Sharon's moment of truth

Entire nation prays: Tension builds up as prime minister's doctors prepare to bring Sharon out of deep sedation Monday morning; earlier, senior hospital sources say reports on PM's condition 'too optimistic'

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3197035,00.html

<snip>

"Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's doctors will meet Monday morning for a final assessment before attempting to bring the ailing PM out of deep sedation.

Barring any changes in Sharon's condition overnight, the doctors will embark on the slow, sensitive process that will hopefully see the prime minister emerge out of the induced coma. Only then will doctors be able to perform the needed tests and assess the damage sustained by the PM's brain."

<snip>

"In order to rouse Sharon, the medical staff will stop the inflow of anesthetic drugs into the prime minister's body. Sharon is expected to wake up in about 10 minutes, but experts say the seemingly short timeframe can be very difficult for those around the patient, as fears continue to build up."

<snip>

"The awakening is almost always unpleasant, and it involves restlessness and even a wild behavior,” says Dr. Esti Dahan, a specialist the Kaplan medical center south of Tel Aviv."

<snip>

"The prime minister is expected to remain awake for several minutes, during which his neurological reactions will be examined. Later, physicians will sedate him again, and repeat the procedure the following day, and possibly every day in the week to come."

Sharon as we know him, is simply gone. This is massive stroke for heaven's sake.

Sharon will not return as prime minister, but his participation could ease the transition and Kadimah's chances in the upcoming elections.

Sharon will be lucky to exchange a few words with his sons. I don't think he has a slightest idea about Kadima.

Sharon's bleeding was apparently medically induced and not necessarily due to the breakage of a blood vessel. If it was seepage, the insult may be relatively minor.

My father retained most of his capabilities after his first stroke - he just forget what things like Stop signs were for. His second was massive and left him without higher brain functions.

"Keep hope alive, keep hope alive".

I find this to be cruel and unusual. I believe in death with dignity and life with quality. If the latter is not a possibility, we owe the person the former.

talking about the Sharon followers, I don't understand what the big deal is. Surely they don't think he's ever going to come back into politics?

I really expected to hear of his death by now. I see NO positive side to his medical condition at all.

It's the passage of a whole generation.

People around me are falling like trees, my parent's generation. The fathers of two friends have passed in recent weeks, two uncles a year ago, my step-mother as well. My own dad is 81, all the beloved contemporaries of my parents are that age or older or dying or dead.

Soon, all the brave soldiers of WWII will have passed, the last survivors of the Holocaust.

It's as though a great forest is dying all around us. And my generation will be the tribal elders.

I'm not sure we'll ever come out from those tall shadows.

We didn't have to fight the battles they fought. We have stood on the sidelines for most of our lives, often fighting as hard as we could against them, rebelling against their ideas, struggling to get out from under them.

We would like to think we are freer, more liberal, more compassionate, more multi-cultural, than they are. But I know we aren't braver, G*d willing we won't ever see what they saw.

My dad flew 32 missions over Germany in a B-24. I can't even imagine what that must have been like. But I've seen films, I've seen films of those brave crew surging ahead with the fighters and the flak bursting all around them, planes with wings shot off falling like flaming leaves. Down below, bombs exploded on cities full of other people, dying in rubble and fire.

We'd like to think we are wiser than they, that our values are more noble.

But we haven't walked in their shoes. So we criticize people like them, we think we are wiser and nobler. But we haven't fought for our lives, for the lives of our people.

Those of you who are coming behind us, who are young now, yet think you are wiser and more moral than they, than we: remember this day, remember the passing of lions.

Middle East... and i mean everyone. It would have been better if he were put out of power in some other way, but he was did so much to prevent real progress for the last half-century, up until his last work day.

Nakba, (the "tragedy" of 700,000 people ethnically cleansed from their homeland, over 500 villages destroyed... and that was just the beginning.... ) then Palestinians are rightfully thinking first and foremost of at least some measure of justice, that they will be able to return to their homeland and live. Even a bit of justice. Instead, their has been nothing but more and more dispossession. Even now the Israeli govt is building more homes for Jewish people-only on land confiscated from Palestinians.

