, but as employment in it seemed mostly centered on care for horses, which interest me about as much as automobiles, there seemed little point to pursuing it. A tremendous proportion of the metalworking texts, by the way, centered on ways to deceive people as to the actual content of gold in an object....

"People are fucking people, and that is fucked up!"

[bemildred]

28. True, a lot of horseshoes,

I was more interested in the methods of working steel, making tools, implements, and edged weapons. There is something satisfying in a piece of good steel.

[The Magistrate]

23. What Has Engaged My Curiousity, Ma'am

Is exactly what "valid point" Mr. Joad feels he has made. That is far from clear to me.

[pelsar]

9. I concur....

i too am interested to hear what Mr. Joads opinion is in that matter.....

[Douglas Carpenter]

4. I suspect Mr. Sharon very successfully exploited events around

the impending collapse (or at least stalemate) of the Camp David 2000 talks coupled with his provocative visit to Temple Mount or Al-Haram al-Sharif as it is known to Arabs and Muslims.

By the time of Sharon's visit on September 28, 2000 it would have become crystal clear to virtually every single Palestinian that they were not getting a truly independent and viable Palestinian state. Even Israel's Foreign Minister at the time Shlomo Ben-Ami has admitted since then that if he had been a Palestinian he would not have accepted the Camp David 2000 agreement.

Sharon's visit would have only been interpreted by Muslims as making an Israeli claim on Al-Haram al Sharif thus sparking an enormous confrontation. It is widely known by every Muslim that certain right-wing Israeli Rabbis ( and certain American fundamentalist Christians for that matter) with real political influence have a dream of destroying the Muslim holy sites and rebuilding the second temple which was destroyed by the Romans in (I believe) 69 AD). Al Aqsa Mosque has stood there since 715 AD and is considered the third holiest site in Islam; after Mecca and Medina. Needless to say it is a very sensitive issue.

This report of the events that day from the Palestinian Human Rights Society: "The visit was made at 7:45 in the morning. Sharon tried to his way to the Al Marwani Mosque where an estimated 200 Palestinians squatted to deny him entry. Israeli occupation forces forced their way through by using batons and rifles. Among the squatters were Arab members of the Israeli Parliament, members of the Palestinian Legislative Council and a number of dignitaries and political activist...The occupation forces failed to break through the human chain around the small mosque and managed to force Sharon and his team out of the premises. However, an estimated 1000 Israeli soldiers and policemen took to the roads of the adjacent houses and shot rubber bullets and gas bombs at the peaceful protesters injuring 24 Palestinians." (from page 94 of Israel/Palestine by Tanya Reinhart).

After this large Israeli deployments of forces and tanks were quickly moved into the densely populated Palestinian neighborhoods of the Old City and East Jerusalem and basically the second intifada was underway. It should be mentioned that no Palestinian terror attacks on Israelis occurred until more than a month later on November 2.

I suppose if the Palestinians had Gandhian like saintliness and omniscient foresight they should have welcomed Sharon and his hundred plus security force with tea and flowers and told him he was welcome to come back anytime for a visit. But by this time after seven years of economically devastating closure, seven years of drastically increased restrictions on Palestinian movement, seven years of the most rapid expansion of settlements and apartheid roads in the history of the occupied territories and seven years of promises that never materialized, seven years of dramatically increased housing demolition to make room for more settlements and roads, seven years of being told by their own leadership to wait and be patient; and then to discover they were not getting a truly independent and viable Palestinian state after all; things just exploded in a very human response.

And Mr. Sharon was there to exploit and manipulate the situation to his advantage and found himself elected Prime Minister in February 2001.

.

[The Magistrate]

5. In Your Sixth Paragraph, Sir

You certainly indicated the proper strategy in response to Sharon's stroll on that little hill....

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. yes and I think their funerals should consist of candle-lite vigils

folk guitars and the singing of "we shall overcome". It would certainly come off much better in the western media.

But it is a simple matter of reality that oppressed down-trodden people rebel--especially when they discover they have been had. Especially when a cruel and manipulative demagogue like Sharon baits them.

Even oppressed down-trodden animals rebel.

And let's make no mistake about it. Peaceful and nonviolent protest by Palestinians are brutally crushed as well. Every single credible human rights organization that monitors this conflict would verify that.

[The Magistrate]

19. And So, Sir

We remain pinned down at the simple and sizeable point that in no instance has the employment of violence, the indulgence in the joys of rage and lashing out, ever brought any benefit to the people of Arab Palestine. Beginning as far back as the Mandatory period, and continuing into the present, every spasm of violence by the Nationalist leadership, and lately by Islamicist bodies, has resulted only in a further constriction of that peoples existance and prospects for the future. However natural it may be, it is just as certainly self-destructive, and counter-productive, from any point of view that would see the condition of that people bettered, and any of their legitimate aspirations realized.

[pelsar]

20. one of the obvious things that seems not to get noticed...

every spasm of violence by the Nationalist leadership, and lately by Islamicist bodies, has resulted only in a further constriction of that peoples existance and prospects for the future.

maybe its my western rationality.....but if something doesnt work...and one tries it over and over again, and not only does it not work, but it makes matter worse, it could be time to try a new strategy?

just a thought......

[The Magistrate]

22. Without, Sir, Rooting That Human Truth In Any Particular Cultural Stream

As it can certainly be found in the experience of all, that seems to me one of the major features of the situation.

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. well I cannot see where any good has come out of the second

intifada. The first intifada was a very different story. There did seem to be some political advantage gained.

Not that you have suggested it, but my biggest contention is with those who view the second intifada as proof that the Palestinians have rejected peace. They have rejected the peace of subjugation though. And they will continue to reject the peace of subjugation.

Privileged classes throughout history rarely if ever yield their position of privilege unless they are coerced to do so. I don't think that is anything unusual of the Israelis.

But I do agree with those who say that the Palestinians need to try something different. But so do the Israelis. For all the Palestinians have been through--their will to resist is far from broken. There is no reason to believe that the use of harsh tactics in the future will break the will of the Palestinians to resist.

[The Magistrate]

27. 'The Peace of Subjugation', Sir, Has A Nice Ring To It

It is the kind of sound that can be relied on to excite an ardent spirit to violence. Otherwise, it has no real meaning, and is simply a species of noise to my ear, along with cries ranging from 'no justice, no peace' to "fifty-four forty or fight'. My conception of peace, admittedly, is a minimalist one: that people are not being killed frequently is sufficient to qualify, and presumed to be desireable in contrast to a condition in which they are being frequently killed.

[Douglas Carpenter]

33. I just don't see how a genuinely viable and independent Palestinian

state on 22% of the former British Mandate of Palestine is unreasonable.

And it usually has not been the Palestinians who have broken cease fires.

I'm quite sure Sir, I have stated a number of times that I did not believe that a violent solution was possible for the Palestinians. And I actually agree that violence would be and has been counterproductive. I believe I have said that many times.

