Who wants a solution?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

by Ali Jarbawi

Why is it that all Arab initiatives to bring about dialogue between Fateh and Hamas have failed to produce the intended result? Why is it that even Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' own initiative failed to yield what was expected of it? Is it because behind all the sweet public announcements by Hamas and Fateh about their "readiness to talk" lies a fundamental lack of interest? Or is it because Arab intervention has not been as serious as it should be if it is to replicate the Arab-sponsored Doha mediation between the Lebanese political factions? Is it actually because of an Israeli-American veto on any rapprochement between Fateh and Hamas that would lead once again to the inclusion of the latter in the Palestinian Authority without it unequivocally accepting the conditions laid down by the Quartet?

It would seem that a combination of these three explanations contributes to continued stagnation on the Palestinian scene. Beginning from the end, there is indeed an Israeli-American veto that plays a significant role in influencing the PA and many Arab capitals. It is rather obvious that Israel wants to impose a settlement on the Palestinians. For Israel the real issue is not the Gaza Strip, but East Jerusalem and the West Bank of which it wants to annex a good portion. In line with its policy of "divide and conquer", Israel's interest is best served by a deepening of the internal Palestinian rift. It believes that Abbas (Abu Mazen) is weak, and his party, Fateh, is in a state of disarray. This means Israel can continue negotiating with Abu Mazen while creating facts on the ground through its settlement policy. Israel does not actually care if Hamas is content ruling Gaza; rather it might prefer it as long as a truce holds and rockets are not fired at Israeli towns. Israel might even be entertaining the idea that Hamas is more amenable than Abu Mazen and Fateh to accept a future "interim solution" with a "temporary Palestinian state". The US administration will go along with whatever Israel decides it wants.


With respect to the two Palestinian parties, neither seems to have any interest in compromise. Rather, both want the other to bow to their conditions. Abu Mazen is slowly asphyxiating from the prolonged negotiations with successive Israeli governments that have yielded no other result than the continued expansion of settlements on occupied Palestinian land. Because his only strategic option is to reach a political settlement through negotiations, Abu Mazen's hopes rest with the Americans and Israelis. Thus, not to upset these sources of hope, any dialogue he might undertake with Hamas can not produce tangible results unless Hamas accepts the Israeli-American conditions, a.k.a. the Quartet conditions. Hamas, on the other hand, is also not in a hurry to reach a compromise with Abu Mazen, unless its conditions are accepted in whole. Within the rank and file of Hamas there is a widespread belief that things are going to fall their way since the negotiations with Israel will not produce even the minimal conditions acceptable to the Palestinian people. Meanwhile, Hamas will use the time and the truce, if it holds, to strengthen its hold over Gaza. When 2008 ends, Hamas will be in a better bargaining position, not only with Abu Mazen, but with Israel.

more...

http://www.bitterlemons.org/issue/pal2.php

[Cary]

1. How about renouncing terrorism, and engaging in a massive. . .

campaign of nonviolent protest?

How come I have never heard any Muslim advocate that option?

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Cary]

3. Sad, but seemingly true.

The problem with nonviolent revolutionary strategies is that they work.

I'd bet those strategies would be especially effective against the Israelis.

[azurnoir]

5. Non-violent demonstrations do happen however

Israeli media sources reported on Wednesday that the Israeli government has given new orders to the military, allowing troops to use live rounds against the unarmed protesters near the illegal wall surrounding the city of Jerusalem.

These new orders explicitly authorize the soldiers to use lethal force, referring to the use of live rounds, while prohibiting the use of lethal force against protests including Israeli and international peace activists.

http://www.imemc.org/article/53620

[Vegasaurus]

6. Non-violent protests don't happen nearly enough, and they aren't celebrated

the way deaths of Israelis are, or the way the charter that calls for the destruction of israel is.

In order for the status quo to change, it is going to require some brave moves by the Palestinian leadership.

They will have to give up their desire to obliterate Israel, their demand for right of return. They will have to stop ongoing violent resistance.

Changing their modus operandi would actually bring some good to their lives, instead of more misery.

[azurnoir]

7. The changes have been occuring

you chose to ignore them, instead constantly thumping the Hamas Charter, isn't it about time for something else is that all you have.

[Vegasaurus]

8. Choose to ignore them?

What changes?

Hamas and Fatah still have no unity.

Hamas still wants to obliterate Israel.

Right now they are stockpiling weapons to use at a later date, during this current "truce" (which was just a way to get supplies to the people; a win for Hamas but a lose for Israel, since this is not really a truce at all).

I don't see any change whatsoever in any rhetoric coming out of Gaza.

The goals are the same: violent resistance as long as there is an Israel.

[Cary]

9. It was a two part question.

I don't believe nonviolence will work without the first part: "renouncing terrorism". You can't really have "nonviolent protests" when you couple those protests with violence.

[azurnoir]

11. It was a 2 part question?

the post I answered was not a question at all

The problem with nonviolent revolutionary strategies is that they work.

I'd bet those strategies would be especially effective against the Israelis.

Sorry you did not like the answer

[Cary]

12. Sigh.

I have a hard time believing that you don't know what I was referring to.

Too, it's not that I didn't like your answer. Your answer was fine. I simply responded with my own opinion as to your answer.

But you know that too. ;-)

[azurnoir]

15. I was answering

your post not the OP, that is how threads work.

[Shaktimaan]

16. Bullshit.

I don't believe this for a second. Not only is the tone of the article completely biased, (for example, the caption to the photo of a few soldiers non-violently carrying off a protester read raeli troops attack peace activist in Bil'in) but the article's language is, how should I put this... lacking in accuracy and clarity.