There is no easy way to that end, of real justice, and decent people can differ on exactly what that would be. It should be clear that continuing the path of continual land theft and confiscation is certainly the wrong way to go, by any standard. Sadly, Israeli policy never changes substantially.

Just one small example follows, but dozens can be offered:
From Peace Now
http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=370&docid=1616
During September 2005, Peace Now appealed to the Supreme Court against the illegal construction of 12 buildings in the Hayovel outpost (South of Eli) as well as an additional six buildings in the Haresha outpost (adjacent to Talmon). This is the second appeal submitted by Peace Now regarding unauthorized outposts. The first appeal was submitted in July 2005 in relation to unexecuted demolition orders that had been issued against nine houses in Amona.

The two outposts in reference, Hayovel and Haresha, were established during Binyamin Netanyahu's term as Prime Minister (1996-1999). Half of the illegal outposts that exist today throughout the West Bank were established during that period. Construction of permanent housing is being carried out in these outposts, as in a number of other, more veteran outposts. Most of the outposts construct rows of buildings, one after another, in order to save time and expenses.

It is important to point out that these buildings are illegal constructions . In addition, they are constructed on "survey land" and on privately owned Palestinian land.

Israel's original settlers were fleeing persecution and genocide. So what about the justice for them? Or are they required to endure war and terrorism until such time as the Palestinians "get over it"?

Remember the . There are no or in Progressive Blog Meme Land.

those who are en vogue as "progressive" causes. There's something inherently un-progressive about such an approach.

of Jewish people?
This justifies continual land theft? This will bring "peace"?

to form a country of their own.

There was a solution offered whereby each people could live in peace. Said offer was dismissed by the Palestinians. They've also dismissed various other offers to do the same.

You want justice for the Palestinians; that's commendable. But how about a justice where both sides end up winning? Is that so much to ask?

of Palestinian private property. This is what is happening on the ground, this is where people live.

Surely no one can think that because Palestinians rejected an "offer of peace" (very debatable, but that will be left for another time), that there should all suffer land theft as a result. This is the way to attain peace? This will increase "security" for Israelis?

The following report was released by the Israeli peace group "Peace Now".

Why can't folks reply to the concerns raised by current events. As you can see here, if you go to the website listed, Peace Now claims that the Israeli government is not only not adhering to international law, it is not adhering to its own law.

The current reality is expressed here:
http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=370&docid=1616

During September 2005, Peace Now appealed to the Supreme Court against the illegal construction of 12 buildings in the Hayovel outpost (South of Eli) as well as an additional six buildings in the Haresha outpost (adjacent to Talmon). This is the second appeal submitted by Peace Now regarding unauthorized outposts. The first appeal was submitted in July 2005 in relation to unexecuted demolition orders that had been issued against nine houses in Amona.

The two outposts in reference, Hayovel and Haresha, were established during Binyamin Netanyahu's term as Prime Minister (1996-1999). Half of the illegal outposts that exist today throughout the West Bank were established during that period. Construction of permanent housing is being carried out in these outposts, as in a number of other, more veteran outposts. Most of the outposts construct rows of buildings, one after another, in order to save time and expenses.

It is important to point out that these buildings are illegal constructions . In addition, they are constructed on "survey land" and on privately owned Palestinian land.

where you condoned the Palestinians acting selfishly and ignoring the legitimate rights of Israelis. I made no attempt to suggest that Israel entitled to act to the detriment of Palestinians. I accept that Palestinians have legitimate grievances toward Israel. But so too do the Israelis have legitimate grievances against the Palestinians and Arab world in general. What of the Misrahi Jews? What of the victims of the various Arab on Jew massacres and terrorist attacks? What of the refusal to recognize the right of Israel to exist? Are these not legitimate grievances too?

everything else was ancillary and secondary and followed directly from the cartographic skills of the British and French conquerors.

