Occupation: It's horrid, but it's not apartheid

[oberliner]

<snip>

Wherever one may sit on the pro-Palestinian to pro-Israel continuum, it is evident that the word apartheid is used for a number of reasons, but fostering understanding is not one of them.

It is used specifically because it incites and inflames. Jimmy Carter knows this as well as anyone: When applied to the Arab Israeli conflict, the word apartheid ends discussion, rather than promoting it.

Its purpose is to vilify and demonize. In the arsenal of the extremist, it is the step one takes before making reference to Nazi Germany.

The use of apartheid by a man so well versed in the psyches of the two sides to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, by a man who at the height of his career distinguished himself by bringing warring peoples together, is at best counter-productive. At worse it is intellectual sleaze, graffiti in place of reasoned argument.

The occupation is not corrupting and oppressive because it resembles apartheid. The occupation is corrupting and oppressive because it is exactly what it is.

The occupation is horrid, but it is not apartheid.

<snip>

What is needed is an attempt to approach Israelis as human beings trying, if often failing, to deal with an impossible array of complex variables.

Human beings, not evil, bloodthirsty colonialist Zionist thugs. Human beings, not a collection of facile, mean-spirited labels.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/816829.html

[On the Road]

1. Fostering Understanding is EXACTLY

what the purpose is. News of the West Bank and Gaza comes in such bits and pieces that few Americans have any idea of the history or the situation on the ground.

This harping on rhetoric while overlooking the (yes) apartheid-like rule in the occupied territories is utterly appalling and completely amoral.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ron Green]

3. Seems to me the word has fostered much MORE discussion of late, especially

among people who were otherwise ignorant of the inhumane and unhelpful policies of the Israeli government.

[atreides1]

4. apartheid

SEPARATION, SEGREGATION
A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.

Isn't this part of what's happening??

Not trying to start anything, just an honest question.

[stranger]

5. it doesnt matter what you call it-human beings aren't dictionaries

Carter is right, and Israel is wrong in occupying lands.

the issue will never be settled unto Israel elects a more moderate gov.

that punk who assassinated Israel's last reasonable Prime Minster
(Rabin)) really did Israel and the palestinians a disservice.

Its too bad Israel has basically allowed his murder of the PM
to kill peace.

[oberliner]

6. sure, but why use an Afrikaans word to describe the situation?

If one just means to refer to it as separation/segregation then one can make that point without using an Afrikaans word which is inexorably tied to the South African experience.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. Because the word doesn't solely apply to the most famous example of it...

If apartheid is a term that can only be applied to South Africa, then why would it be included in the list of crimes against humanity in the 2002 Rome Statute, and why would its definition of apartheid not refer to South Africa?

[oberliner]

9. well, if that's the case

Then we are not talking about the dictionary definition of apartheid cited by the poster to whom I was responding.

It seemed to me that the poster was saying that apartheid simply means separating or segregating groups, so what is the big deal about using the term?

My argument is that the term actually means a lot more than that.

The 2002 Rome Statute you referenced defines apartheid as "inhumane acts committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime".

That's a very different definition from the separation/segregation one.

[Porcupine]

8. Everbody understands the horror of the afrikaans word, that's why.

And the actions of the Israeli government are creeping towards the pinnacle of horror. Apartheid is a stepping stone along the way involving racism, segregation of classes and deliberate removal of means of survival from a population for the benifit of another population.

Seems an apt description to me.

[Tom Joad]

22. We are remembering the Israeli regime's strong support for the Afrikaans

Apartheid regime?
Such history should not be forgotten.

[Stockholm]

74. He should have called it "apartiness"

and none of this nonsense would have clogged up DU and other sites.

[Tom Joad]

10. This is what the separation/apartheid looks like.

http://www.btselem.org/Download/Separation_Barrier_Map_Eng.pdf

Notice that Within the West Bank (not between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian territory (OPT), along the green line, but even within the walled "Palestinian" area itself) you have several Israeli settler built up areas (blue colored areas-- see legend) and then several Palestinian areas that are separated by these areas, which means transportation is difficult (or impossible) between these areas for Palestinians. Many areas are completely bisected by illegal settlements.

Notice that the area around the Jordan River valley is basically a no man's land, and under Israeli complete control.

Palestinians are being asked to accept this. Accept that they most cannot visit Jerusalem. Accept that the wall separates them from other Palestinian communities. accept that they have lost their crops to the other side of the wall. Accept that the wall will in effect destroy their community (many communities are walled in on three sides by the annexation wall). They are being asked to accept that they cannot travel on some roads even if they are guests of Israeli Jews.

This system was created by human beings. Apartheid South Africa was created by humans. Bush's foreign policy was created by humans.

Humans from all over the world worked to abolish the South African apartheid system, despite its support it received by the US elite. Millions are working to put an end to bush & co.'s war crimes in Iraq. And millions are working to end the long, sordid history of Israeli occupation in the West Bank.

the work of educating the public and organizing nonviolently, as we did to end apartheid in south Africa is crucial. Again, we must call for boycotts, divestment, sanctions (BDS).


International civil society, in close coordination with Palestinian and Arab civil society, has a critical role to play in bringing about justice and peace to the Middle East. By adopting diverse, sustainable, and context-sensitive, yet consistent, forms of BDS actions against Israel in various fields, conscientious organizations and individuals can shoulder their moral responsibility to end the Israeli system of colonialism and racial discrimination, providing a genuine opportunity for reconciliation and coexistence for everyone in the region, based on equality and mutual respect for international law and fundamental human rights.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=11927

[oberliner]

11. It is always dangerous to draw analogies with other countries and other times

No two countries and no two situations are exactly the same. Every conflict has its own specific historical roots. Even when the symptoms are the same, the disease may be quite different.

These reservations all apply to comparisons between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the historical conflict between the Whites and the Blacks in South Africa. Suffice it to point out several basic differences.

In Israel and abroad there are people who cite this analogy without paying due attention to the essential differences between the two conflicts. Their conclusion: the methods that were so successful against the South African regime can again be applied to the struggle against the occupation - namely, mobilization of world public opinion, an international boycott and isolation.

That is reminiscent of a classical fallacy, which used to be taught in logic classes: an Eskimo knows ice. Ice is transparent. Ice can be chewed. When given a glass of water, which is also transparent, he thinks he can chew it.

Excerpts from the Uri Avnery article you posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x164259

Please also bear in mind this critical distinction, number 2 on Mr. Avnery's list 4 basic differences:

In SA, the idea of "separateness" was an instrument of the White minority for the oppression of the Black majority, and the Black population rejected it unanimously. Here, the huge majority of the Palestinians want to be separated from Israel in order to establish a state of their own. The huge majority of Israelis, too, want to be separated from the Palestinians. Separation is the aspiration of the majority on both sides, and the real question is where the border between them should run. On the Israeli side, only the settlers and their allies demand to keep the whole historical area of the country united and object to separation, in order to rob the Palestinians of their land and enlarge the settlements. On the Palestinian side, the Islamic fundamentalists also believe that the whole country is a "waqf" (religious trust) and belongs to Allah, and therefore must not be partitioned.

[Tom Joad]

14. But the Israeli policy is to separate Palestinians from each other.

The settler and their allies (the Israeli govt) demand to keep large portions of the West Bank under Israeli control.

I really don't care what people call this system. The point is to change it. It's not going to come from pressure from US politicians, who for the most part don't see a problem with the Israeli occupation at all.

[oberliner]

17. I agree with you that the system needs to change

What do you think about the compromises proposed in the Geneva Accord/Initiative supported by President Carter?

Under that proposal, certain West Bank settlements near the Green Line (such as Maale Adumim) would become part of Israel while certain parts of Israel near the Gaza strip would become part of the Palestinian state.

http://www.geneva-accord.org/Map.aspx?FolderID=34&lang=en

President Carter on the Geneva Initiative:

This Geneva initiative offers the crucial and unavoidable elements of a permanent peace in the Holy Land. There will be inevitable modifications to this agreement if and when official and sincere peace talks are ever conducted, but the basic premises must remain intact. The alternative is sustained and permanent violence.

This agreement would resolve the conflict's most critical issues, including border delineations, Israeli settlements, the excessive occupation of Palestinian lands, the future of Jerusalem and its holy places, and the extremely troubling question of Palestinian refugees. It is unlikely that we shall ever see a more promising foundation for peace.

http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc1555.html

[breakaleg]

12. Anyone who can look at that map and claim it doesn't steal large portions of

Palestinian land has got to be blind.

[oberliner]

13. If it was built along the Green Line would you be against it? nt

[breakaleg]

15. No.

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. if they built it on the green line that would be their right

In an analogy ,if my neighbor chose to build a high wall or fence on the property line separating their property from ours, I might think he's being a jerk but I would have to acknowledge that as his right.

If however my neighbor built a a high wall or fence that weaved around our garden, our well, the lemon trees and the small cottage out back - I think the local courts would rule much the same on this much smaller personal matter as the International Court of Justice did in July 2004 on this much bigger matter.

[pelsar]

18. so simplistic your being naive...

as least to every israeli i know.

if your going to address 1/2 of the equation it would only be reasonable to address the other half;

we all know that whatever the negotiated agreement (gaza anyone?) the various jihdnikim will continue to attack.....depending upon the means at their disposal. I think it would only be reasonable to adjust your analogy to be a bit more truthful?


(as per your analogy: something about "you" trying to not just evict your neighbor by force, but repeated attempts to kill him, not to mention having an "official policy" of eventually taking your neighbors house----that perhaps would be a bit more honest.

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. there is no rational debate about the illegality of the settlements or the wall

And this inarguably and indisputably illegal and immoral wall is destroying the livelihood of real live human beings by the thousands. On a personal note the coworker of a close friend of mine who is from a Christian family in Bethlehem has seen the apartheid wall cut off their house from their family olive grove that has been in the family for over a hundred years. Her poor old father is a complete wreck now. That olive grove was his pride and joy. And now it is being taken away.

For more information on how this illegal and immoral apartheid wall is destoying the lives, businesses and viability of families just in Bethelehem..here is a website run by the Christian community of Bethelehem.

link: http://www.openbethlehem.org/

___________________

The complete and total illegality of the settlements and the apartheid wall is affirmed by the Fourth Geneva Convention, UN Resolutions 338, 446, 452,465 and 478 and more recently by the World Court decision of July 2004. Even so the Palestinians have offered to compromise a great deal on these settlements.