During the protest the villagers and their supporters held banners calling for the Israeli government to reverse its decision to use lethal force against unarmed protesters.

Israeli media sources reported on Wednesday that the Israeli government has given new orders to the military, allowing troops to use live rounds against the unarmed protesters near the illegal wall surrounding the city of Jerusalem.

These new orders explicitly authorize the soldiers to use lethal force, referring to the use of live rounds, while prohibiting the use of lethal force against protests including Israeli and international peace activists.

Does this sound realistic to you? The way they portrayed this "new order" here, it seems pretty savage, doesn't it?

We are supposed to believe that the Knesset has actually authorized the use of lethal force against unarmed protesters... ie: firing live rounds at peacefully protesting people? (Oh right... but only if they're Palestinian.)

Do you seriously believe this stuff? Come on... give me a break. Posting this article as legit news to back up your argument says more about you than it does about anything Israel may or may not be doing.

If you can back this up with a real news article saying the same thing then I'll be happy to issue a long and heartfelt apology.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. It's not a bullshit. Here's a news article about it that was posted in this forum....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x205608

[azurnoir]

22. delete always happens when net moves s l o w n/t

[azurnoir]

24. Shrug so you say

so what? there was a thread here on it at the time along with a discussion as to whether or not the type of rifle was actually lethal to human's, I am told it usual use is for small game hunting, at least in the US.

Took me a minute but here is the thread with a different source, the rifle type is a .22 Ruger.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=205608

[Violet_Crumble]

28. Shall we wait together for the long and heartfelt apology Shakti promised? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

91. Glad I wasn't holding my breath there! n/t

;)

[LeftishBrit]

4. It would be far more effective, I am sure.

The First Intifada, though not totally non-violent, was far more what you describe, and seemed to achieve much more than what has happened since.

I don't think that advocacy by a Muslim leader as such would do the trick here. It would have to come from Palestinian leaders themselves.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[Cary]

17. Funny. Skinner told me that my posts never get deleted here.

Yet there it is so I'm not imagining it. I am not allowed to express my opinion on this subject, but apparently you're allowed to insult me for having that opinion anyway because your response didn't get deleted.

"Telling"? I take Israel's side and I will continue to take Israel's side until the Arabs stake out a viable opposition.

The Intifada might have been a good start but the Arab powers couldn't leave it at that. I doubt that it was a good start anyway because some violence occurred.

As for removing nonviolent revolutionaries, I have no doubt that the Israelis would do that.

I never said this was easy. I simply suggest that it would be effective, where the violence fails.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Everyone at DU has to follow the rules...

I saw the post that was deleted, and I think you should read the rules and try to follow them just like we all have to. Opinions that are personal attacks, racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobic, and that sort of thing do get deleted, so I don't really understand why yr surprised....

[Cary]

21. Where in the rules does it say that I can't have my view of history?

The argument for the State of Israel, in my opinion, depends on certain historical claims. If you disallow the argument that the other party in this dispute doesn't actually have that historical claim, because you label that argument as "racist", then you have written the history and you have taken sides on the issue.

Sorry, but this really and truly isn't right. If you can dispute my argument as to the legitimatacy of the nationality at issue, fine. But that isn't what you have done here.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. You need to read the bit about making bigoted comments...

If yr view of history involves bigotry then DU really isn't going to be that comfortable a place for you. And denying the existance of any group of people, be it Palestinians or Israelis, is an undisputably bigoted stance....

If you have a problem with bigotry not being allowed at DU, I suggest you go and complain to Skinner or the I/P mods about it...

[Cary]

30. I do not "deny the existence of a group of people".

The question is not existence. The question is nationality and the reason it is a question is because a group of people decided that the land currently under jurisdiction of the Israeli government belongs to them.

Yes, there were displaced people but there was never a nation called "Palestine". There may be one in the future, but as far a place called "Palestine" it was a region and not a nation.

So who are you to claim this statement is "bigoted"? If it is true, which I believe it is, then it is true. If it is false then make your case.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Yes, you did...

If you'd said there was no such country as Palestine, yr post would still be standing. What you did was deny the existance of Palestinians with yr dit-dits...

[Cary]

36. There is no recognized nation called "Palestine", and there never was.

In terms of the Middle East, and specifically the region that was called "Palestine", it was named "Palestine" by the Romans after they conquered the nation of Israel, and it was, as I understand it, named "Palestine" as an insult to the conquered nation of Israel. Later it became part of the Ottoman Empire. After that it was part of the British mandate.

As far as "Palestinians" go, my understanding is that their nationality is "Arab" as are the nationalities of many, many residents of virtually all of the countries in the Middle East. I do not regard that name, "Arab", to be insult or a slur. Perhaps I'm wrong about that and if I am, please educate me.

In fact the current set up in the Middle East is problematic exactly because it's genesis is an arbitrary creation of the British Mandate, and not evolutionary, by nationality.

Apparently you know something I don't, so please educate me on that as well. Correct my misunderstanding that the "Palestinians" were in fact a creation of Yasser Arafat, an Arab born in Egypt, and Anwar Sadat after Egypt's repeated failures to destroy Israel ended in the supreme disaster of 1967. Please explain to me why "Jordan" isn't named "Palestine" and why there is no push to make "Jordan" into the nation of "Palestine". Please explain why Egypt doesn't want Gaza back. Please explain why Jordan doesn't want the West Bank. Please explain why the Arabs who call themselves "Palestinians" were expelled from Jordan and Lebanon and why they aren't free to settle in Egypt or Lebanon or Jordan.