From Tom's post:

'During September 2005, Peace Now appealed to the Supreme Court against the illegal construction of 12 buildings in the Hayovel outpost (South of Eli) as well as an additional six buildings in the Haresha outpost (adjacent to Talmon). This is the second appeal submitted by Peace Now regarding unauthorized outposts. The first appeal was submitted in July 2005 in relation to unexecuted demolition orders that had been issued against nine houses in Amona.'

Care to explain why that's not land theft?

Violet...

Not Land Theft?

did to the Kurds, Palestinians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, etc after WW2 when they redrew the map of the Ottoman Empire.

Hadn't you previously referred to Peace now as "namby pamby?"

people have lived continuously in Judea and Samaria, and yet were unable to purchase land? And how they were expelled, fleeing from invading Arab armies, in 1948? The UN armistice lines were drawn arbitrarily, on a certain day, wherever bodies had happened to fall. It is a miracle a road bypassing the police station at Latrun was somehow built, straight up a mountain, out of raw stone, in the middle of the night over a period of only a week - allowing a tenuous link to that ancient Jewish city, where people had been on the verge of starvation.

Otherwise, Jerusalem herself would have been cut off from the body of Israel.

If you wish to discuss "injustice", perhaps you should think about that.

And, a study of the term "dhimmitude" might prove revealing. This is a system which institutionalized "tolerance" as opposed to "rights", and it prohibited equal status to non-Muslims in the very birthplace of Judaism and Christianity - though it did at least allow those religions to survive. The followers of other ancient religions including the worship of Inanna and Isis, among others, are now extinct.

In any case, the idea that only a certain CLASS of people have rights in the Middle East, or in Judea and Samaria, or should per se "own the land", is something that should be challenged on its face. And yet, an Orthodox Christian patriarch was relieved of his job for having had the temerity to sell land to Jews - IN JERUSALEM.

So when people discuss "land theft", perhaps they should consider the possibility that land would gladly be paid for, and people justly compensated - which in fact they should be, absolutely. But the idea can't be seen as somehow - unclean.

It should be mentioned further, that the entire Palestine Mandate, which includes Jordan as well as Israel, Judea and Samaria, was, by the League of Nations accord, to have been the Jewish homeland. Yet the Kingdom of Jordan, consisting of 78% of the Mandate, was created and the Jews granted fewer and fewer rights and opportunities to purchase land, and not at all east of the Jordan River.

Also, I would suggest, given the endless years of war and terror, that EVERYBODY has been paying the price for the War of 1948 - over and over and over and over again.

And meanwhile, nothing gets done to help the people in the camps. No pressure is brought to bear to assist them, to enlist the assistance of regional states - who won't even recognize Israel let alone deal with her to create rational borders, assist the Palestinians to resume good lives, or to compensate the Sephardim and the Mizrachi who lost their homes and business and livelihoods, thoughout the Middle East - some 900,000 people.

I would say the greatest injustice of all was the violence done to the hope that was provided by the Oslo Accords. What happened instead, was a dramatic increase in terrorism.

The vision of Oslo was not just a Palestinian state, but included economic cooperation, and a close working economy between Israel and the Palestinian state. It would have been close to the federation idea with a bi- national state. All the economic development went down the drain because of the terror and the Intifada.

There have been thousands killed on both sides. On the Israeli side alone, some 10,000 people have been maimed in suicide attacks. A disproportionate number of those killed and injured are women. The number of bereaved extends outward from there, and touches people all over the world. I am quite sure the grief and damage among the Palestinians is every bit as wrenching and deep.

From the Israeli point of view, this has translated into great anger and damaged relationships with Palestinians, with whom there had been economic interactions, and I'd bet even friendships. Most of the Palestinian workers will be no longer requested by Israel. The linkage betweeen the two economies has been broken down, and that has caused suffering on both sides.