"SC Resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980
Accepts the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report of the Commission of the Security Council (on settlements); determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem. Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories; and requests the Commission to continue examining the situation relating to settlements, to investigate the reported serious depletion of natural resources, particularly water, with a view to ensuring protection of those important natural resources of the territories under occupation."

link: http://www.palestine-un.org/res/1d.html


If the Israeli state begins to dismantle the settlements without expanding thousands of more housing units on even more settlements elsewhere like they did with the Gaza disengagement and if they built the Wall on Israeli territory--then they might have something...
_________________

Deaths of Children in the Israeli/Palestine conflict since Sept 2000:

Last updated January 5, 2007 TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:

TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:

Palestinians: 869
Israelis: 122

TOTALS FOR 2006:
Israelis: 2
Palestinians: 152

link: http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2006.html
________________

In 1988 the Palestinian leadership officially endorsed a two-state solution based on Palestinians having a state on only 22% of 1947 British Mandate.

http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/worldreach/assets/docs/israeli-palestinian_conflict/studentlesson4.html

___________

The vast majority of Palestinians have supported a peaceful resolution to this conflict for a long, long time:

"Polling Data

Some believe that a two-state formula is the favored solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict, while others believe that historic Palestine can’t be divided and thus the favored solution is a bi-national state on all of Palestine where Palestinians and Israelis enjoy equal representation and rights. Which of these solutions do you prefer?

Two-state solution: an Israeli
state and a Palestinian state
52.4%

Bi-national state on all
of historic Palestine
23.6%

No solution
9.4%

One Palestinian state
7.4%

Islamic state
2.9%

Others
2.0%

Don’t know
1.0%

No answer
1.3%



Source: Jerusalem Media & Communication Center
Methodology: Interviews with 1,197 adults in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, conducted on Jun. 21 and Jun. 22, 2006. Margin of error is 3 per cent."

link:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12493

[pelsar]

23. dismantle the wall?

why?...so more sucide bombers can enter? last poll taken in israel shows israelis prefer to live than die at the hand of a suicide bomber.


please stop with the excuses
If the Israeli state begins to dismantle the settlements without expanding thousands of more housing units on even more settlements elsewhere like they did with the Gaza disengagement and if they built the Wall on Israeli territory--then they might have something...
_____________________________________

yes....gazas chaos expanded to the west bank and kassams all over israel....that would do wonders for the palestinian citizen and the general area...no thanks.....let the palestinians get their "house in order in gaza first" and decide who their govt is hamas or fatah. Their infighting has zero to do with israel.

the whole idea of the gamble of letting the chaos expand to the west bank and "believing that peace will break out, is no more than a belief.. (the gaza withdrawl was negotiated..except the PA/hamas couldnt even live up to their part-stop the kassams)......and if that belief fails?......chaos, warloards, and gangsters will be the result (as in gaza today)..and if that happens?....it will be israels problem to solve.....one that is impossible without blood shed, lots of it.


btw what does you poll say about what the palestinians in gaza want?....the ones now afraid to send their kids to school, the ones who wont even protest since when they did that they got cut down by live bullets?....i'm sure they would overwhelming want an end to the internal strife.....but can do little to stop it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. then put the wall on the border not on Palestinian land

that would be within Israeli Rights -- Remove the settlements

No excuses


_________________




link: http://www.btselem.org/English/Gaza_Strip/20061116_Brief_on_Gaza.asp

Nine Israeli human rights organizations issued an unprecedented joint call to the international community to ensure human rights in the Gaza Strip. The statement comes in light of the dire humanitarian situation there:

Some 80% of the population is extremely poor, living on less than $2 a day. A majority of the population is dependant on food aid from international donors.

In the past four months, the Israeli military has killed over 300 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Over half of those killed were unarmed civilians who did not participate in the fighting. Among the dead, 61 were children.

About 70% of Gaza 's potential workforce is out of work or without pay.

On 28 June, Israel bombed Gaza ' s only independent power station, which produced 43% of the electricity needed by the residents in Gaza . Since then, most of the population has electricity between 6 and 8 hours each day, with disastrous consequences on water supply, sewage treatment, food storage, hospital functioning and public health.

The Gaza Strip is almost entirely sealed off from the outside world, with virtually no way for Palestinians to get in or out. Exports have been reduced to a trickle; imports are limited to essential humanitarian supplies.
Israel cannot shirk its responsibility for this growing crisis. Even after its Disengagement in 2005, Israel continues to hold decisive control over central elements of Palestinian life in the Gaza Strip:

Israel continues to maintain complete control over the air space and territorial waters.

Israel continues to control the joint Gaza Strip-West Bank population registry , preventing relocation between the West Bank and Gaza , and family unification.

Israel controls all movement in and out of Gaza , with exclusive control over all crossing points between Gaza and Israel , and the ability to shut down the Rafah crossing to Egypt .

Israeli ground troops conduct frequent military operations inside Gaza .
Israel continues to exercise almost complete control over imports and exports from the Gaza Strip.

Israel controls most elements of the taxation system of the Gaza Strip, and since February has withheld tax monies legally owed to the PA, and amounting to half of the to tal PA budget.
The broad scope of Israeli control in the Gaza Strip creates a strong case for the claim that Israel 's occupation of the Gaza Strip continues, along with an obligation to ensure the welfare of the civilian population. Regardless of the legal definition of the Gaza Strip, Israel bears legal obligations regarding those spheres that it continues to control. Israel has the right to defend itself. However, all military measures taken by Israel must respect the provisions of international humanitarian law.

The following Israeli human rights organizations call on the international community to ensure that Israel respects the basic human rights of residents of the Gaza Strip, and that all parties respect international humanitarian law:

B'Tselem: the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories * Association for Civil Rights in the Israel *Amnesty International–Israel Section * Bimkom: Planners for Planning Rights * HaMoked: Center for the Defense of the Individual * Gisha: Center for the Legal Protection of Freedom of Movement * Physicians for Human Rights-Israel * Public Committee Against Torture in Israel * Rabbis for Human Rights "

link: http://www.btselem.org/English/Gaza_Strip/20061116_Brief_on_Gaza.asp

[pelsar]

26. what border?

you mean the 67 cease fire lines?..so that 100,000+ israelis will then be subject to suicide bombers?..

[breakaleg]

27. but those 100000 are there illegally, so they should get the hell out.

That was their choice.

[pelsar]

30. yep...

its was their choice.....a result of a war, when the arabs attempted to destroy israel.....guess they shouldnt have done that.....

its a shame they keep on trying isnt it?

[Douglas Carpenter]

36. there has been a vast amount of archival information released in the last

ten years or so. And a number of prominent and highly respected Israeli historians have poured through these archives. If you read the works by these very respectable mainstream Israeli historians, I believe you will find that the events that lead up to the 67 war is a lot more complicated than what is presumed by many.

Even so, there is not doubt or dispute about the illegality of settlements and settlers on Occupied Palestinian Land.


" The complete and total illegality of the settlements and the apartheid wall is affirmed by the Fourth Geneva Convention, UN Resolutions 338, 446, 452,465 and 478 and more recently by the World Court decision of July 2004. Even so the Palestinians have offered to compromise a great deal on these settlements.

"SC Resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980
Accepts the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report of the Commission of the Security Council (on settlements); determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem. Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories; and requests the Commission to continue examining the situation relating to settlements, to investigate the reported serious depletion of natural resources, particularly water, with a view to ensuring protection of those important natural resources of the territories under occupation."

link: http://www.palestine-un.org/res/1d.html "

[pelsar]

41. not only have i read some...

i know quite a few people who actually lived during those periods...and participated in much of the states action from pre 47 and up....and they all tell a similar story: there was no doubt was the plans were of the arabs....and there was no doubt that the israelis were going to do what had to be done to prevent the continuation of the holocaust.....and take full advantage of any strategic and or tactical advantage that came along.

it all comes back to the same thing, no matter how hard you may try to hide it: the arab goals in 48 and 67 and 73 were clear, they simply wanted israel gone and were willing to take gambles to get achieve that goal.....they lost...again and again.

and had they not lost, i doubt we would be hearing much about "illegal land" or illegal killings or anything else along those lines.....would we?...we would hear nothing, which is what the jewish history has tons of volumes written about.

there is a price to pay when you gamble and lose......

[Douglas Carpenter]

44. try this one when you have time

it is based on a vast array of Israeli archival evidence.

The whole thing is simply a lot more complicated than the spin that has been put on it:

The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World
by Avi Shlaim

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Iron-Wall-Israel-Arab-World/dp/0393321126/sr=1-1/qid=1169967486/ref=sr_1_1/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books

[Andromeda]

50. So you think it's okay for suicide bombers to kill them?

What a horrible thing to say. Just go ahead and kill them---they deserve it. Yep, that'll take care of the problem.

It is their choice to live there but that doesn't mean it's okay for militants to murder their families.

It's like the raped woman "asked for it" because she was dressed provocatively.

[breakaleg]

51. First of all, I did not say it's ok to kill them. Is it horrible to point on they have no right to

be there?

They are there illegally and if they want to be protected by a wall, then they should be on the other side of the green line which is where the wall should be.

I really don't give much of a shit about the settlers causing havoc on the one hand and demanding protection from those they oppress on the other. It's a little two-faced for my taste. If they want sympathy, they can look elsewhere.

[Andromeda]

57. That still sounds like you are indifferent...

to the Jewish lives, never mind the lack of sympathy.

[breakaleg]

63. That's quite a jump.

I was talking about the settlers and now you accuse me of being indifferent to all Jewish lives? If you have to make stuff up, then I'm out.

[Andromeda]

98. The settlers ARE Jewish, Einstein...

And your tone and hostility to the settlers and the state of Israel tells me you don't value Israeli lives as much as you value Palestinians lives.

[breakaleg]

99. Pay attention:

you said: "That still sounds like you are indifferent...

to the Jewish lives, never mind the lack of sympathy. "

So, the settlers are Jewish but are all Jewish people settlers? hmmm....

I'm not indifferent towards Jewish lives. I have little sympathy for the settlers.

If you can't the difference between those two statements, I really can't help you.

[breakaleg]

25. You seem to be saying that Israel has no better option so it's doing what it is.

Since when is not having a better option an excuse for an illegal act?

[pelsar]

28. some of us prefer

to keep the violence and killing to a minimum.......whether or not its "illegal"

last polls show people prefer to live even if their lives arent perfect according to someones elses values than to be killed in war.

[breakaleg]

29. excuses excuses. redirect, deflect, look over there, but don't address the issue.

[pelsar]

32. the issue is simple

israel is still not accepted in the region.....there are those who still want to see and plan and act to destroy, disrupt israel.

the Palestinian society in gaza is in the midst of a civil war

withdrawls as in gaza and lebanon prove that they dont bring peace unless there is a stong govt....the PA does not have one....futher withdrawls will bring more violence.

wall stops suicide bombers

israelis prefer to live

the palestinains and their arab neighbors have made a serious of dumb decisions starting in 48 based on getting rid of israel and the jews...they keep on failing
_______

thats the summary.

[Douglas Carpenter]

33. not disputing the right for Israel to have a wall on Israeli land

That would be well within their rights.

[pelsar]

34. that doesnt address the reality..

the settlers would then be the victims of the suicide bombers as in prewall times....they too have a right to live.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. Here's some reality for you, pelsar...

The settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law. Trying to argue that it's acceptable to build a wall on territory that is not part of Israel by using the excuse that settlements are there is a losing tactic. Anyone who claims to be so concerned for people's lives should be urging the Israeli govt to dismantle the settlements and return the settlers to Israel...

As for yr claim that without a wall surrounding Israeli settlements in the West Bank, there'd be suicide bombings, how many suicide bombings have there been in Ariel again?

[pelsar]

40. lives vs property...

the wall, in general is very acceptable to most israelis....its been a key feature in reducing the suicide bombers to almost nothing.....the world may see that as a "losing tactic" but my kids now go on field trips once again and the fear is no longer in the air. (the world also assumed we were doomed in 48 and 67)

walls can be torn down...lives lost cannot be returned....

ariel?...at least one that i know of at the gas station near the entrance....furthermore in the area (which is a bit familiar to me, there were others...but were smarter than that. We understand that where the wall isnt, there will be attempts additional, as those areas will be the weaker areas, we really dont need additional dead bodies to understand.

i would say that any one who is really concerned about the palestinians lives and way of life would be having second thoughts about israel withdrawing right now.....one look at gaza does not provide much confidence in the PA society right now:

their internal strife and method of surrounding homes and then blowing up everyone inside, as well as attacking children at school, using live ammunition on protestors, has nothing to do with israel but everything to do with the "lesser expectations" of their society.

i really dont get it...you would prefer the wall be torn down, gazas version of the PA society expanded to the westbank (or your at least willing to gamble with thousands of lives on something that has already started), for what?....

for some kind of freedom?.....i'm sure the Palestinians in gaza right now are wondering about that very freedom......part of the "lower expectations" i suspect.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. Pelsar, try focusing on what I'm addressing instead of going off on tangents...

I'm talking about the fact that the illegal settlements in the West Bank can't be used as an excuse for the legitimacy of the wall being built on territory that is not part of Israel. Yr off and running going on about all sorts of other things, which I'm going to ignore so this can be kept on topic for a bit...

the wall, in general is very acceptable to most israelis....its been a key feature in reducing the suicide bombers to almost nothing.....

According to pro-Israeli propaganda it's been a key feature, but I've seen nothing that is credible and examines all factors in why there's been a reduction in suicide bombings...

ariel?...at least one that i know of at the gas station near the entrance....furthermore in the area (which is a bit familiar to me, there were others...but were smarter than that.

Then if that is being successful in Ariel, what's the need for the separation barrier? Why not just build them near the entrances of the settlements?

I will add something here. Yr posts in this thread appear to be defending Israel's right to build settlements on territory that doesn't belong to it. Is that yr stance on the settlements?

[pelsar]

48. less sucide bombers....

I've seen nothing that is credible and examines all factors in why there's been a reduction in suicide bombings...

like what factors?....less israelis killed....according to all what i keep reading the wall has made palestinians lives far worse than ever...and according to what i read its that misery that makes suicide bombers (how many 1,000 of posts here have mentioned that?)........so i would say there must be more attempts (they're actually are)...but very few successful ones.

what "other factors" are you looking at?

facts are simply fact: less suicide bombers since the wall has gone up...not much propaganda in that. You can not like the wall, you can claim its illegal, its reminds you of a prison (which it looks like)...but nevertheless, it does stop suicide bombers.....pretending something you dont like doesnt work doesnt help things much.

its was explained why distances are important between barriers and population centers..and in some places the walll is a land grab


My view of the settlements?...two aspects:
the land was taken from jordan in defensive war, to the winner goes the spoils.
if israel isnt going to annex the land and make its inhabitants citizens then it has to return it to some entity.

returning land to what may become an enemy state or some variation on that, as in gaza today, is simply irresponsable

[Violet_Crumble]

59. You honestly don't think there could be any other factors?

Try thinking a bit on this one, pelsar. What factors do you think could be looked at when examining the drop in suicide bombings? Surely you can come up with more than just the one where of course Israel takes total credit for it?

Yr view of the 'spoils' going to the winner is not correct. Resolution 242 states the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory won in law. Israel is legally allowed to occupy that territory for defensive reasons (that means troops, not a bunch of migrating settlers being sent there by Israel), but that wasn't an open invitation for the occupation to go on for decades and decades the way it has...

Yr second point: Israel doesn't get to opt out of handing that territory over based on whether it decides any future state is hostile to it or not....

[pelsar]

62. what other factors?

Try thinking a bit on this one, pelsar. What factors do you think could be looked at when examining the drop in suicide bombings? Surely you can come up with more than just the one where of course Israel takes total credit for it?

islamic jihad is still trying, al aska is, fatah is...

i understand the wall makes palestinian lives even more miserable....and i understand that "they have no other options"...and i understand that their misery makes them do it....(so i'm told here)

that all adds up to continuing the attempts.....what do you think?

the latest one, came from gaza via egypt...i.e. no wall, credit taken by

Monday's bombing was claimed by Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, part of Abbas's Fatah faction, which said in a statement the operation was a response to Israel's "attempts to defile al-Aqsa mosque" in Jerusalem, a reference to recent archaeological excavations.

hamas has been attacking since 2000-2005 (nov 2006 had a hamas grandmother blow herself up)
http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:nAXEP4nvAWgJ:vitalperspective.typepad.com/vital_perspective_clarity/files/Fatal_Hamas_Attacks_Since_9-00.pdf+eilat+suicide+hamas&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=safari

so all groups are still attacking.....or at least trying

and i really disagree:
Israel doesn't get to opt out of handing that territory over based on whether it decides any future state is hostile to it or not...damn right we do....perhaps you dont care, but if the PA/Hamas cant get it together and i and or my son end up going into combat out there, it sure does give us that right. Not to mention the 1,000's of palestinians who will end up being killed.

principles are all nice and dandy as long as it doesnt cost you anything....the second it does, those principles fade away real fast....

I bet in your real life, you like everyone else, have principles right up until it affects your pocket book....and then all of a sudden your a bit flexible....money has no comparison to lives.

[Violet_Crumble]

68. That's the question I asked you...

Try answering it.

btw, you can disagree all you want with international law. It doesn't alter the fact that Israel has absolutely no right to hold onto territory based on it claiming that some future state that hasn't come into being may be hostile to it...

[pelsar]

70. nope...

no other factors that i can see.

actually intl law isnt so black and white on the subject of the westbank...any good lawyer can argue it

....and as far as our not letting a hostile state rise up.....and attack us (which is probably illegal as well)..do you really think we care?.....i believe in 48 when we were attacked that was probably illegal...67?...73?... PLO missiles in 82......Hizballas 2000-2007?...PA kassams?

and then i'm supposed to get myself killed and or kill because of some "intl law?...no thanks.....

but it is clear:....not looking beyond the occuapation is extremly irresponsable..and not making sure that the future PA state is not some copy of iran/lebanon or zimbabwa is incredibly foolish.

So am I to understand that many of the "DU liberals" have no problem with failed PA state, or religious theorcracy (iran/taliban) not to mention attacking israel as part of their philosophy?...just as long as there is no occupation?

[breakaleg]

71. This is probably the most honest post I've seen from you. Now at least I understand

that "you don't care" about such things. No sarcasm intended.

[pelsar]

75. of course i dont care....

never said i did.....intl law and principles and values are really nice things to have and wonderful goals.....but in real life, things are a bit different.

infact in your real life, no one actually lives up to those values and goals 100% of the time....usually only when its convienent...or doesnt cause too much discomfort...let alone during times when ones life is threatened.

your 'intl law" is really nice..do you really think i care about it as katushas' come raining down from the north? or kassams from the south?....all "illegal" (unlike many here i dont "expect less" i.e. have two standards, from the palestinians or the hizballa).

Your intl law is great....except our illegal wall has saved hundreds of lives and save hundreds of wounded..do you really think we care?

where was the "intl law" when we were invaded?.......

[pelsar]

78. let me confirm:

we dont care:

Israeli recon flights over lebanon were/are illegal (non violent). Had we not have done that, we wouldnt have known where the long range missiles with the 100kg warheads were stored...that nassralla mentioned he planned on using

they were all destroyed (except for a couple) in the first few hours. (he managed to launch one)

for some, who have high moral principles....they would have preferred that israel not do overflights (and still do i suspect) and have Tel Aviv receive the larger missles with their inaccurate aiming ability and land and kill where ever and whom ever.

guess we disagree (and i suspect if those same people would have a gun to their head and to their families, their opinions might actually might just change....)

[Violet_Crumble]

82. Then I think you should try looking a bit harder...

Anyone who bounces around giving Israel high fives for stopping suicide bombings isn't being particularly objective. What about other possible factors like the Palestinians themselves not using it as a tactic so much?

No, no good lawyer can argue that Israel has a right to construct settlements in the West Bank....

I'm sure *you* don't give a shit what the world thinks of yr disregard for international law. But don't you try talking on behalf of all Israelis, and this may come as a massive shock, but if you suddenly decide to recognise international law in all instances and not just when it suits you, yr not going to suddenly be killed...

So am I to understand that many of the "DU liberals" have no problem with failed PA state, or religious theorcracy (iran/taliban) not to mention attacking israel as part of their philosophy?...just as long as there is no occupation?

No, you appear to be not understanding what I said in my post. And keep in mind, yr talking to *me*, not 'many "DU liberals"'. So if yr having trouble understanding something I'm saying, address any genuine questions to me, and don't ask me to speak on behalf of everyone else here, okay?

[pelsar]

83. palestinians are still using suicide bombers...

or did the latest bombing in eilat escape you?..and the "congratulations" they received from hamas and everyone else?

I must have missed the change in policy...can you direct me to the link where it was pronounced? i would love to know what changed their minds?

and perhaps you might want to explain how following intl law (i.e. not having recon flights in lebanon) would have not get more israelis killed....given that it was only because of those flights were the positions of the missiles known.
so tell me....how were those incoming missles NOT going to kill us (i believe the northern border was confirmed by the UN when israel withdrew....)

or is it a matter of all or nothing?...all intl laws must me followed..if not then its israel is not allowed to defend itself?

like the kassams?...i believe you made it clear: the risk should be on the israelis, israel should not attack the kassam launchers as long as innocents might get hurt, given that this where they shoot from, you position is clear. Let them shoot without interference and the missiles land where they may (so far on homes and schools)...an that is because israel is not following int law.

interesting, perhaps you can tell me which int laws were being broken in 48?, 67?, 73?.

i may not be talking for all the israelis, but no doubt it includes the vast majority.....

[Violet_Crumble]

85. I wish you'd try addressing what I say in my posts...

Where in my post did I say that there hadn't been a recent suicide bombing? What does that have to do with the other possible factor I gave you? Also, if yr under the impression that groups like Islamic Jihad put out policy statements, yr knowledge of those groups is sorely lacking, imo....