And while you're at it, explain why I don't have a right to have my opinion without you calling me names like "bigot".

[Violet_Crumble]

38. I didn't call you a bigot...

And I'm not in the habit of 'educating' those with extremist views like Jordan = Palestine and the Palestinians are an artificial creation. I'd suggest you pick yrself up one or two history books and self-educate..

[Cary]

40. I gave you the honor and courtesy of explaining my position on the subject

You've called me names, and now you've added the name "extremist".

Do you want some of my sources? They are quite mainstream: "Paris 1919" and the "The Peace to End All Peace."

It is clear that you cannot educate me on this subject because you are not educated yourself. I highly recommend those books and then perhaps you can keep with me instead of lamely trying to talk down to me.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. Point out where I'm supposed to have called you a bigot...

I didn't, and you seem to be ignoring that...

I've read 'The Peace To End All Peace' and it'd take a severely twisted reading of it to come up with Jordan = Palestine or there being no such thing as Palestinians...

But yes. Clearly I'm not the slightest bit educated on the subject, what with my not wanting to waste time arguing ridiculous stances. I'm much the same when it comes to other things like Holocaust Denial as well :)

[Cary]

44. I can play this game with you too.

You labeled my point of view, that <name omitted for political correctness> is not a nationality to be bigoted and I don't accept your distinction between calling my point of view bigoted and calling me a bigot.

Where did I say "Jordan = Palestine"? That is not at all what I said, and it takes no "severely twisted reading" of "The Peace to End All Peace" to ask you the question I asked you.

If it is such a ridiculous question you should have no problem answering it, or the other questions I asked you.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. So now yr admitting I didn't call you a bigot...

Because pointing out that a statement or a POV is a bigoted one isn't calling someone a bigot. Which is another reason you should read the rules at DU...

[Cary]

47. Not.

Your posts are there. You called me "bigot". You called me "childish". You called me "hypocrite" and you just called me another name.

In the meantime you have evaded my questions regarding the substance of the subject matter here, and you're not going to bulldoze me. I can be here all day.

You?

[Violet_Crumble]

50. I think you need reading lessons...

Sure, my posts are there, and in none of them have I called you a bigot or a hypocrite or childish. So, shall you be reading the DU rules anytime soon?

[Cary]

53. Nothing wrong with my reading

It's your manners that could use a little work.

You could solve this easily by simply apologizing to the extent you may have insulted me by calling me names, and then you could make an attempt to acknowledge my point of view without necessarily agreeing to it.

That would be what I would have done if I were in a situation like yours. That is what I would expect from any decent liberal.

But, no. So I am left to assume that you have other issues here, and I do have to state that is is very "conservative" of you.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. Apparently there is...

Nowhere in any of my posts have I called you a bigot or any of the other things you claim. And when asked to show me where I did it, you point to something I said where I pointed out that a particular sort of comment is a bigoted one. And that's exacxtly what the rules at DU say...we can point out that a comment or a stance is bigoted, but we're not allowed to call other posters bigots. I don't call people bigots in this forum. I tend to keep those opinions to myself...


Though if yr honestly of the belief that pointing out a view you hold is a bigoted one equals calling you a bigot, then how come yr sitting there throwing the word conservative at me in multiple posts? Coz according to yr logic yr calling me a conservative...

[Cary]

58. I'm not calling you a conservative. I specifically referred to you as liberal

I'm saying that you're being obtuse and acting like a "conservative", not a conservative, and that I'm ashamed of you.

To the extent you think I'm calling you a conservative, I'm sorry. However I wouldn't deem true conservatism to be an insult.

[Violet_Crumble]

61. I think telling DUers they're acting like conservatives is pretty damn insulting...

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

67. I don't act like a conservative, and you seem to enjoy throwing insults around n/t

I guess I could embark on a trail of 'yr acting like a <insert insulting label here>, but unlike what you've done in yr posts, I won't stoop to that level.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

75. Thinking obviously isn't yr forte...

I didn't call you names, so you can cry yrself to sleep over it, coz i don't apologise for something I haven't done..

[Cary]

83. Respectfully, Ma'am, you have no idea whom you're insulting

I'd bet you dollars to donuts that my resume blows yours away.

<sarcasm>Of course "Thinking obviously isn't yr forte..." isn't an insult, just like you weren't name calling when you called me a "bigot", "childish", and a "hypocrite".</sarcasm>

[Violet_Crumble]

48. The difference between nationality and ethnicity...

Arab is an ethnicity, not a nationality. That's why there's Arabs of many nationalities around the world. Egyptian, Palestinian, Israeli, American, Australian, East Timorese - they're nationalities....

[Cary]

51. If there truly is a nation

But that hasn't happened in the case of the <name omitted for political correctness>.

By the way, I'm not necessarily opposed to a Palestinian nation. What I am opposed to is the way the people have been used by Arabs in an attempt to destroy Israel. If there could be a legitimate Palestinian nation in Gaza and the West Bank and if the people there can live in peace with Israel, I am all for that. But when Arabs engage in this kind of behavior, well, you tell me why I should accept it:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-israel-soldiers-funerals,0,3441792.story

"In Lebanon, the freed prisoners received a heroes' welcome as they visited the grave of the slain Hezbollah military commander Mughniyeh. Supporters showered them with rice as they placed a wreaths at the grave.

"We swear by God ... to continue on your same path and not to retreat until we achieve the same stature that God bestowed on you," said Samir Kantar, who had been the longest-held Lebanese prisoner in Israel until his release Wednesday.