And, it was the terrorists' actions and the attacks which brought about the searching of Palestinian homes, not the opposite as is implied.

So - let's stop talking about how the Palestinians are paying for European violence against Jewish people. Israel's existence per se did not harm the Palestinian people. The idea that merely having a Jewish state in the area was de facto an injustice, I find appalling and bigoted.

The idea is an injustice in and of itself.

The war of 1948, the genocidal threats against all the people of Israel and all the Jews of the Middle East, the ensuing Nakba - that's what we're paying for today. And among Israelis, I have read that the actual damage - in death, injury and bereavement, approaches 1/5 of the population.

We should stop talking in terms, therefore, about how the Palestinians are paying for Europe's crimes, and start talking about how EVERYBODY is paying for the non-stop violence since the day of Israel's birth.

I find the idea that suggesting a stop to merely talking about the suffering of the Palestinian people to be appalling and bigoted. The reality is that the Palestinian people paid a very heavy price for European violence against the European Jews...

But this paragraph says all that needs to be said about injustice:

'And meanwhile, nothing gets done to help the people in the camps. No pressure is brought to bear to assist them, to enlist the assistance of regional states - who won't even recognize Israel let alone deal with her to create rational borders, assist the Palestinians to resume good lives, or to compensate the Sephardim and the Mizrachi who lost their homes and business and livelihoods, thoughout the Middle East - some 900,000 people.'

Is it just me who notices how this sort of thinking insists that Arab states must compensate every Jew who left for Israel, regardless of whether they moved wilingly or not, yet for some reason the Arab states must compensate the Palestinian refugees that fled or were expelled by Israel from their homes? It doesn't make sense, does it? Not even the Israeli negotiators at Taba took such a hardline view. Insisting that nothing is the responsibility of Israel is not a desire to help the refugees - it is a desire for the problem to vanish without being resolved fairly....

Violet....

--The vision of Oslo was not just a Palestinian state, but included economic cooperation, and a close working economy between Israel and the Palestinian state. It would have been close to the federation idea with a bi- national state.--

Do you think that a bi-national state, or the one-state solution*, would be
a good idea? It appears that you're advocating that idea?

On the question of economic cooperation**, how much of that was implemented?
Has the situation ever differed from what we have now, where the GOI controls all
the natural resources, & the economic infrastructure?

--There have been thousands killed on both sides. On the Israeli side alone, some 10,000 people have been maimed in suicide attacks. A disproportionate number of those killed and injured are women.--

Link, please, a source for the '10,000 maimings'?

____________________________

*

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

__________________________________

**

Annex 3: Economic cooperation

The two sides agree to establish an Israeli-Palestinian continuing Committee for economic cooperation, focusing, among other things, on the following:

* Cooperation in the field of water.
* Cooperation in the field of electricity.
* Cooperation in the field of energy.
* Cooperation in the field of finance.
* Cooperation in the field of transport and communications.
* Cooperation in the field of trade and commerce.
* Cooperation in the field of industry.
* Cooperation in, and regulation of, labor relations and
* Cooperation in social welfare issues.
* An environmental protection plan.
* Cooperation in the field of communication and media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords#Annex_3:_Economic_cooperation

they must pay the price for haviung been governed by the Ottoman losers in WW1, and being part of an Empire that was carved up the Euro-Centric Imperialists and Colonialists from Europe. This was a drawing of maps strictly for the colonial and imperial goals of the European conquerors.

I am so sick and tired of linking to the and referencing William Engdahl's book, , which just gets scorn from the Brits on DU. (I guess they are as ashamed of Sir Mark Sykes OBE, VC as we are of Rummie, Rice, Bolton, Wolfie, Perle, Libby, Rove, Cheney and Bush - a real racist imperialist).

I have some questions of my own:

Is "justice" best served by violence? Wouldn't "justice" best be served by working with the entire region to help the Palestinians in the refugee camps, where they have been for 60 years, unable to become citizens, buy land or hold jobs?