Why are you going on about recon flights in Lebanon when that's not what was being discussed? Try sticking to what's being discussed instead of going off on tangents...


or is it a matter of all or nothing?...all intl laws must me followed..if not then its israel is not allowed to defend itself?

That sentence made absolutely no sense at all. Can you try it again?

i believe you made it clear: the risk should be on the israelis, israel should not attack the kassam launchers as long as innocents might get hurt, given that this where they shoot from, you position is clear. Let them shoot without interference and the missiles land where they may (so far on homes and schools)...an that is because israel is not following int law.

No, yet again you attribute something to me that I don't think based on yr inability to understand what's being said. That's why I told you to address what I actually say in the post yr replying to and if yr confused, ask me to rephrase it so you understand...

i may not be talking for all the israelis, but no doubt it includes the vast majority.....

I doubt it includes the vast majority at all. Which is why you should speak for yrself only instead of trying to be a voice of all Israelis the way you did in yr post...

[pelsar]

87. then i dont understand your questions...

perhaps simplify them....make them yes or no...

actually the islamic jihad group do give out policy statements....

just google: islamic jihad spokesman for instance...and no one mentioned a change in policy, though many did congratulate the successful sucide bomber...guess that means they're for it.

Polls in israel show the majority prefer the wall:
According to the Peace Index survey published on March 1, 2004, the Israeli-Jewish public almost unanimously (84 percent) supports Israel's security fence (a bit old, but nothings changed that i know of)

http://www.tekla-szymanski.com/engl8fence.html

[Douglas Carpenter]

45. then remove the settlers and build the wall on Israeli land

why not ask the Palestinians if they want to keep the occupation?...and if you really insist on keeping control of the territories than start treating them like human being and give them equal citizenship rights.

This is just how the wall effect Bethlehem - alone:



"The Wall around Bethlehem is in actuality part of the so–called “Jerusalem envelope” that starts from the settlement of Bet Horon to the northwest of Jerusalem city all the way to Kfar Etzion settlement in the very south of the Bethlehem District. This section of the Wall will:

Annex the entire western countryside of the Bethlehem District west of the Wall isolating four villages (Battir, Husan, Nahhalin and Wadi Fukin) with their 18,000 inhabitants.

Walaja and Jaba villages, to the north and south respectively, will be completely isolated from Bethlehem, while their lands will be annexed to the newly expanded Occupation municipal boundaries where already existing settlements will expand, and new ones will be built. Six villages, with 20,000 Palestinians, will be isolated from the Bethlehem District.

This new path of the Wall will ensure the annexation of ten settlements comprising of the so-called “Gush Etzion” settlement bloc. All ten settlements, including Bat Ayin, Efrata, Geva’ot, and Betar, will expand on the isolated lands of Bethlehem District.

The Wall in Bethlehem will cut some 4-5 kms deep inside the West Bank, annexing most of what has remained of the District’s lands, creating devastating economic and social effects. "

link: http://www.stopthewall.org/maps/857.shtml

this is a great website run by the Christian community in Bethlehem:

http://www.openbethlehem.org /


__________________



http://www.btselem.org/English/Maps/Index.asp

Map of the Separation Barrier in the West Bank



"On April 30 2006, the Israeli government approved an updated route for the Separation Barrier. According to the map published by the Ministry of Defense, sections of the revised route will run close to or along the Green Line, thus reducing the harm caused to the daily life of Palestinians living in proximity to the route.

Despite these improvements, the new route does not eliminate the “fingers” which reach deep into the West Bank to surround the Ariel and Qedumim settlements. In addition, a new section of the Barrier has been added around Ma'ale Adumim and the settlements near it. In these locations, the government approved the route in principle. More detailed plans will be developed and will require approval by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense. Given the central location of these settlements, constructing the barrier around them will have widespread ramifications on the freedom "

________________

Map of The Separation Barrier and Checkpoints in the Jerusalem area



"The government's plan calls for the separation barrier to surround East Jerusalem and detach it from the rest of the West Bank. The decision to run the barrier along the municipal border, and the weak arguments given to explain that decision, lead to the conclusion that the primary consideration was political: the unwillingness of the government to pay the political price for choosing a route that will contradict the myth, that "unified Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel." "

_________________

Map of Forbidden Roads in the West Bank

"The map displays three kinds of roads in the West Bank: roads on which Palestinian travel is restricted, although no special permit is required, roads on which Palestinians are forbidden to travel unless they have a special permit, and roads on which only Israeli citizens are allowed to travel.

The forbidden roads regime is based on the principle of separation based on discrimination, and assumes that every Palestinian constitutes a security threat. This assumption is racist and cannot justify a policy that indiscriminately harms the entire Palestinian population. Therefore, the policy violates human rights and international law."

_____________________

Map of Jewish Settlements in the the West Bank



"As appears from the map, while the built-up area of the settlements in the West Bank covers 1.7 percent of the West Bank, the settlements control 41.9 percent of the entire West Bank.
Since 1967, Israel has established in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip 152 settlements that have been recognized by the Interior Ministry. In addition, dozens of outposts of varying size have been established. Some of these outposts are settlements for all intents and purposes, but the Interior Ministry has not recognized them as such.
Israel has established in the Occupied Territories a separation cum discrimination regime, in which it maintains two systems of laws, and a person’s rights are based on his or her national origin. This regime is the only of its kind in the world, and brings to mind dark regimes of the past, such as the Apartheid regime in South Africa."

link:

http://www.btselem.org/English/Maps/Index.asp


.

[pelsar]

52. whats the prefered gamble?

and what are the odds that fatah will win in gaza?...and listen to the hamas spokesman and "get their act together"...vs continuation of civil war, and hamas winning and taking their insperation from hizballa and continue shooting at ashkelon? (as well as terrorizing their own)

or 1,000 other variations on that....

polls are pretty much worthless when gunman rule the street, or the democracy really isnt one...i would guess a poll in gaza would suggest that most gazans prefer peace to the internal warfare going on around them....peaceful non violent marches havent proved to work over there......the "will of the people, doesnt get much within the palestinain society today.

so i understand that your preference is the gaza style of govt and its unknown outcome as opposed to a continued occupation of limited time (once the palestinains figure out how to rule themselves in gaza, not much is going to change)

reminds me of the shah vs khomeni in iran in 79. which is the preferred ruling style:
dictatorship with limited liberal values and secret police etc, vs dictatorship with religious moral police + secret police and religous law.....

i would suggest that the first is better, some here, as i 've learned prefer the latter..(but i guess they're probably not homosexuals, liberal women, civil rights activists etc)
_______

btw all those organizations you link to and quote...what do they say about the latest killing, homes being blown up, children killed in gaza?....or is this one of those "internal things" that is "none of their business? and how long would it take a kassam to reach jersualem from hebron?....if the gamble fails and the PA loses and hamas takes over the westbank as well?

[Douglas Carpenter]

53. there is still no reason to keep the settlements

if you don't think a full withdrawal is possible yet...the settlements can still be removed

and the Wall can be built on Israeli/not Palestinian land

And the U.S. and Israel has been wanting Fatah to forcibly confront Hamas for the last 10 plus years

[msmcghee]

54. I might be missing something here but . .

. . is it possible that since Israel has found that simply the idea of "land for peace" means nothing to the Palestinians - since they've proven time and again that attacking Israel and killing Israeli civilians is more important to them than having their own state - that Israel has come to the conclusion that at some point the Palestinians may be willing to trade something more valuable to them than land - "land without Israeli fanatics on it" - for peace.

i.e. If they hate Israelis more than they love the idea of having their own state - maybe at some point their rage will be so great that they'd offer peace just to get the Israelis removed from their land - and having a state would be a side benefit.

I think the Israelis also understand that the Palestinians have to figure that out themselves. Any offers along those lines from Israel would have to be rejected out of hand. Perhaps leaving Gaza was a clue that Israel provided for them.

Of course, removing the settlements first would remove any incentive for peace. I can just see the wild celebrations and shooting in the streets as each of the Palestinian armed factions claimed victory over the IDF if Israel did such a stupid thing.

[Douglas Carpenter]

55. the reality is there has been nothing but expansion, expansion and expansion

when Israel removed 2000 housing units from the Gaza it built thousands more on the West Bank.

And a viable and contiguous state and economy is simply not possible with settlements and their support infrastructure all over the territories.

to be perfectly honest very few Palestinians (in fact none that I know including the most moderate ones) believe anymore that Israel has any intention of every allowing them to have a genuinely viable state or ever intended to. These same people did believe that back in the early 90's before Israel initiated the largest settlement expansion program in its history and all the infrastructure that goes along with it; expansion that makes a viable state and economy less and less possible.

remove the settlements and they might believe it again.

And if I may say so. And I hope this does not sound self-righteous. Because that is not how I mean it. But I really do think that a lot of Westerners should get over this cartoon caricature image they have of Palestinians and Arabs in general. They really are a very warm-hearted and kindly people, and reasonable people, who want peace; peace with dignity; and the same things we all want.

.

[idontwantaname]

56. land for poverty?

its a piece of shit deal and if the shoe was on the other foot the israelis would say fuck you too... rightly so.

[Recursion]

58. See, that's the kind of simplistic crap that pisses me off.

since they've proven time and again that attacking Israel and killing Israeli civilians is more important to them than having their own state

Come on.

Come on.

Be real here.

Has it really never occurred to you that maybe, just maybe the Palestinians are human beings who love their children as much as you love yours? Has it never occurred to you that maybe they are simply afraid that Israel wants to keep taking their land (given that they never stopped building settlements even after saying they would) and they won't have anywhere to live? Has it never occurred to you that maybe they are terrified of being blown up or having their houses bulldozed because the IDF thinks a fighter lives near them? For supporters of Israel to get all moral-high-ground-ish and say "the Palestinians must be bloodthirsty madmen because they kept fighting after a peace deal" while either willfully or ignorantly ignoring the fact that Israel kept stealing land and kept building settlements after that same peace deal is just ridiculous.

These aren't animals. They aren't monsters. They don't like killing for killing's sake. They are people just like you and me, and they are scared that Israel is going to keep taking their land, farms, water, and lives. And Israel has yet to give them a reason to think otherwise. There have been many tragic mistakes on both sides of this dialogue, but simplistic nonsense like

If they hate Israelis more than they love the idea of having their own state

frankly just shows you haven't taken the time to even consider their perspective here.

[msmcghee]

60. Reply to #58. I do not assume that . .

. . all Palestinians would rather kill Jews than have a state of their own. However, the sad fact is that Palestinian society is under the control of those who do see things that way. When I first started posting here I also had a monolithic view. Now, I can appreciate some differences but it is still not a very clear concept.

There are many reasons for that. Many of the news outlets there are anything but objective. Probably more important is that any Palestinian who speaks out in favor of some negotiated settlement with Israel is placing his own life in grave danger - plus his family's. But, common sense tells me there must be a significant number of Palestinians who would love to see an end to the resistance - which is the cause of all their problems IMO - but who can not speak out. (At least I hope that's true.)

