When Will It Be Our Time?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

By MUSTAFA BARGHOUTHI
Published: December 16, 2009

RAMALLAH, WEST BANK — I have lived my entire adult life under occupation, with Israelis holding ultimate control over my movement and daily life.

When young Israeli police officers force me to sit on the cold ground and soldiers beat me during a peaceful protest, I smolder. No human being should be compelled to sit on the ground while exercising rights taken for granted throughout the West.

It is with deepening concern that I recognize the Obama administration is not yet capable of standing up to Israel and the pro-Israel lobby. Our dream of freedom is being crushed under the weight of immovable and constantly expanding Israeli settlements.

Days ago, the State Department spokesman, Ian Kelly, managed only to term such illegal building “dismaying.” The Israeli foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, stands up and walks out on the U.S. envoy, George Mitchell, every time the American envoy mentions East Jerusalem.

And Javier Solana, just prior to completing his stint as European Union foreign policy chief, claimed Palestinian moves toward statehood “have to be done with time, with calm, in an appropriate moment.” He adds: “I don’t think today is the moment to talk about that.”

When, precisely, is a good time for Palestinian freedom? I call on Mr. Solana’s replacement, Catherine Ashton, to take concrete actions to press for Palestinian freedom rather than postpone it.

If Israel insists on hewing to antiquated notions of determining the date of another people’s freedom then it is incumbent on Palestinians to organize ourselves and highlight the moral repugnance of such an outlook.

Through decades of occupation and dispossession, 90 percent of the Palestinian struggle has been nonviolent, with the vast majority of Palestinians supporting this method of struggle. Today, growing numbers of Palestinians are participating in organized nonviolent resistance.

In the face of European and American inaction, it is crucial that we continue to revive our culture of collective activism by vigorously and nonviolently resisting Israel’s domination over us....

read on!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/opinion/17iht-edbarghouthi.html?_r=3

[midnight]

1. It sounds so disheartening to hear about such oppression.

[YOY]

2. The rate they're popping 'em out...not too long.

n.t.

[shira]

3. it could have been their time last Sept 2008...maybe the PA should drop their demand of RoR

Can't have both RoR and a 2-state solution. It has to be one or the other, not both.

Why a Peace Agreement with the PLO has not been Reached

Ze'ev B. Begin


Published (in Hebrew) in Haaretz – 5 Dec 2009

"To this day, I cannot understand why the Palestinian leadership did not accept the far-reaching and unprecedented proposal I offered them," wrote former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (The Washington Post, 17.7.2009). "It would be worth exploring the reasons that the Palestinians rejected my offer and preferred, instead, to drag their feet, avoiding real decisions."

The main elements of Olmert's proposal, as understood by Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mahzan) were: acceptance of the principle of the "right of return" for Palestinian Arab refugees and resettling thousands of them in Israel; Israel's withdrawal from 98 percent of the territory of Judea, Samaria and Gaza; and a land swap for the remaining two percent (Washington Post, 29.5.09). In addition, Olmert proposed a "safe passage" between Gaza and Judea; acceptance of the eastern part of Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian State; and relinquishing Israel's sovereignty on the Temple Mount, the Mount of Olives and the City of David while proposing a joint administration of these sites by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the PLO, the United States and Israel (The Australian, 28.11.09).

What this means is that at the end of 2008 Mahmoud Abbas rejected a concrete proposal for the establishment of a state in all of Samaria, Judea and Gaza, with its capital in Jerusalem. The failure of the recent negotiations, following the failure of the previous round of negotiations in 2000, demands an explanation.




As a first attempt to explain the recent failure, it was suggested, mainly in Israel, that the belated nature of the offer and the weakness of the Olmert government at the time the offer was made led the PLO to reject it. PLO leaders, however, at no point questioned the prime minister's authority to negotiate with them, just as they did not question the authority of Ehud Barak in 2000, after he lost his parliamentary majority. The PLO leaders suggested more substantial explanations for the most recent failure.

Saeb Erekat asserted that Jerusalem had been left unsolved (Al Jazeera, 27.3.09; translations from Arabic are by the Middle East Media Research Institute, and appear on its Web site). He later claimed that the problem had been Israel's refusal to acknowledge PLO sovereignty in the entire area up to the 1967 lines before attempting a detailed demarcation of the border (Al Dustour, 25.6.09). Recently, Mahmoud Abbas stated that it was the number of refugees who would be allowed to return to Israel that had remained in dispute (Al-Hayat al-Jadida, 10.11.09). However, of all these, the most precise and thorough explanation for the failure of the negotiations is to be found in the simple words of Abbas: "The gaps were wide" (The Washington Post, 29.5.09). Obviously, to narrow the gaps after all the concessions Israel offered, the PLO still demands more.

This means that the explanation for the rejection of Israel's far-reaching proposals is a profound one, and is to be found in the adherence of the PLO leadership to the traditional, extremist positions of the movement. While it has been argued that these positions are no longer valid, they were in fact recently reaffirmed by the sixth Fatah conference in Bethlehem, convened in August 2009.

Resolutions of the Fatah Conference
The principal ideological resolution of the conference reads: "The goals, principles and methods, as they are written in Chapter One of the charter, are the basic point of departure for our movement, and are part of the ideological and political identity of our people." The Charter is posted on the official Fatah Web site, and includes, in Chapter One, Article 19: "Armed struggle is a strategy, not a tactic. The armed revolution of the Arab Palestinian people is a crucial element in the battle for liberation and for the elimination of the Zionist presence. This struggle will not stop until the Zionist entity is eliminated and Palestine is liberated."

The practical translation of this declaration is reflected in the conference's resolution on the issue of refugees: "Efforts must be made to implement the right of return and restitution for refugees, and they are entitled to have their property restored. Likewise, the refugee problem should uniformly, with no differentiation based on the refugees' location, including the refugees within the 1948 areas ." Before the Conference, Saeb Erekat explained that "there is restitution for each article: not return or restitution but return and restitution," (Al Dustour, 25.6.09).