"The Myth of the Generous Offer
Distorting the Camp David negotiations

By Seth Ackerman

link to full article:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

"To understand what actually happened at Camp David, it's necessary to know that for many years the PLO has officially called for a two-state solution in which Israel would keep the 78 percent of the Palestine Mandate (as Britain's protectorate was called) that it has controlled since 1948, and a Palestinian state would be formed on the remaining 22 percent that Israel has occupied since the 1967 war (the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem). Israel would withdraw completely from those lands, return to the pre-1967 borders and a resolution to the problem of the Palestinian refugees who were forced to flee their homes in 1948 would be negotiated between the two sides. Then, in exchange, the Palestinians would agree to recognize Israel (PLO Declaration, 12/7/88; PLO Negotiations Department).

Although some people describe Israel's Camp David proposal as practically a return to the 1967 borders, it was far from that. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. But it would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank--while retaining "security control" over other parts--that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government (Political Science Quarterly, 6/22/01; New York Times, 7/26/01; Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 9-10/00; Robert Malley, New York Review of Books, 8/9/01).

The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region’s scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new “independent state” would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called “bypass roads” that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel. "

link to full article:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

[The Magistrate]

34. We Are In Agreement On That Point, Sir

A state of Arab Palestine should constitute, essentially, those portions of the Mandate left outside the Armistice lines of '48. Israeli desires for some security presence on the Jordan are nonesense, and the various "strategic settlements" must be evacuated.

Sticking points, unfortunately, exist at Jerusalem and its immediate environs. An ideal solution might well be an "international city", in which each state held an extra-territorial enclave for its capitoline pretensions. But that is not going to occur. Israel is not going to give up the Old City, nor is it going to give up the settlement blocs that are, essentially, Israeli bedroom communities around the metropolis. The Nationalist and Islamic leaderships of Arab Palestine have made it similarly pretty clear that they will not settle for anything short of regaining the Old City, and possibly a deal more besides. On both sides, that most deadly of developments, the conversion to symbol of real estate, has taken place long since, and reason has fled the matter entirely.

The article you have cited has never much impressed me: it falls into the "true enough, but unimportant" class of arguement, in my view. Whether the offer was the most generous ever made by open hands or the stingiest ever grudged by a grasping hand, only calamity has come from rejecting it in favor of a course of violence, and the condition of the people of Arab Palestine today would be enormously better had it been accepted. Thousands now dead would be alive; hundreds of thousands now in dire poverty would be prosperous, even affluent.

[Douglas Carpenter]

35. Internationalizing Jerusalem with both Israel and Palestine

having its own capital would probably be more acceptable to most Palestinians than it would be to many Israelis, at least that is my impression.

The issue of water, that is control over the West Bank Aquifers, gets very little publicity is probably just as big a deal as Jerusalem. In fact water is probably the relatively unpublicized point of dispute between countries including Israel and its neighbors and for that matter other countries in the region.

In Camp David 2000 Mr. Barak was insisting that the Palestinian leadership sign an end of conflict agreement that would have essentially declared that the Palestinians had no more outstanding claims. However, that demand was dropped after the release of the Clinton Parameters in December 2000 and later on at Taba in January 2001. But by the time Israel--on the brink of elections declared an end to the talks--issues of the aquifers and control over Palestinian borders with Jordan and Egypt were completely unresolved. Also the question of the degree of Israeli control over settlements deep inside of the West Bank including Israeli roads and the question of about 200,000 Palestinians who would find themselves inside the Israeli controlled settlement areas that the Palestinians were prepared to relinquish to Israeli annexation were unresolved. The questions of East Jerusalem were fuzzy at best. With the exception of a relatively small areas to comprise the Palestinian capital it was unclear if the Palestinians were being offered sovereignty or only municipal authority. With Israel, at least for the time being, controlling roads and settlement blocks deep inside the West Bank and Israel at least for the time being having essential control over the Palestinian border with Egypt and Jordan, real questions of freedom of movement both within the Palestinian state and to the outside world would be left hanging for future negotiations. The Palestinians felt really burnt by Oslo and didn't want to see such questions left open indefinitely. Even so with Clinton out of office and the Labor government only days away from elections, the Israelis decided that talks were over. And the second intifada was already four months old and things on the street were spinning out of control. I really doubt that the Palestinian leadership could do very much to calm matters at that point. Perhaps time just ran out.

From my point of view, Israel with its lopsided power relationship with the Palestinians and with the Palestinians having very limited ability to exert pressure of their own, only pressure from the United States can resolve the conflict in anything resembling a sane and rational matter.

It may sound hypocritical since there are Arab and Muslim countries doing things a lot worse than anything Israel has done. But Israel/Palestine happens to sit on holy land and I really don't think there is any issue that creates more resentment against America and the West than the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I really don't think there is any other issue that fuels the flames of Jihadist more than the Israeli/Palestinian issue.

[The Magistrate]

36. Again, Sir, There Is Substantial Overlap In Our Positions

It would be very much to the interests of the United States to impose a reasonable solution to the conflict on both parties, and probably in its power to do so. By definition, a compromise solurion must be somewhat disappointing to both sides, but if well judged, will be acceptable to the great majority of people on both sides, particularly if the alternative is some compound of continued violence and penury.

That a number of things were left unresolved in the early talks of 2000 seems to me no good obstacle to the proposals on the table then being accepted. Had this been done on the heels of the July round, the thing would have been begun in an atmosphere of prosperous peace, and both sides would have had a chance to display their best behavior, and demonstrate to the other that it need not fear the worst. Circumstances would have been conducive to the settling of the still un-resolved items in a more trusting and generous spirit all around. By December, of course, as things happened, talks were meaningless: violence had totally overtaken the political life of both peoples.

[pelsar]

29. no we dont have to "try something different"....

whereas the present situation from an israeli point of view is hardly ideal (its been going on since pre48)...it remains better today then if we have kassams coming down from the westbank, or our position today is not as good if we had some kind of peaceful settlement....but we can keep this up, since we dont know which way the future will take us, we have no reason to risk kassam on hadera, just as we have kassams on sederot.....better or worse, and we're in a strong position.

now the palestenains on the other hand, have only seen their situation get worse..and worse...and worse. Its not a matter of breaking their will...thats not going to happen, its a matter of what they want

more and more misery, less security, less land.......or a better life.....its up to them to change the tactics, the trouble is they've lost a lot of ground with the use of sucide bombers, both within their society and without.

[Douglas Carpenter]

39. time is not on the side of an apartheid-like solution

demographics is not on the side of apartheid-like solution

geography is not on the side of apartheid-like solution.

somethings are just not viable in the long term

It is in the enlightened and long-term self-interest of the Israeli people to change and seek reconciliation.

[pelsar]

30. I should clarify my answer.....

the jews and the palestenain arabs started off in 48 more or less in the same position. In fact it could easily be argued that the jews, being invaded by the neighboring arab countries with modern armies, while the jewish army, made up of concentration camp survivors, people who didnt even speak the same language were at a distinct disadvantage in some respects.

the palestenains lost (those villages that fought), and if we look at the big picture, israel has succeeded in not just making a modern country but in fighting back several attempts to "ruin that"..contrast that to the palestenains who have virutally lost every round.

The israeli tactics dont have to break the palestenain will, nor the arab will, it just has to keep them "at bay." Which for the most part is has. And while doing so, israel has moved forward, the palestenians using their own same tactics have made their own lives simply more miserable.