"He had been convicted of a notorious 1979 attack where he allegedly killed a father in front of his 4-year-old daughter, and then killed the girl by crushing her skull with a rifle butt. The girl's 2-year-old sister was accidentally smothered by her mother, who held her hand over the toddler's mouth to stifle her cries while the two hid in a crawl space. An Israeli policeman was also killed.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. Palestinian nationalism certainly does exist...

See, the thing is that it's not you who gets to decide whether a nationality exists or not. They tend to come into being of their own accord more often than not...

I wasn't aware that all Palestinians are supposed to be judged on the actions of one murderer who isn't even a Palestinian. Does that mean you think it's acceptable for me to judge all Americans based on the actions of an American child murderer?

[Cary]

55. It is not a matter of judging

It is a matter of meeting certain criteria and earning the right to be recognized.

Do you believe Osama bin Laden and the people who cheered and adored him after 9/11 deserve a nation? Maybe we should set aside part of Montana for them, eh?

[Violet_Crumble]

62. Bu you aren't the person who decides what criteria are to be met or who should be recognised...

I don't know after yr weird statement that Arab is a nationality, and now the even weirder bin Laden thing that you really have an understanding of what nationality is about..

Can you explain what you think Kuntar has to do with the Palestinian people or their aspirations for statehood?

[Cary]

66. Weird?

???

Do you think I made this up? Simply Google the words "Arab Nationality" and you will find tons and tons of sources on the subject. Your idea, that Arab is not a nationality, is from where?

I'm pretty sure you invented it, so it is quite odd that you would refer to "yr weird statement that Arab is a nationality."

Are you sure you read "The Peace to End All Peace?" I'm having serious doubts.

[Violet_Crumble]

68. Arab is an ethnicity, not a nationality...

Geez, where did I get that idea from? Maybe a mixture of common-sense and doing Political Science? But don't you worry. You'll probably just claim I'm making it all up, right?

An Arab (Arabic: عربي‎, ʿarabi) is a person who identifies as such on genealogical,<4><5> linguistic,<6><7> or cultural grounds.<8><9> The plural form, Arabs (العرب al-ʿarab), refers to the ethnic group at large.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab

Maybe you'd like to try to explain why you think Arabs in my country don't share the same nationality as me? What about other ethnicities? Jews aren't a nationality either - they're an ethnic group...

Um, why would you be having serious doubts I've read Fromkin's book?

[Cary]

70. I hate to tell you this, but your wiki article doesn't support your contention

"in the modern nationalist era, any person who is a citizen of a country where Arabic is either the national language or one of the official languages, and/or a citizen of a country which may simply be a member of the Arab League (thereby having Arabic as an official government language, even if not used by the majority of the population). This definition would cover over 300 million people. It may be the most contested definition as it is the most simplistic one. It would exclude the entire Arab diaspora, but include not only those genealogically Arabs (Gulf Arabs and others, such as Bedouins, where they may exist) and those Arabized-Arab-identified, but would also include Arabized non-Arab-identified groups (including many Maronite Lebanese and many Egyptians, both Christians and Muslims) and even non-Arabized ethnic minorities which have remained non-Arabic-speaking (such as the Berbers in Morocco, Kurds in Iraq, or the Somali majority of Arab League member Somalia)."

[Violet_Crumble]

76. It's not my wiki article nor my contention. Arab is no more a nationality than Jew or Asian...

I don't really get what's so difficult to understand about that. The bit you posted wasn't even saying that Arab is a nationality. But is it possible if you return that you actually answer a question you get asked? Do you beleive that Jews and Asians are nationalities as well? Or does this only apply to Arabs?

[Shaktimaan]

88. Just for the record,

Judaism is widely considered to be a nationality. By every measure Judaism is a difficult sect to define precisely. It has aspects of an ethnicity, a religion, a culture and a nationality and no single term is all-inclusive or exact. But among those who have sought to find an appropriate term to describe Judaism, referring to it as a nation usually finds its way to the top of the list.

Yes, since the diaspora it is a nation that speaks many different languages and resides all over the globe. But Judaism is not exclusively a religion, one doesn't need to practice Judaism at all to be considered Jewish. It certainly is not a race. Jews span many different races on most continents. It is not even an ethnicity as Jews can come from many different ethnic backgrounds. And when was the last time you heard of someone converting to a new ethnicity? And even within the cultural aspects of Judaism we see a wide variety of differences, many having little or no resemblance to each other.

What Judaism is though, is a collection of traditions, a universal history that holds its members together, and most importantly, a shared identity. In short, the basic requirements of a nation.

I have no idea if Arabs also constitute a nation of people. But as a Jew who has spent time contemplating his identity, I can assure you that the term "nationality" applies.

[Violet_Crumble]

57. More on Palestinian nationality...

Israeli musician adopts Palestinian nationality

RAMALLAH, West Bank, Jan 13 (Reuters) - Daniel Barenboim,
the world renowned Israeli pianist and conductor, has taken
Palestinian citizenship and said he believed his rare new status
could serve as model for peace between the two peoples.


"It is a great honour to be offered a passport," he said
late on Saturday after a Beethoven piano recital in Ramallah,
the West Bank city where he has been active for some years in
promoting contact between young Arab and Israeli musicians.


"I have also accepted it because I believe that the
destinies of ... the Israeli people and the Palestinian people
are inextricably linked," Barenboim said. "We are blessed -- or
cursed -- to live with each other. And I prefer the first."


"The fact that an Israeli citizen can be awarded a
Palestinian passport, can be a sign that it is actually
possible."

http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/archives/news/culture/20080114-Israeli-pianist-Daniel-Barenboim-palestinian-passport-music.php

[Cary]

60. And this is supposed to bother me because. . .

???