The suggestion in some circles, that the PLO will eventually give up on the "right of return" but will only announce this at the very last moment, is not supported by facts on the ground: the very last moment has already passed twice - in 2000 and in 2009.

This unequivocal position regarding the "right of return" is well tied to another resolution of the Fatah conference: "There must be absolute opposition, from which there will be no withdrawal, to recognizing Israel as a 'Jewish state,' in order to protect the refugees' rights and the rights of our people on the other side of the Green Line ." This statement is a direct echo of the announcements by Fatah leaders made several months prior to the conference. Ahmed Qureia (Abu Ala) said: "It's not fair to demand that we recognize as the state of the Jewish People because that means an evacuation of the Arabs from Israel and a predetermination of refugees' future, before the negotiations are over. Our refusal is adamant," (Haaretz, 26.5.09). Abbas explained that the PLO refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, since it would imply renunciation of any large-scale resettlement of refugees within Israel (Washington Post, 29.5.09).

However, the source of Fatah's opposition to recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is deeper than that. It arises from the reaffirmation of the term "Zionist entity," meaning that the ideology of the movement is still based on the assertion that Judaism is not a nationality, but only a religion, which has no right to a sovereign state. Hence, recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people contradicts the profound ideology of Fatah, as explained by Erekat before the Fatah conference: "Whoever asks you to recognize the Jewish State asks you to fill a form requesting to join the Zionist movement. This movement maintains that religion is nationality," (al Dustour, 25.6.09).

Hence, what we see is a solid ideology: "The liberation of Palestine" will come in the wake of the return of the refugees to Israel and the "elimination of the Zionist presence," and no decision contradicting this plan, such as acceptance of Israel as a "Jewish state", can be allowed. Whether such a plan can be realistically implemented in the near future is unimportant. Declaring it is aimed mainly at the movement activists, in order to keep them politically alert with a clear understanding of the common goal. Experience shows that Fatah resolutions and declarations by its leaders should be regarded seriously, and the competition for public opinion support between Fatah and Hamas increases Fatah's commitment to its stated policy.

In August 2009, attempting to improve its image, Fatah could have refrained from any discussion of its Charter, or could have adapted it to current political conditions by eliminating its extremist sections. However, by preferring a blatant reaffirmation of the Charter, the conference demonstrated the importance that its delegates attribute to adherence to their original goal. Abbas, who has been recently threatening to resign, did not try to prevent the acceptance of the extremist resolutions at the conference through a similar threat, and has not expressed any
reservations about them.

We can therefore assume that the updated platform of Fatah indeed defines the impossible Fatah conditions for an agreement with Israel. Fatah does not really accept the "two-state solution" and does not view an independent state within the 1967 lines as its final goal. This explains well the series of events since 1993: the Fatah leadership violently violated the Oslo Accords, it failed to reach an agreement with Israel in 2000 despite far-reaching concessions offered by Prime Minister Barak, and it turned down Prime Minister Olmert's proposals in 2008. This is in accord with the fact that in 2008, when the Israeli delegation asked the PLO delegation whether a final agreement with Israel would include an article declaring the end of conflict and an end to further demands, the reply was in the negative.

Refraining from reaching an agreement with Israel has served the PLO well, as explained by Erekat: "At first they told us that we would run hospitals and schools, later they were willing to give us 66 percent, at Camp David they reached 90 percent and today they have reached 100 percent. Why then should we hurry, after all the injustice caused to us?" (Al-Dustour, 25.6.09).

Those who urge Israel to reach an agreement with the PLO "now" should explain what they suggest doing if negotiations are resumed, as the PLO is demanding, at precisely the point where they left off in 2008. There is no indication that the PLO agrees now to terms it declined a year ago, and hence it is clear that in this situation the PLO will make additional demands. Those who prod us should suggest what else Israel is expected to concede? I have not heard an answer to this question, except for mutterings "but we have to try." As long as Fatah does not fundamentally change its platform, there will be no Zionist faction in Israel that is capable of reaching a final-status agreement with it.

Reality must not be artificially beautified. This is indeed a regrettable situation, but we cannot allow it to cause despair. As was the case 100 years ago, our future in our land does not depend on the ill-will of our neighbors' leadership. It is in our hands. We have proven that.

http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2009/12/haaretz-hebrew-why-peace-agreement-with.html

[proteus_lives]

4. Shhh.

That's a inconvenient truth.

A lot of people are far more comfortable with idea that it's Oppressor Israel vs. the innocent saints of Palestine who have certainly never taken any actions to throw off peace agreement and a two-state solution.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. That's total bullshit...

While Israel is definately oppressing the Paletinian people, there's very very few at DU who see Palestinians as innocent saints.

[azurnoir]

5. Netanyahu: Abbas-Olmert peace deal will be invalid

Opposition leader and Likud Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu hinted Thursday that if he were to be elected prime minister, he would not honor any peace agreement struck between current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, if one should be achieved.

"The agreement that Olmert will or will not achieve is no more than a cynical invalid deal - not in legal terms, but in terms of reality," Netanyahu said in an interview with the right wing affiliated newspaper Makor Rishon.

Olmert and Abbas promised U.S. President George W. Bush to try to reach a peace deal by the end of the year.

Netanyahu said in the interview that he would regard general elections as a referendum on the potential peace deal, saying "then the public would be the judge."

"If they win the election - fine. But if they don't, they can't force upon the public, in a cynical and manipulative manner, something the public is not interested in," he added.