When I say, "they hate Israelis more than they love the idea of having their own state" - that is shorthand for:

The Palestinians are under the control of armed militants who derive their wealth and "sense of being" from promoting and executing armed struggle against the idea of the state of Israel existing in the ME - and that actions Israel takes will be dictated by that reality and not by any rational, peaceful views of the future on the part of those Palestinians who may desire a peaceful coexistence with Israel. Unfortunately, that's the only reality Israel can deal with - because that's the reality that sends the suicide bombers and Kassams to kill innocent Israelis. A (democratic, enlightened) nation's first duty is the protection of its citizens and therefore Israel (a democratic, enlightened state) is effectively stuck in that defensive mode by those armed militant groups such as Hamas - which, of course, is the intention of the militants.

Hope that helps.

[Douglas Carpenter]

64. Palestinians speak out in favor of a negotiated settlement with Israel

And they speak out very publicly. And have for a long, long time.
This is no secret. Even Hamas leadership have publicly advocated, at the very least, a 10-year truce with Israel only to be hit with targeted assassinations and collective punishment against the civilian population. Soon after the election (and I am certainly not a Hamas sympathizer) there were lots of conciliatory words from Hamas leadership including accepting the Saudi Peace Plan; full permanent peace for full permanent withdrawal.

Unfortunately, few Palestinians,if any believe anymore that Israel will ever accept a truly independent and viable Palestinian state. In the early to mid 90's most Palestinians were jubilant at the prospect of a negotiated settlement with Israel and very publicly expressed their jubilation. Until they found out that even renouncing their claim on 78% of their homeland wasn't enough. And Israel demonstrated by its actions that they were going to continue to expand and expand and expand, and actually use Oslo as a pretext to initiate actions that strangled their economy and made a viable state all but impossible.

It is simply not possible for Israel to continue to have expansionism, continue to deny the Palestinians a truly viable and independent state, refuse to negotiate in good faith, do everything possible to undermine a viable economy and civil society,,and also expect the Palestinians to passively accept that which no people on earth would ever willingly accept.

[msmcghee]

69. We certainly have different views of history.

I don't say that facetiously. I readily admit that there's been a lot of obfuscation for political reasons and that it is very difficult to discern the truth - although we each entertain our favored version.

It seems from my reading of history that the period of time when the Palestinians enjoyed the greatest freedom and economic advancement in the whole history of that region was for a few short years after 1967 when Israel occupied the WB but allowed the Palestinians to develop in their own ways - augmented by million of Israeli dollars flowing in by way of Palestinians working in Israel. Severel universtities were established and expanded. Palestinian infant motality decreased, standard of living rose, education levels grew, etc.

For example: http://emperors-clothes.com/israel/karsh-occ.htm

Such improvements in their conditions were only cut short when Arafat established his armed resistance and killed those Palestinians looking to someday carry themselves onto statehood via the framework established by UN R242. - at which point their conditions went steadily downhill as the result of various intifadas and religiously inspired suicide attacks - until today they live within walled off communities and face numerous checkpoints and armed Jewish religious fanatic communities scattered around their own.

But rather than argue over arcane interpretations of events long past - let me ask you a question.

What do you think would happen if Hamas formed a unity government with Fatah and together they announced their desire to pick up the negotiations with Israel at the point of the Clinton framework after Taba in order to form the state of Palestine with internationally recognized borders - and live thereafter in peace with the state of Israel of which they grant all legal and moral recognition?

This by the way is what UN Res. 242 calls for and has been a course of action open to the PA since 1967. Like anyone looking for solutions to problems rather than justifications for revenge I believe it is always good to ask - what can be done from this day forward to make the best of things as they exist.

[Recursion]

72. The question wasn't to me...

What do you think would happen if Hamas formed a unity government with Fatah and together they announced their desire to pick up the negotiations with Israel at the point of the Clinton framework after Taba in order to form the state of Palestine with internationally recognized borders - and live thereafter in peace with the state of Israel of which they grant all legal and moral recognition?

My guess would be roughly the same thing that happened when the PLO did roughly the same thing: the violence would stop (more or less) for a few years, during which time Israel would continue to expand the settlements and displace more Palestinians. It's worth a shot, though.

[msmcghee]

73. Perhaps my take on that period of history is sorely lacking.

I've done a lot of reading but can't recall such a thing ever happening - except perhaps as disingenuous attempts for some immediate PR advantage by the Palestinian militant groups involved. I would think that any such serious undertaking would be well publicized in various pro-Arab forums and here in this forum by the anti-Israel side as evidence that Israel has no desire for peace and just wants to take their land.

I would also expect it to be common knowledge to anyone who is even moderately informed on the topic - and would hold sway in large part in most of the debates that take place here. Yet I don't recall it.

But I'm willing to learn. Could I get you to link me to some more specific credible description from that period (whenever that was you don't say) from an unbiased source so I can better inform myself?

[Douglas Carpenter]

77. to be perfectly honest

and I don't mean this with any disrespect. And I have been following to varying degrees of interest Palestinian politics since the early 80's. It has been orthodoxy for so long that the mainstream of the Palestinian movement has sought some sort of political settlement with Israel, I quite literally had no idea until I read some of your post that it was even a debatable point that the mainstream Palestinian leadership and mainstream opinion wanted a peaceful political settlement.

The University of Michigan has a brief online history of the conflict..the material was written in 1993..so it is a little bit dated..but it does have a section which gives a sort of history of the evolution of mainstream Palestinian political thinking.

link:

http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/worldreach/assets/docs/israeli-palestinian_conflict/studentlesson4.html

I suppose it is quite true that numerous people on both sides consider the other side to be completely disingenuous in talks of peace. I suppose both sides can quite correctly point to some extremely nasty stuff done by the other side as "proof". It is true that almost all Palestinians do in their heart consider all of Palestine from the Jordan to the Sea to be Palestine and that they are the morally and spiritually rightful owners. I frankly find it inconceivable that any other indigenous people in a similar situation anywhere else on earth would look at it any differently. However, this is an abstract point since they also know the political reality. And that somethings just happen and life has to go on. Perhaps, I might explain that the phrase, "accept Israel's right to exist" is a painful thing for many Palestinians to say; not because they want war or reject peace with Israel, but because it can sound to them like they are endorsing the Naqba and renouncing their heritage.

If you look below at a response I made to Shaktimaan, you will see mention of two different books. One he recommended to me and one I recommended to him. Both books are written with remarkable dispassion and neutrality. And neither book has a visible agenda other than the desire for reconciliation.

Frankly, I do not know nor have I ever met a single Palestinian who rejects the concept of reconciliation with Israel. Although I know quite a few who do not believe Israel would ever agree to reasonable settlement. Now this is anecdotal admittedly, but a few months back I had dinner with an Australian friend of mine and his Palestinian coworker, an extremely polite and mild-mannered accountant named Amjad. Amjad was also a fierce and loyal Hamas supporter -- full of all the rhetoric and fire one would expect from a fierce and loyal Hamas supporter. Under statement is not one of the many virtuous qualities Arab people have. But when I asked him point blank if he would support a full and permanent peace with Israel in exchange for a truly independent and viable Palestinian state; he paused for a minute, and then said, "yes, of course, why not?"

.

[Douglas Carpenter]

81. here is an extraordinary neutral and dispassionate PDF file available online

From the University of Connecticut

I think this paper is about as absent of prejudice or bias as one can find.


--A Brief History of the Arab/Israeli Conflict-- by Jeremy Pressman

link:

http://anacreon.clas.uconn.edu/~pressman/history.pdf

__________________

a bio of the author

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA

Ph.D. in Political Science.

Dissertation: “Leashes or Lemmings: Alliances as Restraining Devices.”
Committee: Stephen Van Evera (Chair), Barry Posen, Malik Mufti.

Major fields: international relations, comparative politics, the Middle East

1991 Brandeis University, Waltham, MA

B.A. in Politics and Near Eastern and Judaic Studies.

1989-90 Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel

Visiting student.

Experience

Department of Political Science, U. of Connecticut, Storrs, CT

Assistant Professor.

Crown Center for Middle East Studies, Brandeis University, Waltham MA

Research fellow.

Belfer Center, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

Post-Doctoral Fellow.

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, DC
Project Associate.

[msmcghee]

88. Thanks for the link.

I've spent several hours since my last post to you researching the question but haven't come up with much. I quickly scanned the pdf you offered. I found this paragraph - which seems to agree with Tessler (who I fell asleep reading last nite.)

In the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Israeli military occupation led to an improvement by certain economic measures. At the same time, Israel denied the Palestinians political rights. In the 1970s, the PLO, headquartered in Lebanon, used terrorist attacks against Israel in the hopes of gaining international support for the Palestinian cause. High profile attacks included several airplane hijackings and the murder of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. In October 1974, the Arab leaders declared in Rabat, Morocco that the PLO was the “sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.”

Which doesn't say much. But I'll dig through this in more detail. I really want to understand this better. I must admit I have a little trouble with the concept that for 20 years the residents of the WB were effectively Jordanians - they had no self-determination (as Palestinians) - and they lived under fairly abject conditions (like most Arabs in surrounding states).

A war is launched by Jordan from the WB to destroy Israel - which Jordan loses. Israel occupies the WB and liberates Jewish religious sites in Jerusalem that were desecrated by the Jordanians. The Palestinians lives improve economically in the following years (by some accounts remarkably) so they decry their lack of self-determination as now justifying the destruction of the state of Israel? (I guess before '67 it was just because Israel existed.)

This doesn't compute for me. But I'll remain open to your view and will appreciate any other links you can provide to help me see it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

89. again our view of history is very different

I must sound to you like the man who is trying to convince you that the world is flat. But I do believe that my views come close to representing the moderate, moderately-pro-Western and secularist views held commonly in the moderate, moderately-pro-Western and secularist wing of Arab and Palestinian thinking.

However,I think if you will read the more critical Zionist historians (and I do specify Zionist historians not pro-Palestinian or anti-Zionist)such as Avi Shlaim, Shlomo Ben-Ami, or even unber-Zionist Benny Morris it would be a real oversimplification to describe the 67 War as all about an unprovoked attempt to destroy Israel. Please let me make it clear that I am not suggesting that the Arab parties to the conflict were entirely innocent; far from it. In fact I would have to place a fair degree of blame on Gamal Abdul Nasser. But numerous events lead to that state of belligerency. If there is one party to the conflict that comes closest to being innocent, it would have been the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordon. The entire history of Jordan going back to right after the Balfour declaration and through the 1948 war and certainly the 1967 War was an attempt of a Kingdom that really sought no quarrel with Israel, but for domestic and regional political reasons the Kingdom of Jordan did join in, but certainly with no desire to destroy Israel. And senior Israeli leadership always knew this and understood that the Kingdom of Jordan had a very difficult balancing act to perform. There is no more Machiavellian political entity on earth more driven by raw non-ideological pragmatism than the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. I really cannot imagine any reasonable historian these days of any school of thought claiming that Jordan had any desire to destroy Israel in the 1967 war or even the 1948 war, but certainly 67.