As I said, I am all for peace. Every bit of it.

[Violet_Crumble]

63. It's not supposed to bother you. It's just one example of the nationality existing n/t

[ProgressiveMuslim]

73. I equate "arab" to "hispanic." Shared language. Many share a religion.

Some share cultural traits. Different nationalities. And the spoken language of the communities varies hugely. My husband can barely understand spoken Moroccan Arabic. While Arabs all speak their own dialects, those who are literate all read Standard Arabic (which is usually the language of public discourse and speeches) and many know the classical Arabic of the Koran.

Just as spoken language differs, so do local customs and cultural practices.

[Violet_Crumble]

77. Exactly...

I think there's a tendency amongst some Americans to try their hardest to throw all Arabs into the same basket. They don't do that when it comes to caucasians or asians or any other ethnic group. In this instance, where that poster is claiming being Arab is a nationality, a friend of mine would be rather shocked to find out her nationality is Arab and not Australian. Like me, she was born here to Lebanese parents, but apparently unlike me, she must carry two passports when she travels - one Arab and one Australian...

on the language thing. When i started to learn arabic, I tried to learn colloquial Egyptian, and one of the first things that was pointed out was the differences in dialects. The most extreme differences would be similar to English spoken around the world. I discovered that when I was travelling with a bunch of American tourists there were times they gave me blank look coz they didn't understand some terms I used which were kind of unique to here...

[Cary]

80. There is no question that there are huge disparities amongst Arabs

There are equally huge disparities between Arabs whom you presumably would deem to be of the same "nationality". Obviously there is a huge disparity between Sunni and Shiite Arabs. In Israel itself the most aggressively anti-Palestinian's are the Druse and as I understand it bin Laden himself and Al Qaeda generally are more anti Israel by convenience than anything else. The real enemies of Al Qaeda are fellow Arabs who are not of them. Moreover Shiites in Iran don't even consider themselves to be Arabs.

Nor is it like there is a huge love fest going on between what you would call Palestinians, for that matter.

So I'll throw your question back to you. Where are you going with this?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

86. Do with what? I just added a note about a paradigm by which to understand "Arab."

FYI, no Iranians -- Sunni or Shia -- consider themselves Arabs.

They speak Farsi, not Arabic.

No doubt, European colonialism in the Arab speaking world has left some deep problems. Same in Africa. Too bad the white folks didn't stay home.

[Shaktimaan]

89. re: Too bad the white folks didn't stay home.

LOL. You could say the same thing about the Arabs. It isn't as if they always lived across the entire middle east. Or that they settled the area peacefully. Or that they even just refrained from violently settling European land.

Nor is it true that the Arab countries that are in the worst shape are those that suffered from extended European colonialism. Egypt and Morocco, for instance, are doing much better than places like Lebanon and Syria who didn't face anything like real colonialism at all. Still, imagine how Morocco might have prospered had it never been conquered by Arab invaders.

71. And the IDF response to true nonviolent resistance? VIOLENCE!

This comment is more interesting. I would answer that of course there's going to be a violent Israeli response to peaceful Palestinian protests. That's the point isn't it?

It isn't like Gandhi never faced violence as a reaction to his (far more) peaceful protests. In fact, the strength of Gandhi's protests were that they remained peaceful EVEN in the face of violent retribution. The true measure of any non-violent movement is not gaged by its response to reasonable dialogue but to violence. The fact of the matter is that a widespread peace movement would be the most viable weapon against the occupation available, and the Israelis know it. Of course they'll try and undermine it with limited violence. Also true is the fact that this is exactly the path towards achieving any real solidarity against the occupation as a violent oppression of a peaceful people. It is the fastest and surest route to real change.

Non-violence won't work in the face of a movement like nazism, which would only make their genocidal plans easier. Luckily the Israelis are nothing like that. The violence would be limited in scale and intensity.

In short, I don't know why you're offering this as an example of why non-violence wouldn't work. I think it is an example of the opposite.

[LeftishBrit]

94. Agreed; very good point about Gandhi.

And I think that colonialism was a very bad thing; had bad consequences; and the 'divide and rule' and 'create boundaries for the colonial rulers' convenience' strategies had seriously bad effects on peace in the region.

Nonetheless, leaders cannot forever blame all their countries' problems on the former regimes, bad as they were. That's a Bush-like tactic ('it's all because of the Democrats before me'). After 30 or 60 years or however many years, Mugabe cannot convincingly blame all the woes of Zimbabwe on Ian Smith or Cecil Rhodes, and the Lebanese leaders can't blame all the problems of their country on the French. Ian Smith and Cecil Rhodes and the French colonialists certainly carried out disastrous policies with far-reaching effects; but the countries' leaders have to ultimately find some way of reversing these effects and leading their countries in a new direction. Otherwise they're essentially telling their citizens that there was no real point in getting independence, as everything was already pre-determined by that point (like a sort of political version of 'original sin' and 'predestination') and that colonialism must last forever, even after its formal abolition.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

97. So a violent response to non-violent resistance is acceptable.

But violent resistance to violent occupation is not acceptable?

And I would point out, that most Palestinians believe exactly that nonviolent resistance to Israel would be as effective as nonviolent resistance to Nazism. The fact that armed resistance by Hezbollah has indeed been effective, while peaceful negotiation by Fatah has been a dismal failure really seems to prove their point, woudln't you agree?

[LeftishBrit]

99. It isn't acceptable

The point is that violent responses to nonviolent resistance give the resisters the moral high ground, and help their cause to win in the long term. (Which does not help the victims of the violence, of course.) Non-violent resistance tends to be the most effective in the long term; though not always in the short term.