Today, gaza is on the verge of a civil war with terror gangs, israels economy is moving ahead, security in gaza is worse than its ever been, much of it the palestenains own doing, and their economy is falling apart.

Its the palestenians who might want to try something different.....they're the ones who keep losing.

[rockymountaindem]

31. You can't suggest that

You can't suggest that any of the Palestinians' problems are the result of their own action, or that anything else could help their cause except the end of the "occupation". Everyone knows that any and all problems in the Palestinian community are the direct result of Israeli activity, or even its very existance, and nothing short of an immediate two-state or one-state solution can do anything to solve them. :sarcasm:

[pelsar]

11. we used to talk about it......

during intifada I...relativly non violent for the region (i doubt molotov cocktails, rocks via slingshots would be considered "non violent)..but there was no active armed assults from the palestenians during the protests.

we used to hope that during those protests, a little palestenian girl would approach with a flower toward the IDF.....it would so easily have disarmed the atmoshphere.......


today it would take a lot more, as kids have been caught with backpacks loaded bombs (some of them not even known to the kid), used as lookouts etc, so even their innocence would be suspect today.....

_______

the palestenians during intifada I and oslo had over half of the israelis "on their side', "rooting for them" if you will......intifada II with its suicide bombers througout israel was a really dumb mistake on their part, it totally eliminated the israeli left, people who supported a plaestenian state side by side with israel.

[Spinoza]

32. Well, the posts are very interesting

but it seems to me that, as is common during discussions of Israeli attitudes, most of the major insights from the actual citation are not being addressed. Apparently, the quote that an (astonishing) 10% of the Israeli public demonstrated against the 1982 massacres in Lebanon elicited further.....condemnation of Israel. (Look who they voted for, etc.) Of course, I am sure that the actual interviewees from 'Peace Now' did NOT vote for Sharon. (And Sir Magistrate's --unanswered--question is apt. WHY was Sharon elected when he was? Perhaps the suicide bombings raging throughout Israel at that time had something to do with his election? Just a thought.)

To me, the most interestesting and revealing comments were:
snip>" I, as an Israeli, don’t have a problem admitting that a tragedy befell the Palestinians in 1948."<snip snip>“What do you do with this?” Yehuda said. “It’s not reasonable to expect Jewish people to just roll up and go away or disappear. But on the other hand, a true injustice was done to the Palestinians."<snip

>snip"
“I think what’s different from our peace movement,” Amichai said, “from the peace movements in the United States, in other countries, and in Europe is the question of serving in the army. Peace movements are usually pacifists and they don’t encourage their members to serve in the army. The Israeli peace movement believes that Israel would not exist if we didn’t defend it. There is a slogan that’s going around: If the Arabs put down their arms, there will be peace. If the Jews put down their arms there won’t be any Jews left. And I think there’s a basic truth to that.”

“Amichai is speaking in the context of Israel,” Yehuda said, “and I can understand that. My feeling goes beyond the spirit of Israeli society only. I see organizations like Hezbollah as a threat to humanity in the same manner, for me, as the settler movement is also a threat. Where you have a nationalism that hooks up with a religious idea, I see only trouble. I’m not willing to discriminate between Jews and Arabs on this score. Not at all.”<snip
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001246.html

It seems to me that what we see here is: First, an acknowlegement that the Palestinians are human beings who have suffered and are suffering and the conflict is not black and white. Second, a statement that Israeli and Arab theocratic fundamentalists are equally bad. One has to ask where are ANY reciprocal public statements from Israel's surrounding Arab populations.?

[The Magistrate]

37. It Is A Very Interesting Article, Sir

[pelsar]

38. the israeli left is a different "animal" from Europes or Americans...

to begin with, its not really left, its liberal and its a realistic liberal at that.

For the most part is has a respectable part within the society, owing much to their military service. A high portion of those who consider themselves liberals/left serve in combat units, and hence have seen with their own eyes the suffering and the politics.

Taking a bomb out of the backpack of a 12-14 yr old palestenian child, tends to remove the naivety that permates much of the "European/American left."....Listening or hearing about rallies where the calls of death to the jews (interchangeable with israelis) "we shall free jerusalem" combined with kidnapping soldiers tends to have an affect on those "left of the line."

Its not a matter of recognizing the misery that the palestenains are going through, and have gone through for so long, that was done with oslo and thats its not in israels interest on a moral level to continue the occupation, with that comes the very base question that every liberal israeli asks, that has never been answered here:

if we give back the west bank, and given the voltile and unstable palestenain society, we end up having kassams/mortors on our major cities (as per the example in gaza and from lebanon)....then what?

Fact is we dont really expect much out of our surrounding arab neighbors in terms of "acknowledgment of the problems with fundamentalist (theirs and ours)"....simply because, they are not liberal societies with a strong stable democracy (lebanon was and is a very very weak democracy). Its sad, it should be unacceptable to any liberal. This includes the palestenain society as well.....and that too is part of the problem,

[Douglas Carpenter]

40. I wonder why those ungrateful Palestinians keep doing these things?

Could it be their hatred of democracy and enlightenment?

Their rejection of modernity?

Their fear of the emancipation of woman?

Or could there be other reasons?

Did the military destruction of the Palestinian civil administration help stabalize Palestinian civil society?

Will the military destruction of Palestinian civil society make things more stable?

[msmcghee]

41. You asked a rhetorical question.

I'll provide a non-rhetorical answer - although in this forum it will likely be answered by sneers. IMO your view of Palestinians is naive and ideologically, not factually, informed. The Palestinian-Arab culture is a patriarchal value system that goes back centuries. Their society is largely structured around the concept of male honor. Islam institutionalizes that system and provides legitimacy to those strong underlying feelings.

That in itself is not what makes them do what they do. It is what makes them vulnerable to manipulation by other Arabs who have political agendas that depend on the continued subjugation of the Palestinians by Israel. This has been true since before 1948.

Young Palestinians will continue to kill Israelis because that has become the focus of their cultural identity - and because it is in the financial and political interests of wealthy Arabs in other countries for that to continue.

They are the ones who finance the glorification of the martyrs and the payments to their families. They are the ones who pay for the school-books that teach the smallest Palestinian children that Jews are devils who drink Muslim blood. They are the ones who finance the militias - Mafia type organizations that increase their cash receipts and local power when they kidnap the soldiers and fire the Qassams whenever it seems that things might quiet down.

Your view that if Israel would only treat them decently and end the occupation - that they would gladly live peacefully with Israel and get on with improving their own society is wishful thinking at best. It allows you to nurture your leftist view of Israel as the Imperialist oppressor and you are not about to let reality intrude on that vision.

I can ask you to provide any evidence at all that a lessening of the pressure on Palestine in the past - any attempts at reconciliation - have been met with positive signs that such a strategy would lead to a lessening of the violence.

But you could not provide that evidence even going back 60 years. Instead, you could only find the opposite - where time after time any attempts at detente by Israel have only been met with loud cries from Arab leaders that they (their faction) has been finally victorious in humbling the Jews - and that now is the time to finish them off and cleanse the ME of their presence.