Is justice best served by focusing on the creation of new victims?

'Is "justice" best served by violence?'

No, though those who support the settlements in the West Bank do believe it is...

'Wouldn't "justice" best be served by working with the entire region to help the Palestinians in the refugee camps, where they have been for 60 years, unable to become citizens, buy land or hold jobs?'

Totally ignoring what the refugees want (in most cases what they want is one or more of these: a return to their homes, compensation from Israel for their homes and livelihoods, and acknowledgement from Israel of the wrong done to them) is not justice. Justice is listening to what they want, not by speaking about them as though they should have no say or no control over their future...

'Is justice best served by focusing on the creation of new victims?'

A fair resolution where Israel acknowledges it's wrongdoing, compensation by Israel for the homes and livelihoods it took from the refugees, and a physical return of a number of refugees agreed to by both Israel and the Palestinians is what justice is. I can't see what you suggested as being justice as involving any of those things...


Violet...

is the simple fact that Jews weren't able to own land in their own homeland, even though they've lived continuously in Judea and Samaria, for thousands of years.

Even under the League of Nations agreement, when land sales (at exorbitant prices) WERE permitted, sales were limited. Though the need was desperate, the acquisition of land by the civilized means of purchasing property was eventually curtailed when the need for a refuge was at its height.

Also, when discussing the West Bank, one must take into consideration the destruction of Jewish settlements and the "ethnic cleansing" of Jews from these ancient homelands in 1948. When the Jordanian occupation ended in 1967, people returned.

My point is this: "injustice" is a loaded word, that cuts both ways.

Trumpeting the term without respecting historical nuance and the DUAL requirements for justice renders the term meaningless.

That said, I well understand the Palestinian sense of dispossession. That is why I think we should turn our minds to working on creative solutions, ideas that will help them without destroying what now exists, and that must start with an end to violence and to the non-recognition of Israel. And the extremist settlers MUST be controlled. They're wrong too.

Those who are truly interested in justice need to stop picking their favorite side and start dealing with all people as people and not "evil zionists" or "arab terrorists".

There's an attempt to pretend that Europeans who settled in Palestine during and after the Second Aliyah had been there all the time, and that they had more right to be there than the people who had lived there continuously for centuries prior to that eg. Arabs and the already existing Jewish population...

Not mentioned is the fact that land sales were limited due to the buying up of land from absentee Arab owners and the eviction of Palestinians who'd been farming that land for a long time...

The third paragraph is an attempt to justify the creation of illegal settlements in the West Bank after Israel occupied it in 1967. Does that mean that the many razed Arab villages in Israel itself are fair game for Palestinians to return to?

Non-recognition of Israel? The Palestinians have recognised Israel, yet even if they did an official We Recognise Israel day every Tuesday, there'd be folk who'd still insist that there's no recognition of Israel...

The 'creative solutions' I've seen voiced about a resolution to the refugee problem do NOT involve anything that's in the interest of the refugees. More often than not it goes no further than insisting the Arab states should be their new homes and should compensate them. Tough titties if that's not what the refugees want....

Historical nuance does NOT mean trotting out versions of history that try to justify wrongdoings in the past, and in doing so . Historical nuance means looking at details and being able to understand them, but equally important is objectivity, something the post was very light on...

Violet...

Tom, you posted


And I agree with you. I also agree that Justice should be blind. Have you ever read Maria Menocal's "The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain" ? Or have you ever thought of the ? Before the other side of the Nabka coin - the expulsion of the Sephardi by the Muslims, there were almost a million Jews in the Middle East and North Africa.

Surprizing as it may be to some, there has been an uninterrupted presence of large Jewish communities in the Middle East from time immemorial. In the eighth and sixth centuries BCE* Assyria and Babylon respectively conquered the ancient Kingdoms of Israel and Judea. This marks the beginnings of the ancient Jewish communities of the Middle East and North Africa, some 1,000 years before the Arab Muslim conquests of the these regions -- including the Land of Israel -- and about 2,500 years before the birth of the modern Arab states.