'The fact that armed resistance by Hezbollah has indeed been effective, while peaceful negotiation by Fatah has been a dismal failure really seems to prove their point, woudln't you agree'

I think that the Israelis have acted counterproductively to their own interests (apart from all other issues), by first over-reacting in the Lebanon war; and then ultimately pandering to the violent resistance. Though at opposite extremes, both were IMO 'short-term-ist' reactions, and both have caused/will cause more problems in the long term.

However, when you say that 'armed resistance by Hezbollah has indeed been effective' - in what sense, and to what degree? They were successful in getting the prisoners released. They have had local successes in gaining power in Lebanon, which are not strictly related to Israel. But they have *not* achieved a Palestinian state. And my view is that non-violent resistance might not have achieved as many dramatic immediate short-term successes as releasing these prisoners - but in the medium/ long term would probably have already resulted in an independent Palestinian state.

[Vegasaurus]

101. I agree-- No way has terrorism been "effective"

It has created instability throughout the middle east, and caused civil war in several countries (which the apologists will blame on "white colonialism" as opposed to internal problems in Arab factions).

Terrorism has made the lives of Palestinians AND Lebanese much, much more miserable.

I can't imagine what any sane person could think is "effective" about armed resistance.

The proof is in the reality on the ground.

Civil war, high unemployment, lack of services, people in refugee camps for decades.

If this is a success, I say show me the failure.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

102. Hezbollah's armed resistance was quite effective in meeting their own

stated goals.

I wasn't aware that their goal was to achieve a Palestinian state.

As long as those who use armed resistance achieve their goals, you can expect others to follow suit.

And how do you think the proposed prisoner swap for Shalit will be received and viewed???

These are some crazy days in Israel!

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[eyl]

100. Armed resistance by Hizbullah was effective?

Only if you define a Pyrrhic victory as effective (sure, Hizbullah managed to get Kuntar released*). They also got Lebanon trashed in the bargain.

*The other 4 prisoners don't count because they wouldn't have been in Israeli custody in the first lace if not for the war

[ProgressiveMuslim]

104. Really, you don't consider Hezbollah the most powerful player in Lebanon right now?? nt

[azurnoir]

105. Hezbollah dropped cluster bombs on Lebanon?

Gosh I did not know Hezbollah had that capability, wow learn something new everyday thanks

[eyl]

107. How does that rebut my point in any way?

(in fact, it supports it)

[Dick Dastardly]

90. Nice racist statement about white people

You have made a few such statements recently about white people and or Europeans.


How about too bad Arabs and Mohamed didnt stay at home in Saudi Arabia instead of going on centuries of imperialist conquest and oppression leaving deep problems all over Asia, Africa and Europe. Do you like that?

[Vegasaurus]

92. The problem with the anti-White people, colonialist meme

is that these are the same folks who want billions of dollars in aid for the third worlders, but none of the responsibility.

They want to kick the gift-horse, but take, take, take, all the while, without any responsibility on their end.

[Violet_Crumble]

98. I didn't realise colonialism was a great thing. And there was no anti-White people meme...

Colonialism was something that brought a lot of misery to the people living in areas affected by it. It most certainly isn't something I ever thought I'd see defended on a left-wing board like DU. Also, if just mentioning the words 'white people' is seen by you as racist, then the many times you mention 'Arabs' (and it's always in a negative way) would be seen by you as racist as well, wouldn't it?

[Violet_Crumble]

96. And here's a little 'racist' poem about white people!

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to naught.

Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go make them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloak your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers.

[LeftishBrit]

106. By Rudyard Kipling. Very popular poem in Britain 100 years ago

but not remotely reflective of current opinion. Except maybe, and tragically, that of Tony Blair.

[Violet_Crumble]

108. The point I was making was about those stupid accusations that saying 'white people' is racist...

Sorry. I should have spelt out my point, I guess...

[LeftishBrit]

93. Absolutely true...

but a lot of colonialism in the Middle East was carried out by the Turkish Ottoman rulers - or do you consider them Europaean too?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

74. Make no mistake, quotations marks constitute denial.

[Cary]

81. Denial of what?

I deny that there has ever been a nationality known as <name omitted for political correctness>.

Are there people who would like to form such a nation? Yes, absolutely. Do they have a right to want to form such a nation? I believe they do. Are they suffering at the hands of the Israelis? I don't see how anyone could deny that.

Would I like to see a viable solution? Of course I would.

I suggest that if they truly embraced a non-violent revolutionary strategy they could be devastatingly effective. I suggest that any and all acts of terror as well as their determination to destroy Israel do nothing more than undermine their cause.

If you don't like my opinion, that's really just too bad for you. It is my opinion and I will stick to it until I find one that makes more sense.

[Vegasaurus]

82. As I have said numerous times on this forum

the "steadfastness" and violent resistance that some here are so proud of, for they think it show some "strength" of Palestinian character, has only made their lives exponentially more miserable.

The only way that the Palestinians will get a state is to stop their violent resistance and terrorism, accept that Israel will live next door (not that they will annihilate Israel), and realize that, like Obama says, they will not get back 100% of the WB, although they will get back "the majority".

Without recognizing the obvious, which the Palestinians clearly don't, they will continue to have increasing misery in their lives.

The Palestinians leadership has made pawns of their people for political reasons. If only they cared as much about their people as they do about terrorism, they would have a state in no time.

[Lithos]

87. Make no mistake, sir

There is a Palestinian Nationality. What has NOT occurred is a Palestinian State. This is a significant difference to remember and to try and argue differently is to repeat some rather extreme positions.