I know you will indignantly cry foul at my description because it wrecks your simplistic good-guys / bad-guys vision of things. But you should consider the possibility that I am right. Ideological ferver in a society formed around the idea of male honor - where outside actors are providing abundant explosives and rockets (and possibly even worse weapons) - is a deadly catastrophe waiting to ignite. When this one does, it will result in many millions of deaths, not just a few hundered - most of whom will be the same Palestinian Arabs and Lebanese Shia's that you claim to care so much about.

Are those millions of deaths worth the remote possibility that Israel could be seriously damaged? There are many Arab and Persian politicians who are not personally at risk, who believe they would increase their power in such a conflict, who no doubt believe they are. With help from folks like you they might get their way.

[Spinoza]

43. My compliments on a very

eloquent and thoughtful statement. (You are a wonderful writer!) There may well be many Palestinians who are sick of the bloodshed and want genuine peace with Israel. But they dare not speak out, they dare not denounce the Arab leaders and armed thugs who are trying to manipulate them in the manner you so eloquently articulate. The gunmen from Hamas or the PA or Hezbollah or some other armed group would pay them a visit. They know this. (See my post #42 with the same point.)

[msmcghee]

45. Thanks for emphasizing that . .

. . many Palestinians secretly support peace with Israel. That is what is truly sad about this. As long as the militants, fed by funds from outside the territories, have effective control of the population - anyone who speaks out for peace will not live long.

One-on-one, I am sure that most Palestinians are wonderful people who I could be friends with in a minute. And I think most of them have a fondness for Americans that underlies all the politics. But the politics there determines the reality - and that is what's taking them down the road to their own destruction.

That's why I get so dismayed when those on the left like me, who should be for peace and against killing, fall for the propaganda (because it satisfies their hegemonic US/Israel world-view) and voice support for the tactics of the killers in Palestine who have such a tight grip on the people.

They, and their supporters in the West, are the ones who are preventing a peace movement from ever taking hold there.

And thanks for the compliments.

[newyorican]

46. I largely agree with your statement...

barring some minor omissions (which are understandable, given the bias of the poster).

However, this is only one side of the coin. A similarly frank and honest examination of the Israeli culture and agenda would be most apropos.

It's a shame I am unqualified to provide one.

[pelsar]

50. so let me....

israel is a far more complex society: part militaristic / part patricarchical/ part liberal / religious. Much of this is the result of the complex cultural mix. One of the few aspects that all agree upon is the freedom of speach and the freedom to protest.

Our govts rise and fall constantly, due to a political process that wanted all to have a voice, hence the multi party system and its inherent instability (socialism with eruopean roots). The lack of direct voting (people vote for parties not the individual member) gives rise to a "buddy buddy system" where the knesset members loyalty is first to the party and then to "the people". This system does not allow the people to kick out a failed member, which is why so many failures remain in power.

All of this results in govt system that is not based on the best and brightest but on the best connected. When our generals (who are the closest thing to "gods" in israel) parachute in to politics, most fail as they dont understand the system. Only after years of being in the knesset, those those that stay still have a chance. They still retain the vestages of "superior human beings" than us mere mortals, even though they've been compromised.

(This system expains why the settlers have undo power. If there were direct representation, they wouldnt have a chance. In fact the beauty of the gaza pullout finally showed just how little influence they have on the israeli public. Infact they only reason they're still in business is because the alternative (pullback and kassams on hadera) is less attractive.)

Furthermore, with the old guard now gone (Golda, Ben Gurion...) were having trouble finding people of such calibre to take control. Israel does in fact want/need strong leaders. That is the only way one can control the knesset and the multi party system. Sharon represented that, which explains his election. Until the system changes to where the individual reps are voted directly by the people, and have a direct responsability the generals will have undue influence, and the system that accepts the well connected will continue....

and that is party a european/middle eastern influence..both of which in my opinion make for bad govt.

[newyorican]

55. uuumm...

Was looking for something a little more honest and frank.

Not a (for the most part) chest-beating soliloquy answering a bunch of unrelated, unasked questions.

Unfortunately, you may also be unqualified to honestly provide a clear view of the other side of the coin.

[pelsar]

57. actually.....

i think your looking for a view that fits what you want to hear....not a view from someone who actually lives in the country...

[Douglas Carpenter]

47. How many suicide attacks happened prior to closure?

(I certainly never said I supported a violent solution to this problem. My whole point is to find a nonviolent solution coming from both sides. -- but BOTH sides have to cooperate on that matter -- including the side that is by far and overwhelmingly the most violent)

How many suicide attacks happened during the first intifada when Palestinians had considerably more freedom of movement? How many suicide attacks or missile attacks happened prior to massive increase in settlement expansion, building of apartheid roads and the demolition of the thousands of houses to make room for those settlements and apartheid roads?

What did Oslo actually deliver in on the ground reality for Palestinians?

The largest settlement expansion in the history of the occupied territories for a similar period of time. Increased restrictions on freedom of movement. Oslo was actually used as a pretext to stop almost all movement from the West Bank to the Gaza and Gaza to the West Bank. A dramatic increase in the number of apartheid roads in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. And along with all of this came a dramatic increase in housing demolitions to make room for the dramatically increased settlements and the apartheid roads.

In occupied territories that never had an ability to develop an independent economy, but instead an economy heavily dependent on Israel--all of this sent their economy plummeting and their unemployment skyrocketing.

Still they were continually told by the Palestinian leadership to wait and be patient for the final talks. Then the final talks came and they found out they were NOT getting a genuinely independent state after all, but a series of cantons with at best only vague "promises" of possible very limited connections -- along with no evidence that most of the settlement were moving anywhere, freedom of movement that would remain just as restricted--not only to and from the outside world but even within the West Bank itself. In other words a non-viable, non-independent pseudo-state with little or no ability to develop anything remotely resembling an independent economy that doesn't even have control over its own water supply on its own land.

What have the Gaza Palestinians gained in the Gaza disengagement plan? Life behind a electric barbed wire fence with no ability for 99.9% of Gaza Palestinians to leave this strip which is only 28 miles long and 4 miles wide.
Map of the Gaza Strip

"For the past four and a half years, Israel has severely restricted freedom of movement to and from the Gaza Strip. These restrictions further strangled the Gaza Strip, so much so that the area resembles one gigantic prison. Israel’s policies have reduced many human rights – among them the right to freedom of movement, family life, health, education, and work – to “humanitarian gestures” that Israel sparingly provides. " link: http://www.btselem.org/English/Maps/Index.asp

What have West Bank Palestinians gained from the Gaza disengagement plan? Increased settlements, increased military checkpoints, less freedom of movement and a promise that if they behave themselves they can live in large prisons behind walls and electric fences too.



There was a lot of optimism at the time of Oslo in 1973 both among most Palestinians and throughout the Middle East. It will now take a long time for Israel and the United States to be trusted again.

There have been any number of cease fires arranged by the Palestinian leadership. What happens every single time? Targeted assassinations along with the usual "collateral damage" of civilians including woman and children, or at the very least the rather routine shooting of civilians into populated areas usually from checkpoints even when their is no evidence of provocation or at the very least the shooting of children throwing stones.