During the Jordanian period of rule over the West Bank, obviously the Palestinians were less than completely satisfied. But they were more willing to accept a fellow Arab government that at least did not build settlements on their territory. And in 67 the Palestinian political movement was still largely in its infancy had not really worked through much of its agenda.

It is definitely no longer a mainstream view either among Palestinians or the wider Arab world to seek the destruction of Israel. This idea went out of fashion a long time ago. I believe you have seen some of the poll results of Palestinian opinion which indicates that well more than 75% of Palestinians support some sort of permanent reconciliation with Israel. There are many factors as to why Hamas won the parliamentary elections, a failure to achieve a Palestinian state, corruption within Fatah, a very correct perception that Fatah was the choice of American and Israel and the very extensive social service network run by Hamas. But, the desire to destroy Israel or to have an Islamic state was not one of those factors. No poll that I have seen puts support for an Islamic Palestinian state at more than 1% to 3%. In the year leading up to the election Hamas abandoned any rhetoric in the election campaign about destroying Israel And they did observe a unilateral cease fire for 14 months in spite of numerous provocations such as targeted assassinations.

It is unfortunate that there was not a major party with a more democratic, pragmatic and secularist platform that could have been the alternative to Fatah. There are small Palestinian Parties like the DFLP, but they are not large enough anymore to present a challenge to Fatah. Which left the Palestinians with basically only two choices, Fatah or Hamas.


But as you said, we do have a very different view of history.

I doubt that both sides will come into common agreement on exactly what happened in the past; at least no time in the next couple of hundred years.

So the question is what to do about the whole matter now? And I strongly agree that the best way forward is to try to pick up where the Taba talks left off. Which is more or less what the Geneva Initiative is all about. However, if a two-state solutions is not achieved very soon, a two-state solution will simply no longer be an option. The expansion on the West Bank and all the roads and various infrastructure will render that option completely nonviable and out of the question. Then in a few decades we will have a situation in which Israeli sovereignty rules over an overwhelming Arab majority. What will be the options then?

.

[msmcghee]

90. When you say . .

"However, if a two-state solutions is not achieved very soon, a two-state solution will simply no longer be an option."

I can't understand that statement. In 1947 there were not two states - there was just the Mandate. Then the UN suggested through resolution a two state solution. It became a one state solution only because of the Arab refusal to accept the existence of Israel. But the land - in each proposed state - was occupied by both Jews and Arabs.

Now, there is Israel. Why could not the WB and Gaza become the state of Palestine? Are you saying that the Jewish settlements there would preclude that? Why? Did Arab settlements in pre-Israel preclude Israel from becoming a state? Did Jewish settlements in Gaza preclude Israel from leaving Gaza and removing all settlements making way for self-rule in Gaza? Obviously not.

Would the Palestinians refuse to allow some Jewish settlements to remain as part of Palestine living under Palestinian state protection and rule of law - just like there are now millions of Arabs living in Israel? Are you saying that such an arrangement would not be acceptable in a Palestinian state? Why?

Please try to understand the gap in my understanding that makes this so puzzling to me. You seem to have a coherent view - even though I have trouble seeing the sense of it. I am not being obtuse here - just struggling to see a reality that seems to make little sense to me. I appreciate your efforts.

[Douglas Carpenter]

91. fair enough question

Actually the European Union notes from the Taba talks and the proposals in the Geneva Initiative do indicate that the Palestinian leadership were prepared to accept about 50% of the settlements remaining.

These settlements as you know are not just towns a villages. They include a whole set of roads and infrastructure which Israel wishes to maintain control over. If it was just a matter of keeping some Jewish towns and villages or Jewish cities in the territories. I don't think that would be the problem.

However, along with all the settlements comes a whole infrastructure system which inhibits movement and continuity. Such arrangement means that things such as movement from East Jerusalem into the West Bank and movement through the West Bank are completely inhibited by this infrastructure that Israel wishes to control.

Please note the map below and please read the B'tselem statement below the map.

Map of Jewish Settlements in the the West Bank


"As appears from the map, while the built-up area of the settlements in the West Bank covers 1.7 percent of the West Bank, the settlements control 41.9 percent of the entire West Bank. "



link: http://www.btselem.org/English/Maps/Index.asp

here is a PDF file with a much more detailed map of the settlements:

http://www.btselem.org/Download/Settlements_Map_Eng.PDF

[msmcghee]

92. Are you saying that the Clinton Parameters included . .

. . a state for Palestine in which inside the borders of that state that Israel would control Palestinian access to 41% of the WB portion of the state of Palestine?

The B'tselem map and text in the link discusses the status of WB settlements and the wall under the existing occupation. I see no reference there to the Clinton Parameters. I thought we were discussing a hypothetical Palestinian state. Am I missing something?

[Douglas Carpenter]

93. sorry,I must have misunderstood

yes, I would agree that the Clinton Parameters were a momentous step. Freedom of movement is the main issue of concern and to insure that a new Palestinian state would be contiguous; not all of those issues were resolved by the Clinton Parameters, but many of them. The concern is to insure that a new Palestinian state would have reasonably open movement through its territory and control over its border with Jordan from the West Bank and Egypt from the Gaza. In exchange for giving up some territory for settlements there could be a corridor connecting the West Bank to the Gaza and sea access from the Gaza.

Actually, in spite of everything, if one looks at what would be minimally acceptable to the majority of Palestinians and what would be minimally acceptable to the majority of Israelis; there is some gap, but it is bridgeable through negotiations.

[msmcghee]

94. Thanks for the clarification. That allows us to go back to your . .

. . original post in this subthread.

You said, " . . and I have been following to varying degrees of interest Palestinian politics since the early 80's. It has been orthodoxy for so long that the mainstream of the Palestinian movement has sought some sort of political settlement with Israel, I quite literally had no idea until I read some of your post that it was even a debatable point that the mainstream Palestinian leadership and mainstream opinion wanted a peaceful political settlement."

Well then, I must ask if the Palestinians have been open to a peaceful political settlement all along - why has it not occurred? Why have 1000 Israeli civilians been killed by Palestinian suicide bombers, snipers and Kassams since 2000? Why have the Palestinians never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity?

You say that the Palestinians always wanted a political reconciliation with Israel - even that you thought it was self-evident. Just looking at fairly recent events - electing leadership that refuses to recognize the state of Israel or disavow its intention to destroy Israel militarily hardly seems like a useful step toward some political reconciliation.

Firing a steady stream of Kassams into Israel after Israel removed the IDF and all settlements from Gaza hardly seems like a form of political negotiation.

After 70 years of purposely targeting Israel civilians for murder and telling the world that they intend to continue that policy - don't you at least agree that the burden is on the Palestinians to not only show but prove that they have any peaceful intentions of coexistence with Israel. (The only conceivable form of political reconciliation that could occur.)

Do you see why your view seems so incomprehensible to me? I ask you again - what am I missing? And I again thank you for your patience.

[Douglas Carpenter]

95. first let me clarify, I would not say that they have always held this

position. In 1974 the PLO officially proposed the secular democratic state proposal. Through the late 70's and the 80's the two-state proposal became the mainstream and orthodox position and was made official in 1988.

From my point of view the Palestinians were never given an opportunity to miss an opportunity. With the exception of the brief period between the release of the Clinton Parameters on December 23, 2000 and when Israel called off the Taba talks on 27 January 2001 a few weeks ahead of Israeli elections Israel simply never discussed an offer that the Palestinian leadership could possibly have accepted.

The election of Hamas I believe was an act of frustration; frustration with Israel for not negotiating in good faith and frustration with Fatah for its corruption and incompetence. And they simply did not like the idea of electing a government that they perceived as America's choice. Personally, I don't think they should have voted for Hamas. But it is clear that their motive was not a desire for the destruction of the Israeli state or certainly to seek the establishment of an Islamic state.

One needs to understand that the Palestine Liberation Organization was a broad umbrella organization with many, many factions. So what one group did was not necessarily supported by other factions or the senior PLO leadership.

The PLO grew up in a different time; a time in which there just were not many options other than armed struggle. It was probably not easy to change that frame of mind for the entirety of all the various factions that comprised the Palestinian national movement. But most national political movements throughout history have used violence and even terrorism to advance their agenda and the Palestinian movement was no exception. I am not justifying terrorist actions against civilians. But violence has played a role in how nations have been born throughout history.

And frankly if we look at who has been the most violent and who has attacked the most civilians and destroyed the most property in this conflict, it has not been the Palestinians. The numbers are very lop sided.

When it became clear to most Palestinians by the mid 1990's that Oslo was being used as a pretext to expand and to impose draconian restrictions on movement and it did not look like Israel was acting in good faith many Palestinians became convinced that he Oslo Accord was one big hoax. I think it was difficult to control the anger and all the various factions.

I don't want to sound like I am justifying terrorism. Because I don't believe it is either moral or a wise strategy.

I would only encourage you to find out for yourself either by visiting or by looking for independent sources of information or by communicating with Palestinians who live in the territories about the reality of life under the Israeli occupations. I must admit that when I first read some of your post a number of months back I misjudged you and thought you had racist attitudes. But I really do not believe you do. And I really do believe that if you could understand the reality of life under occupation and the totally humiliating and dehumanizing experience it is for the Palestinians and the impossible situation they live under you may still feel a just as much affinity toward Israel, but I do believe you would understand.

sorry if I sound too self-righteous or melodramatic

[msmcghee]

96. No, don't apologize.

You're doing a great job. You don't sound self-righteous or melodramatic at all.
You sound like you are being honest about your understanding of things - about what the world looks like from inside you. Let me spend some time digesting your comments.

One of the statements in your last post I find especially disconcerting but I think I'll give it a rest for a while to think about the ideas you have expressed so far. Thanks for taking the time to explain yourself so well.

[pelsar]

100. just a reaction....

i llke reading your posts...your write clearly with a logical line to it.....whereas we may disagree on many points (intepretation of facts and actions)..that does not mean that i dont fine the posts both interesting and educational (having "limited access to palestinians)

[Douglas Carpenter]

101. thank you I appreciate that Mr. Pelsar

[pelsar]

102. self identity....

The Palestinians lives improve economically in the following years (by some accounts remarkably) so they decry their lack of self-determination

i recall reading a very very long time ago that one of the first things that "appears" as a society develops and its education improves is self identity. The palestinians under jordan had poor education, no demands and little self awareness. When israel took over and improved the standard of living, improved the education, improved their self awareness...the palestinians also developed their own self identity....and from there its not a long road to "we were here first and the jews took our land."