L-

[Cary]

23. Moreover, how do you come to claim that my post was a "personal attack" and that. . .

"ProgressiveMusim's" was not?

I am not surprised. I am pissed.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. I said yr post was a bigoted post, not a personal attack...

And PM's wasn't a personal attack. She repeated the ugly crap you posted, which is why her post was deleted...

[Cary]

31. Wrong again.

It was a personal attack. I'm sure PM reported me and that led to my post's deletion. Her post was deleted shortly after I reported her.

Now, if you have an argument that Palestinians are a true nationality, go ahead and make it. I'm waiting.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. Knock off the bullshit.. I saw the post...

And I don't give a fuck about who you alerted on after having a big complain in public about how yr opinion was being stifled. I've got two words for it - childish and hypocritical. Get over it. Most of us have had posts deleted at some point and most of us don't make a big song and dance about it. If it's tearing you up so much, go talk to the mods or skinner...


You want me to argue that there is such a thing as the Palestinian people? Uh, why?

[Cary]

37. You knock off the bullshit.

You've now called me "bigot", "childish", and "hypocritical". You are the one engaged in name calling.

I don't care what you argue. I am here to have a discussion. I have explained my position. In the post that you so object to I simply acknowledged that my bias was for Israel, and that if the <name omitted for political correctness> engaged in an effective strategy of nonviolence against the State of Israel they would be successful at the expense of the State of Israel. I said that would bother me, which is why they would be smart to engage in such a strategy.

You consider me to be a bigot because I have that opinion? You believe me to be a bigot because I believe that Israel should survive?

You think you can bark orders at me? Here's one for you: if you address me be prepared for my response and be prepared to explain yourself and defend your sorry mewlings, or you take your own advice and you STFU.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. Huh? Where did I call you a bigot???

I didn't. nor did I call *you* childish and hypocritical. Is it 'sorry mewlings' to point out that bleeding obvious fact?

[Cary]

41. What "fact" have you pointed out?

You believe <name omitted for political correctness> to be a nationality. I have explained to you why I don't believe this to be true.

Implicit in that is that you have a better explanation than your epithets. So the only honorable course for you here is to either give me your explanation, or apologize for insulting me.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. That I didn't call you a bigot....

When it comes to apologies, you owe me one for accusing me of calling you a bigot...

btw, why can't you bring yrself to type out the word Palestinians? That <name omitted> thing is kind of lame...

[Cary]

46. You say you didn't call me "bigot", "childish", or "hypocrite"

I say you did.

Which part of "I don't believe <name omitted for political correctness> to be a nationality" don't you understand?

Likewise, I never use the word "Pro Life". Nor do I use the word "death taxes", or various and sundry other words designed for certain political purposes.

Words have power, or you wouldn't be so offended by me not recognizing the nationality, now would you?

Now, as I said I have explained my position to you. You have evaded my explanation in ways I would not expect from a liberal (which is a word I use often and proudly to describe myself), but rather I would expect from a "conservative", which is a word I use in quotations because I do not believe that the radical extremists who have hijacked conservatism, not in quotes, are anything of the sort.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. Tha's right. Coz I didn't...

You were asked to show me where I'm supposed to have called you a bigot and you didn't.

[Cary]

56. Sez you

You used the names, they were direct quotes, and you were referring to me. If you weren't calling me those names then whom were you referring to?

[Violet_Crumble]

59. Actually, what's in my posts shows I didn't...

Do you not grasp the difference between saying an idea or POV is a bigoted one, and calling someone a bigot??

[Cary]

64. There is more to your label than you are willing to acknowledge

. . . and it goes to the history that you don't want to discuss.

Again, you could make this right. I told you how. You refuse to do so, even though it would be no skin off your nose. Therefore I am forced to conclude that you have something else at play here, which is evasion of the underlying issues. And that is very "conservative".

[Violet_Crumble]

78. Since when has been pointing out that a stance is a bigoted one 'conservative'??

Gosh, that'd mean a whole bunch of folk in this forum are being very "conservative"!

[LeftishBrit]

27. I haven't seen any of the deleted posts, but certainly agree with your last point..

'I never said this was easy. I simply suggest that it would be effective, where the violence fails.'

[Cary]

32. You understand my point LeftishBrit, and we agree

I guess you're a "bigot" too?

I wonder if my post will get deleted for putting the word "bigot" in quotations?

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Leftishbrit's never said anything bigoted...

And while she didn't see the post of yrs that was deleted, I did, and what you said that she replied to was very different than you putting the word Palestinians in dit-dits. Maybe you should ask her if she agrees with you putting the word Palestinians in quotations?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

14. Let's face it: every Palestinian -- Christian or Muslim -- who stays on their land

and in their homes, in the face of overwhelming odds and hardship is engaged in nonviolent resistance.

One of the first people to be deported during the first intifadah was Mubarak Awad, and practioner of Gandhi-style non violent resistance. The Israelis were smart to get him out quick!

Do you folks really consider the first intifadah a "violent" form of resistance?

[pelsar]

18. Intifada I

Molotov cocktails, rocks slung from sling shots, tires with fire being sent down streets.......

whereas it was not as violent as intifada II, which used live fire.......i believe if anyone in any city in the world would throw a molotov cocktail on someone, that act would be considered violent...if you dont believe so, perhaps try it.....and when your before the judge, explain to him/her how its not violent, i'm sure you'll get some "chuckles" from him......