Please allow me to quote from Professor Tanya Reinhart of Tel Aviv University:

"It is possible to question the wisdom of Palestinians resort to armed struggle, but it is no less necessary to ask what other way Israel has left opened for the Palestinian people to struggle for their liberation. In Gaza and the West Bank, any form of civil struggle is brutally quashed by the Israeli Army, which often fires on non-violent demonstrators.

In one of the most flagrant instances of military violence against non-violent demonstrations, the Israeli Army shelled and launched missiles against an unarmed demonstration of 3,000 people in Gaza on 19 May 2004 during Operation Rainbow in Rafah. AT this time the Tel al-Sultan neighborhood was under siege; there were widespread accounts of army brutality and families were unable to bury their dead. A solidarity march was organized at Rafah town, which progressed along the Beach Road toward Tel al-Sultan. According to numerous witnesses and photographs, there were no armed men among the demonstrators. "We were marching down the road shouting, "We need help" as a message to the world, and "No to occupation. "Hussam Mustafa, a civil engineer told the Guardian. "There was a missile and then people started running back and then there was another missile right into the crown". Israeli security sources explained that "the IDF feared a mass march toward its troops in the Tel-Sultan quarter in Rafa. The forces were ordered to take escalating measures to keep the hundreds of demonstrators...from confronting the soldiers. "Images of the attack were broadcast around the world and the Israeli army hastened to "express its sorrow". But the message to the Gaza Palestinians was blunt and unequivocal--no form of protest would be allowed." (From pg 59-60 of The Road Map to Nowhere by Professor Tanya Reinhart of Tel Aviv University)--Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Road-Map-Nowhere-Israel-Palestine/dp/1844670767/ref=sr_11_1/002-4750258-7334423?ie=UTF8

BTW: I have lived 20 years in the Middle East in heart of the Arab and Muslim world from remote villages to major cities. I know quite well the fundamentalist side as well as the relatively liberal side. I hope you at least consider the possibility that I might be right and the kind of thinking you are advocating could very well drive America into catastrophe that might very well cost millions of lives. And I would also suggest that people who have had careers in the Arab and Islamic world- people who actually understand something about the region-that even people well -- well to the right of me politically, people who strongly believe in the importance of America's role in the region are much closer to my thinking than to yours on these particular matters.

Again I urge everyone to read the human rights reports from a broad cross section of credible and independent human rights organization, many of them Israelis. Again I congratulate the very brave and heroic Israelis who speak out against this brutal and cruel occupation and these monstrous crimes.

I should mention that these organization list and investigate human rights abuse on BOTH sides. I hope everyone reads reports concerning BOTH sides.
It will not be difficult to figure out which side is by far the most violent.


International Committee of the Red Cross/Palestinian Territories:

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/palestine?OpenDocument



http://www.btselem.org/english/About_BTselem/Index.asp

Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions:

http://www.icahd.org/eng

The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel

http://www.stoptorture.org.il/eng/background.asp?menu=3&submenu=3

Physicians for Human Rights - Israel

http://www.phrusa.org/healthrights/phr_israel.html

Amnesty International/Israel and Occupied Territories:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/israel_and_occupied_territories/index.do

Human Rights Watch/Israel and Occupied Territories:

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/israel/

Machsom Watch (Monitors abuse at checkpoints)

http://www.machsomwatch.org/eng/homePageEng.asp?link=homePage&lang=eng

[pelsar]

49. oslo was the start.....no more than that....

gaza was also another attempt, leaving lebanon was another experiement...all had good and bad, however all of them, had the israeli presence removed-is that not the big complaint?

result: palestenian/arab further attempts to kill israelis.

thats your bottom line from the israeli point of view. If you want to complain about israeli infractions during olso, then at least go and find and list the palestenians ones as well...that i think would be resonable (yes there were plenty......).

as written above
That in itself is not what makes them do what they do. It is what makes them vulnerable to manipulation by other Arabs who have political agendas that depend on the continued subjugation of the Palestinians by Israel. This has been true since before 1948.

the palestenians can be "manipulated" throught their govt controlled media to do whatever their leaders want, especially during arafats leadership, he held complete control. If he wanted the palestenian to accept oslo, they would have. Intifada II, who do you think paid for it?...arafat could have cut off the funds to the tanzim and that would have ended it. Blaming Sharons walk?....pretty weak excuse, there are always excuses for violence and always will be. And that in fact is precisly the problem. Not only is their no guarantee that the 67 borders will bring peace, its more likly that some "jihdanikim' will not agree and launch missles from Hebron....

one can list massacre and infractions, the list is long.....its also irrelevant if one wants to live in peace with one neighbors. Similar lists can be made between Germany and France, israel an Egypt, etc....all of them have no place when is really interested in living in peace with ones neighbors.

The only time they gained something was during oslo, which came after intifada I.They received for the first time some self govt....and then they reverted back to their old strategy...and lost far more than what gained: they might want to try a different one.

_______
and to answer you questions: the closures, roadblocks etc all were a result of the suicide bombers...first the bombers came, then the preventive measures, thats the timeline....and as there more sucide bombers, the measures were increased and intensified. and Now?....more attempts very few are successful.

an excellent example of not just the failed strategy but the propaganda that goes with it:
1) suicide bombers: 2) more closures, 3) more misery: 4) no more successful sucide bombers 5) israels fault, they started it!

classic!!

[pelsar]

48. very well written....

and i believe this is the core:

The Palestinian-Arab culture is a patriarchal value system that goes back centuries. Their society is largely structured around the concept of male honor. Islam institutionalizes that system and provides legitimacy to those strong underlying feelings.

That in itself is not what makes them do what they do. It is what makes them vulnerable to manipulation by other Arabs who have political agendas that depend on the continued subjugation of the Palestinians by Israel. This has been true since before 1948.

which helps explain why they continually use the same tactics....based on "honor"..even though they've show to be not just a failure, but tend to make matters worse.

there was several incidents after Initifada II started that was "fascinating to me:
i believe it happened about 5 times, where long term palestenians employees who worked for Israelis in the agri buisiness, suddenly knifed/killed their employers. The palestenians had been working for 10-20 years with the same boss: This meant they shared weddings, etc together.

As a westerner i couldnt comprehend such a thing, how do you kill someone you've know and worked with for so long?,..but it does illustrate how deep the nationalistic/honor mentality runs within the arab culture. As a result many palestenains who had worked long term for israeli farmers were "let go".....

[Spinoza]

42. Thank you for your informative remarks.

I think all of us who regularly post on or read the IP are fortunate to have your--on the spot--insights. Too bad we don't regularly have any Palestinians or Lebanese posting as well. (At least I don't think we do.)

My own view (which to forestall the demand for supporting 'links' I readily admit I cannot document) is that there may well be equivalent Palestinian liberal opinion (to the views expressed by the 'Peace Now' interviewees) among Palestinans in Gaza and the West Bank but to openly express such opinions is-- literally-- to risk ones life. So we can't really know how many Palestinians are willing to live in peaceful cooperation with Israel, how many Palestinians reject and oppose the Kassams going into Israel from Gaza. They dare not speak up.