In response to the question whether he would honor a peace agreement calling for the division of Jerusalem between Israel and the Palestinians, Netanyahu said "I can say with certainty that I will not divide Jerusalem."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/976050.html


this statement was made prior to Olmerts offer, or perhaps Netanyahu would have "gone back" on his promise to the Israeli people and he was not alone on this Livni also was against this plan

[bemildred]

6. Dang, no respect for past agreements there, eh? nt

[azurnoir]

9. Well I was shocked n/t

[shira]

7. again, so what? Abbas rejected perhaps the best offer the PA will see.....due mainly to RoR

Meaning, if Netanyahu were to offer the same today it would still be rejected.

In fact, every poll taken shows 80-90% of Palestinians are for RoR, which means they are really against a peaceful 2-state solution (knowing full well RoR means the end of Israel).
http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000724.html

[azurnoir]

8. So the Zionation says the Palestinians really don't want

because they agree to what the Zionation wants I see OK

or in other words "bow to your masters"

[shira]

10. yeah, don't let the facts get in the way of those false narratives

[azurnoir]

13. Why do always have misleading title lines?

do you think no one reads beyond them? it kind of insults the intellegence of anyone reading this thread

the link states that Israel does not want to grant the right of return and Palestinians want it it kind of lays fault on both sides wouldn't you agree?

[shira]

15. what are you talking about?

now it's Israel's fault too that they won't allow full RoR?

[azurnoir]

16. Well as you say Israel won't allow it

but actually I said it is the fault of both parties

[shira]

18. yes, of course you'd think not granting RoR and the current refugee situation is Israel's fault

[azurnoir]

19. I said it was the fault of both parties involved

not just Israel if indeed the Palestinians are demanding full Right of Return

[aranthus]

21. Why is it the fault of both parties?

If the Palestinians want something in a peace deal that means the elimination of Israel, how is Israel at fault for not wanting to be eliminated? I can understand concluding that Israel and the Palestinians are both at fault for some things, but not this.

[azurnoir]

22. well of course you can't

but then again that assumes exactly what RoR means and as I have read the IMO rather arrogant belief that every Palestinian in the ME if not entire earth will stampede into Israel, which is an enormous assumption but it does make for exciting hyperbole doesn't it

[aranthus]

23. So you just pretend it away.

How convenient for you to be able to blame the Israelis. Unfortunately, they don't have the luxury of assuming the best of all possible worlds.

[azurnoir]

24. Once again I blamed both sides

it is indeed you that wants to place the entire blame for this on the Palestinians

[aranthus]

25. By assumning a best case scenario that no sane Israeli could assume.

That's not fair or reasonable. Do I blame the Palestinians for continuing to ask for something that no sane Israeli leader could give them? You bet I do. Your only excuse for not doing the same is to assume that if given the thing that they claim is of such importance, that they won't use it.

[azurnoir]

26. So what you are in fact saying is that

what the Palestinians want is to destroy Israel

[shira]

39. what else does full RoR mean other than the destruction of Israel?

in fact, if a full RoR isn't as bad as many think and only a fraction will want to come to Israel, then why doesn't the PA just make it clear how many would choose to return to Israel? Let's see the numbers and see if the RoR demand is reasonable.

the very fact that millions of Palestinians are still refugees 60 years later goes to show that Arab leadership doesn't want peace but wants to continue using refugees as a weapon against Israel. And that's perhaps the most disgusting and despicable aspect of the I/P situation. They should have been absorbed into their host countries decades ago. Worse, and more revealing is "pro Palestinians" couldn't give a shit about these Palestinians b/c they don't live in the territories.

The PLO and UN didn't even allow Israel to end the refugee problem within the territories a few decades ago when they started building towns and housing for them.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_print=1&x_context=7&x_issue=52&x_article=960

And that's the same PLO (PA) and UN you give the benefit of the doubt to on all that's I/P.

:eyes:

[azurnoir]

43. Olmert rejects return of any Palestinian refugees

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has told Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that Israel will not allow the return of any Palestinian refugees as part of a future statehood deal, Olmert's office said on Thursday.

The rare official statement was issued in response to reports Olmert proposed absorbing 2,000 refugees per year for 10 years as part of an agreement to establish a Palestinian state in most of the occupied West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip.

"The prime minister never offered to absorb 20,000 refugees in Israel. The prime minister again reiterates that under any future agreement, there will not be any return of Palestinian refugees to Israel in any number," Olmert's office said.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LE153733.htm

Abbas rejects Olmert offer of 93 per cent of West Bank

The offer was 'unacceptable,' Abbas' spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeinah said in Ramallah, adding that Palestinians want a geographically continuous state that corresponds with the 1967 borders, without Jewish settlements and with Jerusalem as its capital.

Read more: http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleeast/news/article_1423485.php
/Abbas_rejects_Olmert_offer_of_93_per_cent_of_West_Bank_2nd_Roundup#ixzz0ZzKrFLMU

now what do you think about the article which is the subject of the OP

[shira]

45. you're quoting from August 2008 and Olmert's last offer was Sept 2008 which Abbas never answered

"Third was the issue of Palestinian refugees." This issue has often been a seeming deal-breaker. The Palestinians insist that all Palestinians who left Israel - at or near the time of its founding - and all their spouses and descendants, should be able to return to live in Israel proper. This could be more than a million people. Olmert, like other Israeli prime ministers, could never agree to this: "I think Abu Mazen understood there was no chance Israel would become the homeland of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian state was to be the homeland of the Palestinian people. So the question was how the claimed attachment of the Palestinian refugees to their original places could be recognised without bringing them in. I told him I would never agree to a right of return. Instead, we would agree on a humanitarian basis to accept a certain number every year for five years, on the basis that this would be the end of conflict and the end of claims. I said to him 1000 per year. I think the Americans were entirely with me.

"In addition, we talked about creating an international fund that would compensate Palestinians for their suffering. I was the first Israeli prime minister to speak of Palestinian suffering and to say that we are not indifferent to that suffering.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/ehud-olmert-still-dreams-of-peace/story-e6frg76f-1225804745744

And Abbas still rejected it.