Despite the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests, the Land of Israel under various Jewish governments remained the central locale of most of ancient Jewry. Nonetheless, strong and vibrant Jewish communities remained in Mesopotamia, the Levant, Egypt, North Africa and (pre-Muslim) Arabia.

In the 7th century CE, Arab armies under the banner of the new religion of Islam conquered the vast regions of the Middle East and North Africa, encountering indigenous peoples living in their own lands. Over the centuries, through a process of Arabization and Islamicization, these regions are now known as the "Arab world." Yet, non-Arab and non-Muslim minorities, the original indigenous inhabitants, remained as minorities in their own lands.

The 1,400 year history of the Jews under Arab and Muslim rule is a long and varied one. Jews (and Christians) were considered dhimmi, a "protected" group of second-class citizens. The Jews' sojourn in Muslim lands was marked by some golden periods of prosperity, when Jews served as advisors to the ruling class; these periods were often marked by Jewish advances in medicine, business and culture. Jewish philosophy and religious study also flourished. Often, however, the Jews were subjected to punishing taxes, forced to live in cramped ghetto-like quarters and relegated to the lower-levels of the economic and social strata.

In 1948, two refugee populations emerged as a result of the Arab states’ war against the newly established State of Israel: the Palestinian Arabs and the Jews from Arab states. While Jewish refugees were absorbed into Israel and granted citizenship, Palestinian refugees were rarely, with the exception of Jordan, absorbed into their host Arab society.

Much of the responsibility of the expulsion of the indigenous Jews of the Middle East and North Africa by Arab governments lies with the Palestinian political leadership who engaged in anti-Jewish incitement throughout the Arab world, with the help of Nazi Germany during World War Two, and after the war.

In 1941 pro-Nazi Palestinian nationalist leader Hajj Amin al-Husayni, the Mufti of Jerusalem, arrived in Berlin, along with many other Palestinian leaders, as a guest of the German Nazi regime. He worked in several capacities for the triumph of the Nazi "new order:" he directed propaganda beamed to the Arabs of the Middle East and North Africa as well as Muslims in Asia to elicit rebellion and sabotage against the Allied powers; he was the linchpin for the Nazi espionage network in the Middle East and organizer of saboteurs who were spirited into the area; he organized an Arab Legion to serve with the German Army, and was active recruiting Muslim SS divisions in the Balkans and occupied Russia.

The Nazis welcomed him and his entourage warmly. He was given a generous stipend and subsidies to sustain five residences and suites at two hotels in Germany. He established an "Arabishes Büro" and a so-called "Jewish Institute" at Nazi expense.

Al-Hussayni asked Adolf Hitler, the Nazi Führer (leader), to apply the same methods against the Jews of the Middle East then being directed against Europe’s Jews. al-Hussayni drafted a political declaration, which he presented to the Axis allies of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, in the hope they would adopt it. In paragraph 7 he would have Germany and Italy

recognize the rights of Palestine and other Arab countries (to) resolve the problem of the Jewish elements in Palestine and the other Arab countries in the same way as the problem was resolved in the Axis Countries.

(Tom, recall, that some historians maintain that at this time the Jewish “problem” was being “resolved” by Nazi Germany through a program of genocide now known as the Holocaust.)

Further, in a meeting between Hitler and al-Hussayni, on November 28, 1941, Hitler made this promise to the Palestinian leader:

(the) Führer would offer the Arab world his personal assurance that the hour of liberation had struck. Thereafter, Germany's only remaining objective in the region would be limited to the annihilation of the Jews living under British protection in Arab lands.