[furman]

44. Some links to Palestinian public opinion and polls

Results of Palestinian Public Opinion Poll No 23
September 7-9, 2006
http://www.najah.edu/english/news/show.asp?key=349
Some highlights:
• 61.3% of respondents supported military operations inside Israel; 32.8% rejected them.
• 42.5% of respondents rejected launching rockets from the Gaza Strip against Israel.
• 36.7% of respondents said that launching rockets from the Gaza Strip against Israel hurts the Palestinian cause; 36.5% said it serves it.


Palestinian Public Opinion
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/palpotoc.html

Palestinian Opinion Following the Hamas Election
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/arabs/posthamas.html

Palestinian Attitudes on Terrorism
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/arabs/poterror.html

Palestinian Public Opinion
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/arabs/palpo.html

Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR)
http://www.pcpsr.org/

Jerusalem Media & Communication Centre
http://www.jmcc.org/

[pelsar]

51. palesenains attempts at non violence.....mass movement

there are attempts now and then, but to get a mass movement going requires the use of the media and here lies the problem...they cant.

several years ago Ashrawi and other leaders put an ad in the westbank paper calling for and end to the suicide bombers as a failed strategy (interally as well as externally)

A week later came the second ad...an apology for insulting the past martyrs (sucide bombers).....and the impicit, "we wont try this again"....

obviously they were "visited" by their local jihadnikim who didnt like the idea of losing not just their "living" but their identity, their prestige etc.
_______

I personally think the situation can be turned around in a year or two...all it needs is the palestenian media to reverse course, start showing the positive side of working with israel, interviewing palestenians who worked in the past in israel, how good it was, the homes they built, educating their children away from the death cult, interviewing israelis on PA TV (yes show them as people)....what it actually requires is a strong central govt, not the fractured society that the palestenians are now.

There is another option, which may or may not appear in gaza: The palestenians start protesting their own govt, and tell them to do something about the kassams. Whether or not this will happen is anybodys guess.....it would however cause a reversal of a very miserable situation.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. What's yr experience with the Palestinian media?

Apart from being told by the Israeli media what the Palestinian media is like? Do you speak Arabic at all? It's just that I find it very hard to believe that anyone who speaks about Palestinian society as being 'fractured' and a 'death cult' is going on anything but media propaganda generated by and for Americans. One of the important things is for Israelis to be shown as normal people, but you fail to recognise that this runs both ways and it's just as important for Palestinians to be shown as normal people as well...

Is this the ad yr talking about?

http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=12560

The only mention of an apology letter I've ever heard is from you, and I've not been able to track this apology letter or any mention of it down. Can you provide a link to some sign of this apology letter actually ever having existed?

[pelsar]

53. i speak little arabic.....

but i hate to break it to you, but the israeli govt doesnt control the media.....but you know that.

but we have Palestinians on TV and radio shows...as well as multiple reporters for the various stations that are israeli arabs that go in an out of gaza daily, interviewing and reading their papers, we get live translations, and i get the military briefing of what to expect and what are the changes, (when i'm involved).

we have Palestinians interviewed from "rap" musicians in gaza, to the local jihad commander in jenin- live.

i doubt you have much understanding of gangs of S. Gaza (the PA would not confront them, nor will hamas, they control the very lucrative tunnel business), vs the neighborhood watch groups in Beit Hanon, which neighborhoods or villages are controlled by hamas vs fatah vs islamic jihad, which villages are based on "thievery" that few enter.....yet that is the situation in gaza/westbank today...pretty fractured i would say...at least so say the "rap musicians" in gaza today, as well as the many others interviewed, etc

whatever your reading out there is probably about 1% of what i get every day on the news channels/papers/radios.

we also know, but token of the same news sources that Palestinians are normal people, the ones that try to harvest their olives, get threatened by the settlers, try to raise crops only to have the settlers steal them (with the blessing of a rabbi), get thrown into detention healthy and come out traumatized, etc....but that hardly means that their society cant be fractured..that they dont celebrate suicide bombers, one does not negate the other.....quite the opposite, we dont sugar coat our society with all its scandals and problems nor do we do it to the Palestinians, the difference is you dont get the same amount of news from their society for obvious reasons...they dont have a free media, but we still get far more info than you do (as we get little about timor).

as far as the "death cults"...yes they exist, and many of the Palestinians hate them for that, but they do exist....and they risk their lives for even mentioning that, they do not live in a free society.....its semi free, they can say somethings, but not others (politically correct is a way of describing it), as they dont have laws forbidding free speech.

the two ads were written about in the Hebrew newspaper Maariv: your link reads like what i read in Hebrew, though i dont see the second one there.

my own interest in the palesteanian society stems from a selfish wish that my kids shouldnt have to live in fear, and or become the oppressor...but that will only happen when the palestenains have a society based on civil rights and not a simplistic idea of self rule...self rule can be defined as the taliban, the iranians, zimbabwa, etc...none of which will provide any security for israel, nor will it for the palestenains themselves.

you may not like to read/hear about it, but the palestenain society is in very very deep trouble, they have armed groups being fed by different ideologies, paid for by "foreign sources (iran, saudi arabia, america, europe, syria, etc), some are religious, some are mere opportunists, some are secular...they have no central authority which is a major problem in a society that has only known a single figurehead in its past, who had complete control.....

it maybe that independance is the last thing they need right now...but thats just a thought.

[msmcghee]

54. Thanks for providing such a real educational experience . .

. . for me and other members of this forum. Your posts do so much to fill in the reality of the situation for me.

My partner spent time in Israel back in the sixties when she was a young woman where she lived for a time in an Israeli-Arab village and was in love with a Palestinian poet - Rashid Hussein, who has since died. She has many fond memories of her time there and at my urging provides me with first-hand explanations of what life was like (then anyway) for Israeli-Arabs and how they generally felt about things.

That helps me understand some things but I'm sure I still have much to learn about the Palestinian-Arab view from the other side of the fence. I'm sure I don't have a truly clear picture and I know I am making some assumptions with little data. Your information helps a great deal. I wish we also had the benefit of one or two Palestinian-Arabs in this forum.

I did watch a Netflix film a couple of weeks ago called "Paradise Now" (2005). It seemed a very realistic depiction of a slice of that life but I have no way to determine how much was dramatized to make some political point or not. The film-maker was a person named Hany Abu-Assad. If anyone here has seen this film I'd like to hear your opinion of it.

http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?movieid=70038943&trkid=189530&strkid=1006124024_0_0

(It's amazing how much one can learn in this forum when the screaming dies down for a while.) And thanks to Spinoza too for starting this one. You guys

:yourock:

[pelsar]

58. a palestenian here?

that sure would be a welcome postere.....he/she would be able to fill out from the "other side".....the movie, paradise now, had quite the reviews in israel, bascially it was felt, from what i remember, was that the "handling of the bombers wasnt factual, but that wasnt the idea. It was to put a human face on the bombers and in that respect it has a value.

but that we've had....several suicide bombers were caught and subsequently interviewed on israeli TV. Each having different motives, one woman was a college grad, others didnt finish high school. For the most part, they were either caught during a "weak moment" or fed such continuous info that when they "reached the age" their handlers simply gave them instructions.....