[azurnoir]

47. Olmerts offer was 5 days prior to his resignation

do you have anything to say about the actual OP? Would you support Mustafa Barghouthi?

[shira]

48. and Abbas still rejected it

Mustafa Barghouti is just another Fatah-style propagandist who could care less about Palestinian refugees or a real 2 state solution.

I prefer Ray Hanania, who is a bonafide liberal/progressive Palestinian and not a phony like Barghouti.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1258027288534&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

What do you think of Hanania?

[azurnoir]

49. I think Hanania is a Chi-Town radio host period

but perhaps he should live in say Nablus or Nil'lin for 6 months or a year then talk. but I am betting he'd be quite welcome in Ma'aleh Adumim or one of the other large established settlements just think of the publicity and well according to you he's "one of the good ones"

as to Abbas did he say no or did he not answer perhaps Olmert resigned before he could

I find your critique of Mustafa Barghouti curious as he is advocating non-violence could that be a problem?

[shira]

51. of course you don't trust Hanania, who is clearly a liberal and no doubt advocates non-violence

typical.

Abbas never got back to Olmert and made excuses that Saeb Erekat was supposed to meet with him but couldn't for some reason....

Barghouti is a nasty propagandist, so it's no wonder you like him b/c you love any demonization of Israel...

Farewell to the Minister of Disinformation, Mustafa Barghouti
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=139&x_article=1333

I know, you hate CAMERA....but try to find something wrong with that analysis, check the weblinks to media sources, etc. Find any excuse you possibly can. I know you'll try.

[azurnoir]

54. As usual CAMERA relies on spin hyperbole parsing

AND last but not least a willing audience kind of like Fox News

what really scares the you and others about Barghouti is that he has the attention of Western Media and has become a well know figure here Jon Stewart actually gave him air time to speak his case BTW is Stewart now been placed on the enemies list? He has published OP's in the gasp NYT, he has been on 60 minutes and yes his advocacy of non violence frightens you and anyone who supports the continued occupation and while you promote an American radio host stand up comedian for leadership of the Palestinians why?

[shira]

57. can you clearly explain how CAMERA relies on spin hyperbole parsing WRT Barghouti?

or are you just against any legitimate criticism of "your guy"?

what has the "non violent" and "peaceful" Barghouti had to say about Hamas?

I trust Hanania and Sari Nusseibeh over Barghouti. Those 2 are clearly liberal Palestinians. They can make their case for Palestinians and against Israel without going OTT by demonizing and whitewashing terror. I don't see the same from Barghouti, whose demonization of Israel and whitewashing of terror is no more distinguishable from the turds who write at Stormfront.

What evidence do you have that Barghouti is really pro-peace, liberal...? In fact, what distinguishes Barghouti from Mahmoud Abbas? Sell me on Barghouti over Abbas and bring some hard evidence, okay? Why is Barghouti so much better than Abbas? How can you prove it?

[azurnoir]

61. Sell you on them why? You have your chosen candidates

As for Barghouti listen to what he says he has spoken publicly, but I know he did not mention teh rockets and we all know that should be the first priority of any Palestinian oh and he did not condemn Hamas which of course means he supports them

[shira]

62. EDITED: one more time - what exactly distinguishes Barghouti from Abbas?

As for Hanania, he is clear about Hamas...

I oppose violence of any kind from and by anyone. I reject Hamas’ participation in any Palestinian government without first agreeing to surrender all arms and to accept two-states as a “final” peace agreement. But I also reject allowing Israeli settlers to carry any weapons and believe Israelis must impose the same restrictions on them.

What has Barghouti ever said about Hamas that comes close to this?

Nothing, right?

Barghouti has nothing to say about disarming Hamas. He'd rather work with a terror organization that is among the greatest HR violators in the world. And you think this makes Barghouti 'moderate' or progressive? How does working with Hamas make Barghouti pro-peace or against terror? How does this help Palestinian HR's?

[azurnoir]

67. Perhaps he is both ProPeace and ProPalestinian unity

something which you apparently equate to terrorism why is that?

[shira]

69. peaceful unity with Hamas? How will that work? Hamas is openly dedicated to Israel's destruction.

How can any progressive back someone trying to work with such a nasty, backwards terror organization that is among the world's worst HR violators?

I thought you cared about HR's.

[azurnoir]

70. Because Hamas is a reality that is why

or would you advocate IDF once again trying to eradicate them?

[shira]

71. there can't be real peace with Hamas in power - and Hanania is bold enough to admit it

your candidate is willing to work with them and ensure that this conflict continues for many more years, thereby extending the suffering of Palestinians under what is one of the worst HR's regimes on this planet (Hamas).

Pathetic.

Gaza is going to shit under Hamas and those crying crocodile tears for HR's don't want to do a damned thing about it.

You'd rather back some guy willing to let Hamas keep going rather than back a truly liberal Palestinian who wants REAL peace.

[azurnoir]

73. And just what does this American comedian

propose to do about Hamas? How does he propose to remove them?

[shira]

77. does it matter what he wants to do? He should be applauded for not wanting to work with Hamas

I'd imagine he'd do the same thing Jordan and Egypt did to their radicals, and maybe ask the USA or EU for help in getting it done.

[azurnoir]

78. So in other words

he just talks sh*t with no plan? Just as I thought but very easy to do from the safety and comfort of Chicago

[shira]

81. yeah, i guess it's better to back Barghouti who will work with Hamas

that's the "pro peace" and HR position, right?

[azurnoir]

83. Yes back to someone who lives in the Occupied Territories

and one who must deal with the reality rather than one who is safely removed from that and I said earlier let Mr Hanania along with his family move to Nablus for a while then lets see

oh and BTW did he say he would not work with Hamas at all and that he wanted to eradicate them as you imply or did he say something else?