[msmcghee]

103. Interesting view.

I hadn't considered that before. But it certainly makes sense. Thanks.

[Douglas Carpenter]

76. I suppose our view of history is quite different...

and I do not mean this in any mean-spirited kind of way.

However I agree that it is true actually that living conditions in the occupied were in many respects better prior to the first intifada. However, the development of national or political rights was not even being considered; not even the rather vague commitments to autonomy that Prime Minister Begin promised in Camp David I. And throughout the whole world people do wish to have at least a pretense of self-determination. Even to suggest a Palestinian state as an eventual outcome was completely rejected by all Israeli political parties except Hadash --the rather small mixed Jewish-Arab Communist Party. Economic polices imposed by Israel did create total dependency of the occupied territories on Israel. Both the movement of exports from the occupied territories to Israel and imports from Israel to the occupied territories was completely controlled according to Israeli needs. Was life better? In some ways I suppose it was. But only in the sense that most colonial regiments bring a certain amount and in some cases a great deal of material improvement and perhaps some other benefits as well. But at the cost of national aspirations. Defenders of the Chinese occupation of Tibet could quite correctly point out that life in Tibet has improved in countless respects compared to life in independent Tibet.
Defenders of the British empire would argue much the same. Or defenders of (not to make the apartheid ideology) white rule in South Africa would have argued that that blacks in South Africa "had it better than blacks anywhere else in Africa". The annexation of Arab Jerusalem had already occurred by the end of 1967 and settlements had already started in the West Bank. No one in Israel was even considering withdraw from the territories, although that was the official position of the Labour Party. Likud simply declared from outset and up until the Oslo Accord that the West Bank, Gaza and certainly East Jerusalem were integral parts of Israel. Sometimes I wonder if it would have been more clever if the Palestinians had welcomed the annexation that Likud had desired and strove for equal citizenship political rights within Israel. But that was simply not in anyones thinking at the time on either side.

During the first intifada there were no suicide bombings (the first suicide bombing in Israel did not occur until April 6, 1995 in Afula) and I don't recall any armed clashed (there may have been some -- but few if any), although there was indeed a lot of rock throwing and some other property oriented violence. The PLO was caught completely off guard by the first intifada because it rose as a mass rebellion by the people in the territories themselves. It took months for them to claim any leadership in that situation. The Israeli state responded largely with mass arrest, tens of thousands and Amnesty International and every other independent human rights organization maintains that literally tens of thousands were tortured in Israeli prisons.

If Israel and the United States would allow a unity government between Hamas and Fatah and would agree to reopen talks following in the foot steps of Taba, well I think that would be wonderful. The Geneva Initiative is based exactly on that principle. The Geneva Accord is far from completely satisfactory. But it would be a enormous step forward.

Here is the website to the Geneva Accord which explains their basic principles:

http://www.geneva-accord.org/Accord.aspx?FolderID=33&lang=en

I do think that for short-term relief of an extraordinarily desperate situation in the territories money has to be allowed money to flow again; both in international aid and in the Palestinian tax revenues impounded by Israel. They have allowed some emergency funds to flow, but no where near as much as is necessary. From my point of view both the United States and Israel deserve a fair degree of responsibility for the clashes between Fatah and Hamas. The United States and Israel had been demanding that the Fatah lead P.A. move against Hamas militarily and all other groups with armed militias since the mid-90's. Everyone knew that his would mean violent clashes and perhaps a Palestinian civil war. The U.S. with Israeli approval and Jordanian and Egyptian collusion has been arming Fatah just for this purpose. Hamas is after all (and I am certainly not a Hamas supporter) the democratically elected government and it is a mass based political movement. Many of us believe that issues such as disarmament which I do agree is absolutely necessary, can only be achieved through political process such as occurred with the IRA in Northern Ireland and in countless peace agreements all over the world. Most nations throughout history are born out of violent clashes, and most political parties involved in the birth of new nations included armed militias and armed struggle and terrorism. Even Nelson Mandela was not only committed to armed struggle, but the use of terrorism as a political tool. I disagree with Mr. Mandela on that point. Political process is the only reasonable means, from my point of view to achieve a stable order without plunging a society into chaos and civil war. . Various factions have to be understood not as one group who all think the same. There are vast differences. Islamic Jihad, for example, is basically a secretive cell group and just a bunch of murderer as far as I am concerned; comparable, I suppose, to the so-called "Real IRA" in Northern Ireland.

[msmcghee]

61. An additional point in response to #58.

Even if the majority of Palestinians don't hate Israelis more than they love the idea of having their own state- as I suggested may well be true . .

. . their collective hatred, real or not, is the reality they have successfully created in the minds of the majority of Israelis - who, being a democratic state, will elect (demand) leadership (such as Likud) who they believe will most effectively deal with that threat.

That is a very common psychological response of all humans within in-groups to violent threats and attacks from out-groups. They will seek psychologically conservative leadership. The ideology is just a set of narratives that are layered onto that psychological reality.

Forums such as this are largely places where people who are in no real danger themselves get to play with these hot narratives - the narratives that are actually used to justify the death and destruction of other people's lives. It's really a hot (plenty of emotional kick) video game most of us are playing here - except for a few like pelser who's life and family are actually on the line.

But, the conservative response is what Hamas wants - because that more easily justifies their armed resistance and promotion of hatred of Israel and Israelis - which is where they derive their wealth (from wealthy Arabs outside Palestine) and their reason to be.

Similar psychological factors and sequences of events and reactions (positive feedback leading to out-of-control events) have played out in most of the worlds major conflicts since the beginning of recorded history. What they (Santayana) say about those who can't remember the past having to repeat it applies here - but George failed to recognize that human behavior where violent conflict is concerned has very little to do with reason and studying history - and everything to do with the very specific emotional responses we are all wired to produce when we feel threatened.

[Shaktimaan]

65. No, you can't apply western motives to this scenario.

If you could it would be great. But we aren't dealing with a western culture and as such things don't always unfold according to "rational" cause and effects as we see them. I'll give you an example and you tell me if any western nation would act the same in a similar situation.

The Temporary International Presence in Hebron is there to provide security for Palestinians from Israeli settlers. On 2006-02-08 following an attack on their headquarters by rioting Palestinians, all TIPH observers were temporarily withdrawn from Hebron. What was the attack and riot over? That stupid Danish cartoon thing. Do you think it made sense for Palestinians to riot and attack the international force installed to protect them over a cartoon publication that they had absolutely nothing to do with? Is that a good reason to kill people? An example of something that "anyone" would do?

The fact is that the violence at hand preceded any wrongdoing from the side of Israel. The hebron massacre of 1929, the arab uprising of 1936-39, the 1948 war of independance, these were not the result of occupation, settlements, stealing land, or anything really.

They are people just like you and me, and they are scared that Israel is going to keep taking their land, farms, water, and lives. And Israel has yet to give them a reason to think otherwise.

What about the peace deals with egypt or jordan? Egypt got back all their land. What about leaving Gaza and 4 settlements in the WB? (and the promise at the time to leave more of the WB, scuttled by Qassam attacks?) What about all of the benefits allocated by Oslo?

And why is Israel "stealing" land. Explain to me how settling in Hebron is "stealing." I am personally not in favor of settling Hebron, I find ot counterproductive. But it certainly isn't stealing any more than Palestinians moving into the land that the settlers left is "stealing." Are you suggesting that because there was a successful massacre in Hebron that the victors then rightfully own the land, despite thousands of years of Jewish residency before 1929?

[Douglas Carpenter]

66. I do not believe it is possible to understand the

conflict without at least attempting to understand the perceptions and motivations of both sides -- regardless which side they sympathize with the most.

I think Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the philosophic father of the Israeli right was quite correct when he wrote in 1923

"Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of foreign settlement. This is how the Arabs will behave and go on behaving so long as they possess a gleam of hope that they can prevent Palestine from becoming the Land of Israel".
(from 13, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab Word by Avi Shlaim) Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393321126/102-8701952-4352901

The point is that the Palestinians fundamentally resisted settler encroachment just as anyone else would have; even if it included violence misguided against the people they should have left alone. I believe you will find that the 500 plus surviving Jewish residents of Hebron in the 1929 massacre were sheltered and protected by Arab Muslims who did so at great risk to themselves.

It does little good and offers little understanding to interpret motives of one side or the other as only the irrational reactions of a backward people. I have no romanticized ideas about the Arab people of the Middle East. I have spent close to half my life among the Arab people of the Middle East.

One of the problems in most of the academic literature regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict is that even most of the "pro-Palestinian" literature is centered on Israel and the Zionist experience even if it is a critique of Israel and the Zionist experience. The Palestinians tend to be a backdrop to the story. Frankly I wish it was possible to advocate for the Palestinian without even mentioning Israel or Zionism. But so far I have not figured out a way to do that.

If you are interested in a history of the conflict focusing on the Palestinians; here is one excellent and scholarly book written by Israeli historian Baruch Kimmerling of Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the American historian Joel Migdal of University of Washington and published by Harvard University Press. The book is written quite dispassionately and is not by any means an advocacy book for the Palestinian cause:

The Palestinian People: A History

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674011295/102-8701952-4352901

________________

P.S. I am still anxiously waiting for the book you recommended a couple weeks ago. I have heard good things about it. I ordered it from Amazon right away. I am really quite curious as to how Dr. Wasserstein interprets Palestinian motives. I Thank you for your recommendation:

Israelis and Palestinians: Why Do They Fight? Can They Stop?, Second Edition
by Bernard Wasserstein

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300105975/102-8701952-4352901


.

[Douglas Carpenter]

67. , I did find this comment regarding Dr. Wasserstein's thesis

anyway. "From Publishers Weekly
As of this fall a professor of history at the University of Chicago, Wasserstein (Divided Jerusalem: The Struggle for the Holy City) finds that, despite reports to the contrary, "neither Jews nor Arabs, in their collective behavior, are animated by crazed psychopathy. They fight over definable interests, motivated by comprehensible value-systems, in pursuit of identifiable goals." Both, Wasserstein argues, are focused on "population, land, work, security, and dignity," and the bulk of the book is devoted to clearly and substantively laying out the specifics. And with good reason, since each nationalism "is now near the end of its tether."


Eric Silver, Jewish Chronicle
. . . . latest tract, reasoned and balanced, makes a compelling case. .

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300105975/102-8701952-4352901


Again thanks for recommending Israelis and Palestinians: Why Do They Fight? Can They Stop?, Second Edition (Paperback)
by Bernard Wasserstein of the University of Chicago. I hope it arrives soon. I believe you said that you thought it was the best book on the subject that you have read...again thanks....doug
_________________

again, my recommendation: The Palestinian People: A History by Baruch Kimmerling and Joel S. Migdal -- Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Palestinian-People-History-Baruch-Kimmerling/dp/0674011295/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b/102-8701952-4352901

________________

GREAT NEWS!! The book (Israeli and Palestinians: Why Do They Fight? Can They Stop? by Bernard Wasserstein) just arrive 5 minutes ago. Now that is one of those weird coincidences if there ever was one...again thanks...doug


.:wow: :tinfoilhat:

[Shaktimaan]

79. Thank you.

I am interested. Once my new credit card gets here I'll be sure to purchase it.