Israeli arabs are really caught in web of identities (conflicting)....i remember at one point one of the knesset members proposed keeping the some settlements and giving to the palesteanins part of israel, including a rather large, rather anti israel village called Umm al Fahm....boy did the israeli arabs start screaming how that was totally unacceptable and no way were they going to be part of the "palestine." This is the village where the Northern Islamic party have their rallies where they regulary protest the israeli govt, jews etc.

its also the site where a young israeli arab, noticed a palestenian suicide bomber waiting for a bus, called the police, sat down next to him...and saved the bus and the people inside....

[Violet_Crumble]

59. Yr no more an expert on what Palestinians think than anyone else here...

You speak little Arabic, you've never lived in Gaza or the West Bank, and what you see and hear of the Palestinian media apparently comes from Israeli sources and the IDF. Yet you expect everyone here to believe yr expertise on Palestinian media and what Palestinians think, and the conclusion is that Israelis don't hate and they understand that Palestinians are normal people, but on the other hand Palestinians don't. Amira Hass is Israeli, does speak Arabic, has lived in Gaza, and writes regularly on the conflict. Can you explain why I'm supposed to not believe what she writes*, but believe what you write?



the two ads were written about in the Hebrew newspaper Maariv: your link reads like what i read in Hebrew, though i dont see the second one there.

And it's that second ad I'd like to see. I've searched and can't find it anywhere and would like to read it for myself. That's not saying I doubt a second ad exists - it means that in the past I've read or been told something will have been said, only to read it for myself and find out it said something else...

*Based on the abuse heaped upon her articles by some of the 'pro-Israel' posters in this forum in the past, it's safe to assume that if she ever posted in this forum she sure wouldn't receive gushing 'ooh, Amira! All of us are soooo thankful and grateful that you are here in this forum to give us such an educational, informative view of yr facts!!!!!' ;)

[pelsar]

60. never said i was an expert...never claimed it...

and i havent lived in the westbank nor gaza..never claimed that either....one the other hand i do live in israel speak a few relevant languages, have spent time in Gaza and the westbank, seen the changes with my own eyes over the last 20 years and been told very clearly what to expect from the environment each time, very clearly....and hear the interviews, see the image daily (its relative) and speak with israeli arabs.

i probably have different experience than she does and hence a different view....I doubt shes patrolled khan junis (gaza) from pre intifdada up to intifada II...that provides a far different set of experiences that what she goes through. I get the impression that she doesnt spend much time with the different israelis, educated and not from central israel who have spent time in the territories...to know how we see the Palestinians. Furthermore, i actually prefer israeli arab reporters who i believe understand the culture far more than she does. I get the impression that her view is from the "white elite colonialist view point".......she doesnt write about the israelis that i know and work with, i never seem to recognize them (me) in her writings...so from my point of view its makes it suspect.

i wouldnt mind her coming to the forum...she could obviously provide additional information that i know nothing about, nor does it bother me to have it and be corrected when wrong. I dont believe information is to be discarded because i may or may not like its source (its seems many here have that problem...sort of website racism....). And when she starts calling israel an apartheid state i will disagree and ask her why she "get to redefine the word.

i like to believe empirical evidence more than "what people say"..hence when Palestinians appear on israeli TV, are heard on the radio, etc its tends to personalize them for everybody watching TV....in fact during the latest lebanese war, one of the tv stations had live interviews with lebanese in beruit...The arab and Palestinians dont interview israelis on TV nor on the radio nor in print

when that starts happening you'll have a case that the Palestinians and arabs recognize us israelis as humans.....in the meantime we do and they dont.
(where is the arab/palestenain version of Amira Hass?)



as far as the second ad...i dont save info, i'll see if i can find it for you....

in answer to your title: i actually do know more about the conflict in its present state then most of the posters here, part of via personal experiences as well as via everyday news as well as people i know and speak with, who also live here. I find the accusation that people who have never even been here, dont speak any of the relevant languages may know more than me on the "citizen level", rather absurd...but then its human nature to not want information that makes us uncomfortable or tends to interfere with a point of view (its easier to discard it)....thats been my experience here at the DU.

[pampango]

62. I realize that civil disobedience may have only been successful...

in India (Gandhi), the United States (Martin Luther King, Jr.), and South Africa (Nelson Mandela). All the posters on this thread know the historical, cultural, political reasons why it is difficult to implement in Palestine. My four years living in the Philippines give me no insight into the Middle East, only the realization that cultures are complicated things that are hard to explain, sometimes.

The successes of nonviolent resistance seem to depend on the opponent being either a democratic government or, at least, some reasonable facsimile thereof. Gandhi went up against the British government, King the American government and society, and Mandela against the South African government (which was, of course, only a democracy for its white minority, but depended for its international support on largely Western, democratic societies which eventually gave them on choice but to change.)

It just seems to me that large scale peaceful resistance against Israel would both have a dramatic effect on Israeli politics and public opinion, but over time would be as successful as the South African resistance was in appealing to Western sensibilities more effectively than violence does. Of course, once violence has started it tends to be self perpetuating, since the grievances pile up quickly, but that was also true for Gandhi, King, and Mandela.

Posters on this thread have different takes on the situation with the Palestinians, so I hope that you can enlighten someone with no Middle East expertise, on what the prospects are for civil disobedience, and, if it is impossible, what about the situation makes it so different from what Gandhi, King and Mandela faced.

[pelsar]

63. the palesteniand did have a grass roots effort.....

it was called intifada I. The protests especially in the beginning were spontanous, contained a mix of people from old to young, women and men. Rocks were thrown, from the crowds and they were limited to the westbank and gaza....The army (which was ill equiped and caught by surprise) didnt really fear for the lives as the palestenains werent shooting, though there were molotov cocktails and individual incidents.

the result of these protests, which were relativly non violent, and without any particular leader, was intense pressure by the israeli citizens on the govt to recognize the palestenians and give them self rule. (Much of this pressure came from the soldiers who had served and faced these protestors).....hence olso came about and their leadership was brought in. All of these changes occured because of two reasons:

the violence was limited in nature
it was restricted to the westbank and gaza.

___________________________________

Intifada II was the direct opposite of that, it was organized from the top down, the palestenians used weapons from the start, the protestors were mostly young males, and most important of all, it wasnt limited to the territories, suicide bombers struck in the israeli cities. Unlike intifada I, palestenian shooting was common and when there wasnt, i was assumed there would be, so "non violent" was not the rule.

and with the use of violence, the palestenains lost all they had gained during intifada I

[Douglas Carpenter]

64. If they can get Israelis to join them & if the media is there with cameras

I ABSOLUTELY agree that nonviolent protest and civil disobedience is their only alternative with potential.

However, if the Palestinians are alone without supporters and media in the Occupied Territories practicing civil disobedience it will very likely result in a hail of bullets from the IDF, either rubber, plastic or live fire.