[shira]

87. so you would back an Israeli "progressive" who wanted to work with Kahane?

If not, why not?

You cannot claim to be for peace and HR and wish for any "liberal" Palestinian leader to work with warmongering HR violators like Hamas.

Barghouti isn't a liberal or progressive - he's a radical. And so is anyone who'd back him.

See post #62 for what Hanania stated WRT Hamas.

[azurnoir]

92. Would you? I've never seen you speak against it

but your if he doesn't say he's against them he's obviously just got to be for them argument has a right wing tone about it that simply mystifies me coming from a liberal such as yourself.

[shira]

95. of course not....but why don't you answer the question? Would you?

And why, if Barghouti is a man of peace and for HR's, would he never speak out against Hamas and call for neutralizing their nasty anti-peace, anti-HR influence?

Hanania did, why not Barghouti?

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

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

[shira]

96. here's Barghouti on Hamas

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,474870,00.html

Not a word of condemnation for what Hamas does and is all about....he believes Hamas as it is presently constituted can help run a future Palestine. You and I both know that's bullshit, so what on earth makes you believe Barghouti is progressive and really cares for peace and human rights?

Again, what distinguishes Barghouti from Abbas? How will Barghouti be an improvement over Abbas?

[azurnoir]

112. the article is dated 3/30/2007

Dr Barghouthi accepts the present reality that Hamas is not going anywhere soon unlike one such as yourself who so cares for the people of Gaza that she would see and approve 100 OCL's to free them of Hamas

eta or Hanania who says what you want to hear but is not now or most likely ever be in a position to have to put his money where his mouth is

[shira]

116. a pro-peace, pro-HR liberal cannot possibly work with an armed warmongering HR violating Hamas

Hamas simply won't moderate itself with or without a Barghouti or Hanania in charge. A unity government with such villains cannot possibly promote anything closely resembling or representing peace and human rights.

Do you really not have a clue as to how bad Hamas is?

[azurnoir]

117. You would promote military action by IDF

to liberate the people of Gaza?

[shira]

119. no - but you would let Gazans rot forever under Hamas and still believe in peace and HR for Pal'ns?

[azurnoir]

120. who says they will "rot forever" under Hamas? n/t

[shira]

121. look around at Israel's neighbors and the thugs in charge for life, look at Iran

is that what you want for Palestinians?

What can possibly be done WRT human rights for Gazans, with Hamas in charge? Do you realize how bad it is to live under Hamas? And how Hamas simply will not abide to any peace treaty with Israel?

To work with Hamas is to extend this conflict indefinitely.

[azurnoir]

127. and the alternative is what?

you say working with Hamas will extend this conflict you seem to forget that Hamas has controlled Gaza for less than 3 years the conflict as it stands has been going on for 60 years.

[shira]

131. the alternative is that if Hanania wins, Hamas is not part of the government - very simple

Hamas is nothing but a hindrance to the cause of peace and HR. No liberal should be advocating for their representation in the PA.

[azurnoir]

132. Wins? what is he seriously running for?

com'on I've read your comments on Hanania to LB on this thread odd you make no such claims to her why?

[shira]

133. he doesn't expect to win

here's why he's running...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ray-hanania/re-energizing-the-two-sta_b_360241.html

as to LB, see post #126.

[azurnoir]

134. I am sure you love the part where he supports

the settlements remaining however to "reach out" to the grassroots Palestinians perhaps he should spend some time there among them
does he expect to rule from Chicago?

[azurnoir]

115. albeit I still feel the question to be inane and here's why

Kahane was a single individual who founded a a political party Kach that was later outlawed it but not until after it gained seats in the Knesset Hamas too is a political party what is different is that Hamas unlike Kach rules a physical area and is not likely at the moment to be easily removed so if you were to ask me if I would support an Israeli leftist or liberal that would wish to work with Kach saying that Kach was ruling a physical area of Israel or would I support the forced removel of Kach from that area no matter the cost to the people living there then yes I would support the Israeli liberal who wished to work with reality tell me would you support the forced removal of Kach in this imaginary scenario even though it would very likely cost the lives of innocent Israeli's?

That is what you seem to support for the people of Gaza

[shira]

118. If Kahane and his followers gained too much power and started controlling some of the territories...

and were strong enough somehow to fend off IDF efforts, and if they were committing horrendous HR violations and crimes against both Palestinians or Israelis who cross them - like Hamas - there is simply no question that they would have to be taken out of power by the IDF and they couldn't possibly be allowed to continue in any 'unity' government without first significantly moderating their views and actions.

If the Kahanists couldn't be controlled or confronted, they'd simply have to be left out of any Israeli govt. There would be Israel and then there would be Kahanistan.

I don't see why Barghouti would want to work with an unrepentant and unreformed Hamas. He'd be better off breaking off and leaving Gaza to them and focusing on the W.Bank for himself.

It's crazy to think that real pro peace and HR's groups can work with OTT jihadists like Hamas. Hamas is the antithesis of peace and HR.

[azurnoir]

128. The same was said of Fatah not all that long ago

things change sometimes it takes awhile as with the former USSR and sometimes not so long as with the Israeli stance on Fatah, there is only one certainty and that is change how and what the outcome will be is what is in question

[shira]

130. so don't claim to be pro-peace and HR if you're for working with and enabling Hamas

there's another alternative out there far more liberal....it's not as if Mustafa Barghouti is that much more credible with his 3% of the vote.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

52. The venom directed at Barghouti is fascinating, isn't it?

[Douglas Carpenter]

53. Barghouti!!! as in Mustafa Barghouti??

There is no Palestinian leader who is more pro-peace, more moderate, has more international respectability - who holds any ANY street credibility whatsoever. Good Lord!! Do they only want Palestinian leaders who have no credibility with their constituency whatsoever? I think we all know the answer to that!