I agree with your statement about the importance of looking at this issue from all sides. Without an understanding of the motives and relevant history there can't be any real understanding of what drives the conflict. That said I really think that the issue of land is not the central force behind the conflict. I think of it as a mirage. Everyone sees land as the cause for violence and therefore as the key to peace as well. I disagree that land was ever the root cause which is why land for peace is doomed in this case. We've discussed this before. I think the real issue at stake now is pride, or rather a lack thereof. Originally it was probably more about xenophobic tendencies that were played up by those in power (Grand Mufti yo) in order to solidify personal political gains in spite of British reluctance. If you look at the complaints of the Mandate Palestinians it was less over losing land or losing control politically than it was about rabid propaganda accusing Jews of planning to destroy the Al Aqsa mosque. Straight up xenophobia.

I don't buy the line that any other people would have acted the same way. This same issue has happened before and since and it has never played out like this any other time. Ultimately though, it doesn't matter now. They made their play, lost, lost again, etc., and now we are where we are. The question being, "How do we get out of where we are?"

Well, the Palestinians have been sequestered by everyone for so long in refugee camps where they have no access to economic, educational or political growth that they are going to have a very difficult time forming a successful nation. The fault here has to lie primarily with the Arab states who perpetuate this situation for their own benefit. It isn't a coincidence that Israel donates more $$ to UNRWA than most Arab nations put together.

As wretched as the settlers are I have trouble placing the blame for such a colossal failure on them or Israel. I think that the Palestinian refugee problem was artificially constructed to act as a constant drag on Israel. It surely wasn't actually for the Palestinian's best interests that they had these restrictions placed on them by the Arab league. But now the issue becomes whether or not a third generation refugee camp dweller and his compatriots are going to have the skills and support necessary to build a real country. The story of Gaza does not bode well for their future.

[Douglas Carpenter]

80. and thank you

I actually agree that land though extremely important is not the most emotive issue

My understanding based on numerous conversations over decades that the most fundamental emotive complaint that Palestinians have is their perception that Israelis simply consider them an inferior race. And in their perception, real or imaginary, Israelis look down on them with utter contempt even during times of relative peace; even before the break out of the first intifada when conditions in the territories were relatively quiet and living conditions considerably better.

Most Palestinians in refugee camps would gladly welcome citizenship and move into become at least some part of the countries in which they are residing. The classic answer given by Arab governments is that they do not want them to forget Palestine. Most Palestinians scoff at this answer and believe that the Arab governments simply don't want them.

One cannot underestimate a religious dynamic at work as well. To many Muslims loss of control over Jerusalem represents a kind of reenactment of the crusades. And the crusades are a very deep part of Arab and Islamic folklore that every Arab and Muslim child learns about at a very young age. To many Muslims the loss of sovereignty over all of Jerusalem is a thought too painful to bare.

To more secular minded Muslims and to the Christian minority they of course would focus on a secular interpretation of an anti-colonialist struggle which also has a great deal of heroic folklore currency in this part of the world; albeit more recent. I cannot though help but think that if historic accident had put the super power on the side of the Palestinians, we would now be hearing about their determination, their steadfastness and their wills of steel.

I do not believe that Gaza could have succeeded given the whole scope of dynamics of the situation, some of it was Palestinian responsibility, some Israeli responsibility and some was just the situation.

Well, I guess I'll have to get back to reading Dr. Wasserstein's book. It seems deeply insightful and quite readable; a rare quality for academic type books. thanx

.

[pelsar]

84. this i didnt know....

And in their perception, real or imaginary, Israelis look down on them with utter contempt even during times of relative peace; even before the break out of the first intifada when conditions in the territories were relatively quiet and living conditions considerably better.

I know arab-israelis look down upon the palestinains...the jewish israelis that i know are more "indifferent"...meaning the palestianians worked in the worker professions over the years here and were looked upon as the "workers."

but then again i live in a sort of "educated liberal bubble"....so in this aspect my knowledge is far more limited.
____

interesting side note: the farmers who have been using workers from thailand, since the closing of the westbank, gaza, prefer them over the palestinians and israelis (jewish and arab)...they say the work harder, cause less trouble, etc

[Douglas Carpenter]

86. I don't know how much these polls mean.....but

I hope it is not the general trend.........

"Youth believe Arabs dirty, uneducated -- link:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3350467,00.html

"Recent poll reveals 75 percent of Jewish students believe Arabs uneducated, uncivilized, unclean. Similar stereotypes found amongst Arab students toward Jews, but in lower percentages."

snip:"The poll showed that 75 percent of Jewish students believe that Arabs are uneducated people, are uncivilized and are unclean.

On the other hand 25 percent of the Arab youth believe that Jews are the uneducated ones, while 57 percent of the Arab's believe Jews are unclean.

snip:"The poll was conducted by Dr. Haggai Kupermintz, Dr. Yigal Rosen and Harbi Hasaisi of Haifa University's Center for Research on Peace Education.

The data was presented at a bi-lingual conference held in Haifa. The study, titled "Perception of 'the Other' amongst Jewish and Arab Youth in Israel" included 1,600 students studying in 22 high schools around the country.

"We have found a serious expression of stereotypical thinking on the Jewish students' part regarding the Arab youth," said Dr. Kupermintz, who pointed out that 69 percent of the Jewish students think that Arabs are not smart. "

snip:"According to the survey, the Arab youth views the Jewish society with fewer reservations: 27 percent of the Arab students believe Jews are uneducated, while 40 percent say they are uncivilized, and 47 percent believe they are not smart. "

link: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3350467,00.html

___________________

"More Israeli Jews favor transfer of Palestinians, Israeli Arabs - poll finds - link:

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=140196&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0

"Some 46 percent of Israel's Jewish citizens favor transferring Palestinians out of the territories, while 31 percent favor transferring Israeli Arabs out of the country, according to the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies' annual national security public opinion poll."

snip:"A representative sample of 1,264 Jewish residents of Israel were polled for the survey last month in face-to-face interviews.

Israeli-Arabs pose a threat to Israel's security, according to 61 percent of the Jewish population, while around 80 percent are opposed to Israeli-Arabs being involved in important decisions, such as delineating the country's borders, up from 75 percent last year and 67 percent in 2000."

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=140196&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0

[Recursion]

46. Then they shouldn't live on confiscated land

If you don't want to get blown up don't live on someone else's farm.

When was the last time a rocket or bomb hit, say, Tel Aviv? The violence is where the dispute is.

[pelsar]

49. july....2006, jan 2007

When was the last time a rocket or bomb hit, say, Tel Aviv? The violence is where the dispute is.

Haifa, Naharyia, sefat, sederto, ashkelon (Jan 2007)........glad you cleared that up

[breakaleg]

35. All this so a settlers can steal and live well of the land belonging to another.

I feel sorry for you.

[pelsar]

42. feel sorry for me...?

My relatives from pre and post WWII now live lives of security, no longer with the yellow star, or wondering if it will be discovered that they're jewish.... my kids go out on field trips once again, knowing that suicide bombers are a thing of the past....My friends have professions that influence the world.....

we've done a lot since 48......probably more than any other society in such a short period......our neighboring arabs with larger resources havent done so well, the palestinians, the "eternal victims" have done even less.

they might want to take a second look at their "friends" and "supporters"...they dont seem to be helping much.

[breakaleg]

20. what does this mean "negotiated agreement (gaza anyone?)"?

What agreement? It was a unilateral withdrawal.

So, if you can't trust your neighbour, then do you think you have the right to steal a portion of their land to act as a buffer? If that happened here, the judge would likely tell the guy trying to steal the land to stop acting like and ass and make peace with the guy. Oh, and no, you cannot have a part of his land.

[pelsar]

31. 2nd withdrawl...

keep up with the time line.....

israel withdrew, the PA/Hamas promised to stop the kassams....they didnt.

[breakaleg]

21. That map marks roads, but doesn't specify which ones Palestinains are able to use

and which are Israeli only. Also, I think they need to include all of the checkpoints in order to get an accurate picture of the limited movement of Palestinians within their patch of land.

[number6]

37. I' d call it apartheid

"the word apartheid ends discussion" in fact its created alot of discussion

[calzone]

39. If it ain't apartheid...

....the violence in Iraq isn't a civil war.

http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/274.shtml

Mr. Burston, the term is not over-the-top. You've said the Israeli govt's policies will not be affected by rockets. Events have proven you wrong.
"What is needed is an attempt to approach Israelis as human beings trying, if often failing, to deal with an impossible array of complex variables."

An impossible array of complex variables? Man, that's a hackneyed, overused meme. Nope, not complex at all. LOWER THE AX.

[Englander]

47. An eg of the apartheid policy in action -

'Rabbit in the headlights

The fate of a tiny Palestinian village highlights what is wrong with Israel's policies.

January 27, 2007 02:30 PM

>snip

As I sat on the ruins of yet another demolished house in the tragic village of al-Nu'eman yesterday, I wondered why we think we merit any kind of sympathy at all.

You reap what you sow. And what we've sown in al-Nu'eman can only yield a harvest of more anger, more bitterness, more hate. And that's just from the residents - what the rest of the world will feel for the Zionist machine is another story altogether.

To put it succinctly, Al-Nu'eman has been done like the proverbial kipper. Twenty-two houses, home to a tight-knit community who have lived in the same hills for generations, it sits on land annexed by Israel during the 1967 war.

However, due to the villagers' clan chief living in a town located deeper in the West Bank, al-Nu'eman residents were registered under his address, and consequently denied Israeli status and IDs. This meant they could not enter Jerusalem - fine, until the plans for the security wall were finalised. Al-Nu'eman is to be fenced off, like countless other Palestinian hamlets and villages, but - and this is the Kafkaesque nightmare - they'll be on the Israeli side of the wall when it's completed.

West Bank residents who can't go to the West Bank. People living in Israel proper who can't go into Israel. Prisoners in their own homes? Spot on. And an utter disgrace.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/seth_freedman/2007/01/rabbit_in_the_headlights.html

[Porcupine]

97. Apartheid and worse.

Israel can clean up it's act or it will be ground down and destroyed. That would be a tragedy but without petroleum economy and US military backing Isreal ceases to have the protection it needs to continue it's existence.

A nation cannot continue when it's legacy is the destruction and humiliation of it's neighbors. Most especially when it's neighbors surround it and outnumber it 20/1. Continued militarism will not lead to peace; only by giving up any claim to control over the West Bank and Gaza do they have hope of peace.

Of course there's always war. It's working great for the US in Iraq.