Even the second intifada began with a nonviolent sit-in with several Palestinian dignitaries having a set-in to block Ariel Sharron and his "security force" from forcing his way into a mosque at Temple Mount. When cracking heads didn't work police and soldiers stationed on roofs in the vicinity opened with a hail of rubber bullets seriously wounding several demonstrators. " Palestinian Human Rights Society: "The visit was made at 7:45 in the morning. Sharon tried to his way to the Al Marwani Mosque where an estimated 200 Palestinians squatted to deny him entry. Israeli occupation forces forced their way through by using batons and rifles. Among the squatters were Arab members of the Israeli Parliament, members of the Palestinian Legislative Council and a number of dignitaries and political activist...The occupation forces failed to break through the human chain around the small mosque and managed to force Sharon and his team out of the premises. However, an estimated 1000 Israeli soldiers and policemen took to the roads of the adjacent houses and shot rubber bullets and gas bombs at the peaceful protesters injuring 24 Palestinians." (from page 94 of Israel/Palestine by Tanya Reinhart)."

There are many, many cases documented by all the leading human rights groups of the IDF opening fire on Palestinians in the occupied territories engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience. Here is just one of many:


"IDF soldiers fire at peaceful demonstrators in Deir Qaddis, wounding some, March 2004" - link: http://www.btselem.org/english/Testimonies/20040315_Muhammad_Nasser_Shooting_on_Demonstrators_in_Deir_Qaddis.asp

Again if Israelis join in and there is media with cameras -- nonviolent civil disobedience has potential. There have been some small victories in this matter in the struggle to protect the farm land of villagers from either being demolished or put behind in inaccessible wall thus losing their livelihood.

Here is another more chilling example:

"In one of the most flagrant instances of military violence against non-violent demonstrations, the Israeli Army shelled and launched missiles against an unarmed demonstration of 3,000 people in Gaza on 19 May 2004 during Operation Rainbow in Rafah. AT this time the Tel al-Sultan neighborhood was under siege; there were widespread accounts of army brutality and families were unable to bury their dead. A solidarity march was organized at Rafah town, which progressed along the Beach Road toward Tel al-Sultan. According to numerous witnesses and photographs, there were no armed men among the demonstrators. "We were marching down the road shouting, "We need help" as a message to the world, and "No to occupation. "Hussam Mustafa, a civil engineer told the Guardian. "There was a missile and then people started running back and then there was another missile right into the crown". Israeli security sources explained that "the IDF feared a mass march toward its troops in the Tel-Sultan quarter in Rafa. The forces were ordered to take escalating measures to keep the hundreds of demonstrators...from confronting the soldiers. "Images of the attack were broadcast around the world and the Israeli army hastened to "express its sorrow". But the message to the Gaza Palestinians was blunt and unequivocal--no form of protest would be allowed." (From pg 59-60 of The Road Map to Nowhere by Professor Tanya Reinhart of Tel Aviv University)--Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Road-Map-Nowhere-Israel-Palestine/dp/1844670767/ref=sr_11_1/002-4750258-7334423?ie=UTF8

[pelsar]

65. no the israelis dont have to join in....

Again if Israelis join in ...and the premise is wrong:

civil disobedience it will very likely result in a hail of bullets from the IDF, either rubber, plastic or live fire. neither I nor the people i know and serve with would fire upon unarmed protesters who arent threatening us or other israelis.

non violence is not just non violence its also the promise of non violence, that is what is lacking in any present palestenain "non violent protest".......Intifada II protests had a set pattern: kids blocking an intersection/throwing rocks....security forces arrive, gas, rubberbullets, palestenains fire live fire from the crowd or back alleys, IDF returns fire.....that was the general pattern that repeated itself daily across the westbank (in the beginning however the IDF used snipers to eliminate the palestenian gunfire, which explains their high death toll in the beginning)


nor is it up to the israelis to "join in"....whether we do or not is up to us, but the palestenians have their own decision to make irreguardless of what israelis do.

i keep coming across the same old song:....that somehow the palestenians either cant do anything on their own, they have no responsability for their own situation and somehow israel is to be blamed for their inability to get a non violent movement going and substained...maybe because non violence is a philosophy and belief far more than a tactical strategy...and the palestenian media and culture dont relate to it enough.

[Douglas Carpenter]

66. actually there have been hundreds of Israelis who have joined

West Bank Palestinians in civil disobedience actions regarding the construction of the Wall. It has been very helpful and they have been most welcomed and the Palestinians have been extremely grateful.

You are right. Israelis don't "have to join in". But it helps. And it certainly opened the eyes of the Palestinians on the West Bank to see that there are many, many Israelis who are concerned about their human rights and they are very grateful for that.

[pelsar]

67. dont get me wrong...

i'm all for it...the more the merrier...and i know many who would join in and help (including myself), it would break down many barriers. The minute the israelis join in, not just the fringe elements, the IDF doesnt have a chance, since the "IDF" would find itself on both sides.....and is quite helpless against a non armed enemy.

[Douglas Carpenter]

68. well on that we completely agree

I came across this somewhat humorous account of the non-violent actions at Mas'ha:

"The Israelis who come are mostly young. They are anarchists, punks and lesbians and wild-haired students, and it strikes me that the mayor of Mas'ha and his village leaders in a very socially conservative society might actually have more in common with the Orthodox Jews who hate them than these wild, social rebels. But the village accepts them with all good grace and a warm-hearted Palestinian welcome. One woman from the lesbian action group black laundry (edit)...the name black laundry suggesting exposuire of evil creates an association with black sheep...standing for those viewed by the consensus as deviant. She explains that it is a lesbian direct action group, and asks through our translator if that's a problem. "Not for me." he says with a slightly quizzical shrug, and the meeting goes on."

from page 188-189 of -- The Road Map to Nowhere -- by Professor Tanya Reinhart from Tel Aviv University

[Englander]

13. False premise.

Israel can't become another France, or Sweden, because the political/military leadership are intent
on fighting the World's last colonialist war, they're intent on occupying another people's land &
using the same tactics that other states engaged in colonialist adventures used, decades ago. Without
the occupation ending, Israel is more like Apartheid-era South Africa, or French-occupied Algeria.
If the Israeli leadership chose to end the use of collective punishment, to end the policy of
unilateralism, to seriously negotiate towards an end of the occupation, who knows what could happen?

Btw, who was the previous PM of Israel? Did he have any connection with Sabra & Chatila, or was that
some other guy?

[msmcghee]

56. As many here probably know about me . .

. . I am very interested in the psychological / cultural underpinnings of conflict. That's where I believe any true understanding of cause and effect - if that is possible - will come from. Not in the endless discussions about whether someone did a suicide attack before or after the other side responded with repression, etc.

In that regard I just came across a very interesting interview between Robert Trivers (Evolutionary Psychologist) and Noam Chomsky (Noted linguist who I believe does not think so clearly about social / political matters).

But, some here might find this interview relevant or at least interesting. Here's a link to the video.

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/09/seed_video_feature_noam_chomsk.php

[pelsar]

61. and here i agree 100%

the conflict is fed by the psychological and cultural aspects.....which is why its been running on for so long. Its not a local conflict of palestenians and israelis....its jews vs muslim/arabs and all the extra cultural baggage that comes with it.....israelis and palestenains are simply the subset doing the direct fighting. Influence goes both ways and each can affect the large groupings.

However i think israelis can have a larger influence on the jewish community that palestenians can have on their larger arab/muslim community. Whereas i think the jewish/israeli communities have an on going diaglog and pressures going both ways, the palestenians are more on the receiveing end from the arab/muslim communities and have far less influence on them, meaning they're simply being used....