[ProgressiveMuslim]

56. But Doug, he's not a collaborator, which is the only kind of Palestinian acceptable to many

Zionists.

[oberliner]

59. Abbas outpolls him by a factor of 10-1

What, if anything, does that suggest to you?

[Violet_Crumble]

60. Why don't you tell us what it suggests to you, Oberliner? n/t

[oberliner]

64. Abbas is much more popular than (Mustafa) Barghouti among Palestinians

Also that Mustafa Barghouti does not appear to have a particularly strong base of support in the West Bank and Gaza.

Marwan Barghouti, on the other hand, appears to be quite popular in both of those locations.

[azurnoir]

72. Different Poll with slightly different results

If new presidential elections are held today, Abbas would receive the vote of 54% of the voters (compared to 52% last August) and Haniyeh would receive 38% (the same as in last August). Only 62% of eligible voters would participate in the presidential elections. Abbas’s popularity stands at 55% in the West Bank and 52% in the Gaza Strip while Haniyeh’s popularity stands at 36% in the West Bank and 43% in the Gaza Strip. Satisfaction with the performance of Abbas remains unchanged as it was four months ago (48%) and dissatisfaction stands at 49%. If presidential elections were between Marwan Barghouti and Ismail Haniyeh, the former would receive 67% (compared to 62% last August) and the latter would receive 28% (compared to 31% last August). Participation in presidential elections would be much higher, reaching 73%, if Barghouti and Haniyeh, rather than Abbas and Haniyeh, were the contenders. Most popular figures selected by the public as possible vice president are Marwan Barghouti (selected by 30% of the public), Ismail Haniyeh (18%), Mustafa Barghouti and Salam Fayyad (13% each), and Saeb Erekat (7%). These findings indicate an improvement in the standing of Mustafa Barghouti, Fayyad, and Erekat compared to our findings four months ago.

http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2009/p34epressrelease.html

my only problem with Marwan Barghouti ant the present time is that he would be latched on to as a reason to not negotiate with Palestinians at all

[oberliner]

75. What are the different results?

Mustafa Barghouti isn't even listed as an option for President in these polls, and his popularity for Vice President is only 13 percent.

Abbas, meanwhile, is still polling at over 50 percent for President in the link you've provided.

[azurnoir]

80. Please reread it Mustafa is most certainly listed

or do I need to repost it again?

[oberliner]

82. You are mistaken - he is listed as a VP option, not an option for President

Please re-read your posting.

[azurnoir]

84. I said the poll results were slightly different

and they are I never said a word about Mustafa I did however mention Marwan

[oberliner]

85. The author of the OP is Mustafa Barghouti, not Marwan

The Barghouti that every post is referring to on this thread is Mustafa Barghouti.

The polling data I provided indicated that Abbas outpolled Mustafa Barghouti by a very wide margin. The data you've included does not provide any different results in that regard.

Marwan Barghouti is a person whose popularity I have not and would not call into question.

Mustafa Barghouti, the person we are all talking about in this thread, is someone who has very little support for President among Palestinians.

[azurnoir]

86. I posted a poll with different results from the one you posted

it gave a different picture and has Mustafa Barghouti formally announced his candidacy? He was a candidate in 2005

[oberliner]

88. The poll results you posted are not different

Both polls show the same results - about 50 percent of those voting would choose Abbas for President.

And no one in any of those polls has formally announced his candidacy. In fact, the only one who formally announced anything is Abbas, and his announcement was that he will not run for President, yet he still leads all of these polls.

[azurnoir]

91. LOL ok sir n/t

[oberliner]

93. Could you point out what you think the difference is between the polls?

Clearly you are seeing something that I am not. Can you point it out to me?

Maybe we are just misunderstanding each other.

[azurnoir]

94. The number are different

and I did say slightly

my last reply was worded the way it was because what I was replying to felt rather "testy" maybe it was just me

eta I tend to trust the source I posted more and the "hat tip" for introducing me to that site actually goes to you from November of 2008

[Violet_Crumble]

89. Do you agree with those in this forum who hate Barghouti?

We're talking the author of the OP here. Do you think he's a moderate and someone who everyone in this forum should be in support of?

[oberliner]

90. I don't hate him

As far as presidential candidates go, he's better than some choices, worse than others.

Sort of like how some folks around here feel about Livni and/or Barak.

Realistically, however, it appears that he has little to no chance of being elected any time in the near future since his popularity is so low among Palestinians.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

98. Point of MAJOR clarification. He is advocating a position that Palestinians should adopt,

rather than himself as president. What do you think of his position on how Palestinians ought to move forward?

[oberliner]

101. Thank you for making that point

It certainly would be great if Palestinians adopted his approach of non-violent resistance and rejected the Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade approach of violent resistance (aka terrorism).

If Palestinians were able to vote the Hamas leadership out of power and vote in someone like Mustafa Barghouti, I think a giant leap forward would be able to take place towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

104. It would also be great if Israel adopted a non-violent approache, and ceased 40+ years of murderous

military rule.

[Violet_Crumble]

107. You forget it takes two sides to make progress...

You seem to have forgotten that with the current govt of Israel there's no chance of any progress towards a peaceful resolution to the conflict....

[Violet_Crumble]

106. I didn't ask whether or not you hate him...

What I asked was whether you agree with those who don't believe Barghouti is a moderate. It's a very reasonable and simple question, so could you answer it?

[oberliner]

108. He is a moderate in much the same way that Livni is a moderate

That would be my opinion anyway. Everyone has their own definitions of these terms. I can see how people would not view Barghouti as a moderate, and I can see how people would not view Livni as a moderate. Relatively speaking, however, I think they both would fit that description.

[Violet_Crumble]

109. Livni's a moderate? Yeah, in much the same way Hamas is...

You've clearly got one hell of a fucked up way of defining moderate considering Livni is responsible for war crimes in Gaza...