[ProgressiveMuslim]

71. And the IDF response to true nonviolent resistance? VIOLENCE!

Seven injured at anti-wall protest in Ni'lin
Date: 17 / 07 / 2008 Time: 18:06

Ramallah – Ma'an – Hundreds of the residents West Bank village of Ni'lin near Ramallah and nearby villages, along with international and Israeli peace activists participated in a peaceful demonstration against the Israeli separation wall on Thursday.

The rally took to the main streets of the village, marching from the village center to bulldozers that have been uprooting trees on village lands for the past 70 days. As the protests approached the bulldozers, Israeli soldiers discharged tear gas. Seven people, including an international peace activists, were hit with rubber coated steel bullets and dozens of others suffered the effects of tear gas.

The spokesperson of the popular committee against the Wall in the village, Salah Al-Khawajah told Ma'an, " the Israeli army have started to put marks for the construction of a tunnel that will extend from the first third of the village to the wall and will be close to the homes in the north of the village. In the south of the village it will cut off 200 dunums of village lands, making it difficult for farmers to reach their lands."

Al-Khwajah called on governmental and non-governmental agencies to support the residents of Ni'lin, whose economy, education and health are gradually being destroyed by the wall's construction.


---------------------------

All in all, wasn't the restraint Palestinians demonstrated during Intifadah I mind boggling?

Perhaps Israel should try tactics of nonviolence in their suppression of the people of Palestine. I don't think the iron fist has been terribly effective, do you?

[Cary]

84. You don't tell the whole story behind your Intifadah

Ehud Barak offered a deal to Yasser Arafat at Camp David. It is inconceivable that the Israelis could offer a better deal than that, and it is utterly unreasonable to expect anything better. This effectively ended Barak's career and ushered in the hard liners behind no less than Ariel Sharon.

And Israel was rewarded for this effort with the Intifada.

Again, I deplore the violence against <name omitted for political correctness>. Really and truly I do, and more than you can know. But when you start five wars, bent on the annihilation of your neighbor, and you lose big time in those wars you're just not in a strong position and you are kind of sort of bound to have some bad things happen to you afterwards, kind of as a result.

Nor does it help, when you've been vanquished, to keep poking at your neighbors with a sharp stick.

I don't know if the iron fist has been terribly effective because I don't know how bad it would be without the iron fist. I suspect it would be a lot worse and I have to leave the Israelis a lot of room to do what they think they need to do to protect themselves.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

95. LOL! Is there a single piece of stale propaganda you haven't referred to in this thread? nt

[pelsar]

85. they did well during intifada I...

for two reasons

1) the protests were limited to the westbank and gaza...thereby making it clear that its just about the occupation
2) the violence was limited

those two aspects brought about a change in the israeli thinking (from those on the center right)...that there can be a Palestinian State along side israel..and the PA leadership was brought in, israel left parts of the westbank and the Palestinians got some self rule....

then they started killing israelis beyond the 67 line....

and once again there was change in the thinking of the israelis..this time it was from the left....the Palestinian self rule had turned out to be very dangerous to israeli citizens....
and so the road blocks came up....and eventually the wall...

------

violence has been a massive failure for the Palestinians....true non violent protests will take time to be accepted by the israelis as not just a tactic but a change in culture...good luck with it...but its the only one that will work.

[Cary]

25. There are a million Arab Israeli citizens. . .

a fact that is so often glossed over. It is true that their standard of living may not be comparable to their Jewish neighbors, but compare their conditions to those of other Arabs, generally.

I wince a little when I say that as their nationality shouldn't be an issue at all. Israel certainly isn't perfect, but these Arab people seem to be able to get a reasonably fair deal in Israel and they seem to be able to get along.

Of course there have always been Jews in the Middle East for the past few thousand years, at least. Arabs are hardly the only victims in the region and they have no claim to being perfect. Did the Jews who emigrated to Israel from surrounding Arab countries have a reasonably fair deal? How about the few Jews who still live in those surrounding Arab countries? Are their stories told? Do they get any consideration?

Of course the Israelis didn't get their deal by being non-violent. I will give you that. But so far Arabs have shown only that Arabs are not going to get anywhere against Israelis with violence, and if I were the Israelis(and I am not) I would be determined to ensure, absolutely, that Arabs would continue to get nowhere with them with violence. Wouldn't you, if you were the Israelis?

Mind you that I have to be careful about how I say these things, lest my post gets deleted.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

72. I don't see your point.

[Cary]

79. There are many facets to this.

I would never contend that my opinion on this is in any way unique and I'm sure you can find my ideas articulated by far more talented and knowledgable people than I. I am also sure that you have heard it all and I am not interested in barfing a big laundry list back at you.

I can start with this: Israel is a viable and successful Democracy and by far the best government in the Middle East where both Jews and Arabs live in peace, thrive and prosper, showing that it is possible to achieve such a thing. In the meantime considerable effort has been devoted to hurting and destroying Israel, to what end? Israel today is actually more successful than ever and she doesn't even have oil. You would think that it would be in the best interests of the people of the Middle East to put less energy into hurting and warring with Israel, which has yielded only catastrophic failure and misery.

Of course Israel is not perfect and I am distressed at a lot of things the Israelis do, but at the same time the Arabs have been busy giving Israelis too many excuses to do horrible things.

Again, none of this is unique or novel.

I don't know what to tell you PM. I could go on and on about how I think the answer for all of the Arabs and Arab nations in the Middle East is to follow Egypt and Jordan, and if that happened there could easily be a Palestinian nation. But at the same time it doesn't seem that this is in the cards because it doesn't seem like the Arab people, as a whole, will allow it.

Frankly, PM, I have serious doubts that we're going to survive as species either.