[oberliner]

113. You are comparing Livni to Hamas? Who would you then define as a moderate among Israeli politicians?

If Livni does not represent the middle in Israel, then who would you say does?

[Violet_Crumble]

114. In that they're both war criminals, yes...

I'd consider Meretz to be moderates, but not Kadima, who appear to be more centrist and willing to swing whichever way the wind's blowing. Unfortunately though I think she does represent the middle in Israel (which isn't the same thing as moderate) as things have swung to the Right there...

[LeftishBrit]

105. I think that either Barghouti might offer some new hope for progress...

Marwan Barghouti seems far more likely to be elected than Mustafa Barghouti, but we shall see.

It's not up to me as (a) I am not there and would obviously not be voting; (b) my track record for supporting likely winners is not great- no leader whom I've strongly supported in the UK has ever come close to winning; and for that matter my preferred Israeli party got 3% of the vote in the last election.

Realistically I don't think that an ultra-dove is going to be elected leader in *either* Israel *or* Palestine at the moment (a Ray Hanania clone will not be leader of Palestine any more than a Larry Derfner clone will be leader of Israel, much as I personally might like both).

Barghouti offers far more hope than most possibilities at present.

[Violet_Crumble]

110. Totally agree with what you said there...

I wasn't interested at all in supporting electoral candidates, as Oberliner's the one who appears to have brought that up, but was interested in whether he agreed with those in this forum who are attacking Barghouti and accusing him of not being a moderate.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

122. Just as an aside...

you realize that you are saying that the Palestinian POV you like above all is shared by <1% of Palestinians (but I'm sure by many zionists).

[shira]

123. what's wrong with Hanania's views? i can't imagine any liberal having a problem with him.

:shrug:

[LeftishBrit]

125. I agree with you. But then I feel the same way about Seth Freedman.

[shira]

126. Hanania is liberal, Freedman is a radical - big difference

Freedman, like Barghouti, is a master of distortion, lying by ommission, demonizing, and deligitimizing Israel. Traits of rightwingers who you'd find loathsome and disgusting for writing about Palestinians or Arabs in like manner, but for some reason you believe are your political allies when it comes to dishing it out against Israel. As I've written many times previously, I don't see the difference between the Seth Freedmans, Mustafa Barghoutis, Pat Buchanons, and David Dukes. Their methods are the same, some however are a bit more clever when writing and avoid the more obvious bigoted commentary.

Friedman's anti-zionist (for a binational state), and therefore an advocate for the destruction of Israel.

He's nothing like Hanania.

Mustafa Barghouti and Freedman are peas in a pod, however. Besides demonizing Israel (which many of our fellow DU'ers live for), both cry crocodile tears and could care less about Palestinian life under Hamas rule. It's simply asinine to claim to be pro-peace/HR and wish to see an unreformed and unrepentant Hamas 'unified' in a future Palestine with either Fatah or Mustafa Barghouti's party (or in Seth's case, Hamas ruling some way in a binational nightmare). Hamas is without question one of the most regressive, nastiest warmongering anti-HR organizations on the planet. We all know how that 'unified' arrangement will work out for all people involved in I/P. Hamas simply won't change. It's mealy-mouthed crazy talk to talk peace/HR and be for an armed Hamas in a future Palestinian state.

Hanania is not for more of the same and will not accept Hamas unless they disarm and claim they are for 2 states (not just a hudna). That's a liberal position, but of course not radical enough for some of our fellow DU'ers here who wouldn't mind seeing Hamas stay in place, extend the conflict, and the suffering.

[LeftishBrit]

124. No doubt.. And the Israeli point of view that I support...

is probably shared by less than 10 per cent of Israelis/ Zionists (and I don't know how many Palestinians).

I have long ago realized that my viewpoints are generally in a minority, whether with regard to the UK or anywhere else.

I am not expecting my preferred POVs to get much support on either side, and after all, I will not be voting in either place. But I am still hoping for positive change, which would be represented by someone like Barghouti on the Palestinian side, and (I am not sure who, but at any rate defeat for Likud!) on the Israel side.

[oberliner]

65. delete - double post nt

[oberliner]

58. Asked to choose their preference from a list of potential presidential candidates, 31% chose Abbas..

...and 3% Palestinian National Initiative leader Mustafa Barghouthi.

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=238364

[shira]

63. Barghouti with 3% support......so much for credibility

maybe Palestinians also don't see much difference between Barghouti and Abbas.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

74. I was discussing the attractiveness of Barghouti's position to liberal zionists.

I would think liberal zionists would embrace Barghouti's position.

[shira]

76. Barghouti wants to unite and work with Hamas....why would liberal zionists want to embrace that?

why would you? knowing how fucked up Hamas is and what they're doing to your fellow Palestinians.

Hanania at least wants Hamas disarmed and out of the govt until they declare they're for 2 states and an end to the conflict.

[shira]

66. Does Barghouti favor disarming Hamas and neutralizing their nasty influence?

Because if not, why would any progressive support Barghouti? Hamas is among the worst HR violators in the world and their influence among young Palestinian children is the farthest thing from the cause of peace and human rights. We all know how Hamas uses their population as expendable pawns and it's disgusting.

What kind of progressive would try to work with Hamas, who is openly dedicated to Israel's destruction by any means necessary (including the destruction of Gaza/Palestine in the process)?

Abbas wants that, but that's Abbas - and like Arafat, he's a thug.

What makes Barghouti so much more liberal and if he's willing to work with a nasty antisemitic terror organization like Hamas - and therefore work to help Hamas accomplish their nasty, regressive goals?

[azurnoir]

68. wrong place delete n/t

wrong place delete

[azurnoir]

55. But are we surprised? n/t

[Jim Sagle]

79. What goes around, comes around.

[oberliner]

97. The venom directed at Abbas is even more fascinating

[ProgressiveMuslim]

99. Why is that Oberliner?

Because he invited the CIA in to teach PA thugs how to torture?

Because he plays along in a foolish charade that anyone with with eyes can see is a joke?

You're a daily reader of Maan news. I'm sure you have seen the polls in which about 75% of readers (if not more) agreed with Abbas' decision to step down?

I understand why he's attractive to Israeli leaders and American Zionists who support the status quo. Take off your Zionist glasses for one minute. Can you REALLY not see how most Palestinians would be fed up with Abbas? Can you really not see how foreign supporters of Palestine might be sick of this charade, and ready for someone who can forge a new path toward peace?

Abbas cannot get the job done. The past 5 years have shown that. Is that really incomprehensible to you?

[oberliner]

102. He is the choice of the majority of the Palestinian people

He is also an advocate of non-violence over violence in his approach to the conflict (much like Mustafa Barghouti).

He also has a good relationship with the US, the EU, and other leaders of the international community.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

103. He may have been 5 years ago, but his term is now long expired. Was he elected for life?

Why do you support a dictatorship for Palestine?

[Violet_Crumble]

28. WTF? There was nothing about RoR in the OP, so why are you guys going on about it? n/t

[azurnoir]

29. Because the subject was brought up

but thats how things go if it's not one thing its another, provides distraction for some:-)

[Violet_Crumble]

30. Thread hijacking is so annoying. That's why I don't feed them anymore n/t

[azurnoir]

31. True enough but in this case I saw it as as an excuse

for maintaining the conditions described in the OP

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Don't let me stop you then. I've still go no idea what the hell it's all about...

..and even less interest in finding out, I guess...

[azurnoir]

34. I think or hope it stopped on its own n/t

[azurnoir]

11. also I found this interesting

3) The Palestinians recognize that Israel is the state of the Jewish people, just as the Jews recognize that Palestine is the state of the Palestinian Arab people.

don't Israeli's refer to Israeli Arabs as "Palestinians" too? What would this mean for them?

[shira]

12. why is it interesting? what do you think it implies?

[azurnoir]

14. I find it interesting that's all

any implication of a state for Jews and a state for Palestinian Arabs which is also how Israeli Jews see Israeli Arabs is in the mind of the reader
Do you think it means anything?

[shira]

17. i see nothing wrong with the statement....two nations for 2 nationalities

doesn't mean Jews can't live in Palestine or that Palestinian (Israeli Arabs) cannot live in Israel.

[azurnoir]

20. Perhaps that is true however

polls have shown that almost 1/2 of Israeli Jews want Israeli Arabs expelled

[Violet_Crumble]

32. Here's the bit of the thread for those who want to discuss the OP...

I do agree with him about the Obama administration, though I think it's total lack of willingness rather than an inability to stand up to Israel and its supporters...

[azurnoir]

35. It is a bit of both the rather unfortunate fact is that Obama's own

party will not back him, they will almost always default to the politically safe position as was seen recently with the congressional vote on Goldstone and we're coming im to an election year which makes it even worse

[shira]

38. yeah, it's a damn shame Obama won't join nutjobs like Richard Falk, Richard Goldstone...

:nopity:

[Violet_Crumble]

50. I guess it boils down in the end to US politicians being incredibly stupid...

Things that are so clearly moronic and hypocritical and destined to cause massive suffering to civilian populations seems to be really popular with US politicians, and the blind and unquestioning support of everything Israel does, as well as the disgusting opposition to uninversal healthcare are just two things that come to mind where there's nothing the slightest bit progressive or LW about them....

[ProgressiveMuslim]

36. There comes a time when people cannot take injustice any more, and this time has come to Palestine.

I loved this piece from Barghouti.

Two states for two people, or one state for two people, the time is coming.

[shira]

37. so why won't the "Palestinian Ghandi" accept Olmert's 2008 offer and give up on RoR?

why won't "Ghandi" say anything about the way in which Abbas and other leadership keeps screwing Palestinian refugees?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x295387

Ghandi.
:rofl:

The OP is a joke as it never mentions Palestinian terror against Israel, as if all this is a 60's era civil rights movement. Terror plays no part in this. "Ghandi" would be totally against terror in all forms and wouldn't pretend it's not a major factor behind the wall, checkpoints, etc.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

40. Why in the world would Palestinians not negotiate a fair settlement to Israel's heinous crimes?

The issue of refugees was not settled, as you well know.

The only reason I am bothering to respond to your idiotic post is to point out that negotiating and settlement regarding refugees is completely appropriate, and must be undertaken. No final decisions have been made, nor can they be made unilaterally.

[shira]

41. what was unfair about Olmert's offer that "Ghandi" pretends never existed?

and please stop pretending RoR isn't THE major reason Arafat and Abbas rejected deals in 2000 and 2008. Your trusty leadership isn't as interested in 2 states as it is using RoR and Palestinian refugee pawns as an ultimate weapon to destroy Israel. That you have no criticism against them for heinously using Palestinians as pawns the last 60 years (and what looks like at least another 60 more) speaks volumes.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

42. I would think a "liberal" Zionist such as yourself would support, rather than mock someone

like Barghouti.

Your foaming again, Shira.

[shira]

44. I would think a progressive Muslim wouldn't make Barghouti out to be another Ghandi when he's not

And you're continuing to avoid answering almost every question asked of you.

If you're so convinced your position is just, why the reluctance to answer so many questions?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

46. Meds, Shira. Serious meds. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

100. It won't be, no matter what you do - not all stories have happy endings.

The Palestinians are not going to be able to end the occupation, either through violence or through peaceful means.

The least worst thing the Palestinians can do is, sadly, admit defeat and work out how best (or at least how least worst) they can live with and ameliorate continued Israeli expansion and oppression, because it's not going to go away in the forseeable future.

[aranthus]

129. Has this been published in Arabic in a Palestinian paper?

Has it been published in Hebrew in an Israeli paper?