With these assurances, al-Hussayni voiced his hope for a “final solution” to the Jewish presence in the Middle East in a speech given at a rally in Berlin, on November 2, 1943. The speech was carried by Nazi Germany’s official radio network, Radio Berlin:

National Socialist Germany knows the Jews well and has decided to find a final solution for the Jewish danger which will end the evil in the world. The Arabs especially and Muslims in general are obliged to make this their goal, from which they will not stray and which they must reach with all their powers: it is the expulsion of all Jews from Arab and Muslim lands."

During the Palestine Partition debate at the United Nations, the Palestinian delegate to the UN, Jamal al-Hussayni, (representing the Arab Higher Committee of Palestine to the UN General Assembly and a nephew of Hajj Amin al-Hussayni), made the following threat:

It must be remembered that there are as many Jews in the Arab world as there are in Palestine whose positions... will become very precarious. Governments in general have always been unable to prevent mob excitement and violence.

Meanwhile, simultansous with the Palestinian Nabka, May 1948 marked the begining of Pogroms across the Middle East.(May 16, 1948)

The Sephardi Jews who were forced out of their homes by Arab governments, which then confiscated their property, were the victims of the same aggression carried out by the Arab states against the newly founded State of Israel. On May 15, 1948, five Arab armies invaded Israel with the intention of destroying it and murdering or expelling the Jewish population. Even before this, life for Jews in the Arab states became intolerable.

With the United Nations resolution on the partition of Palestine in 1947, riots broke out against numerous Jewish communities throughout the Arab world. Arab mobs attacked Jewish shops and homes; synagogues were burned and looted; hundreds of Jews were murdered in the streets, thousands were imprisoned in the subsequent months, movement was restricted and many Jews were deprived of their citizenship.

Arab governments instituted a number of anti-Jewish actions: Jews suddenly lost their property; bank accounts belonging to them were frozen, and property – personal and communal – valued at billions in today’s dollars was gradually confiscated. Jews lost their means of survival; many became hostages in their own countries of origin. Remaining was becoming increasingly dangerous, and many were compelled to flee in large numbers because of these deteriorating conditions.

As part of an overall Middle East peace accord, the Palestinians' claims must be dealt with fairly and practically and on an equal footing with the Middle Eastern and North African Jews within the framework of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian leadership as part of a peace process resulting in a final settlement and an end to any further claims.

Every coin has a head and a tail, and every issue has two sides.

1948, when Israeli Jews agreed to partition the land, Israeli Arabs refused, and instead swore to kill off all the Jews, and further asked the Arab nations to march and fly their armies into Israel to kill off all Jews there? Jews had no military. No country's military came to fight with the Israeli Jews. Israeli Arabs began the hatred, the war, began the savagery and continued it to this very day. Now, however, that they have lost, they are still savage, but have in place a wonderfully streamlined marketing scheme to make it appear that they're the victims who were peaceful nomads upon the land, when suddenly mean Jews landed there and chased them out with guns.

I'm quite sick of Palestinian historical revisionism. Let's pick any standard college history book and read from it, shall we, rather than reading from well-designed Arab websites financed by the Arab Emirates, the Saudis and all of those Arab Bush pals.

I think in the rather obscene haste of those books to paint the Palestinian people as frothing at the mouth anti-Semites eager to kill every Jew they ever meet, they've missed the reality (though I'm sure some folk reject reality as 'Palestinian historical revisionism').

Let's play duelling books, shall we?

The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World by Avi Shlaim is probably the best book around, imo....

The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited by Benny Morris does as the name suggests and covers the creation of the refugee problem...

The Palestinian People: a history by Baruch Kimmerling & Joel S. Migdal is another great book...

Before they're quickly dismissed as Palestinian historical revisionism, each of these authors are Israeli, and they provide balanced and factual information. There's no bigotry or racism against Jews or Arabs in any of those books, btw...

Now, what's the name of those college history books that provide such a one-sided and frankly bigoted view of the Palestinian people?

Violet....

It wasn't the Israeli Arabs in 1948 that refused to partition the land belonging to the British? It wasn't the Israeli Arabs in 1948 that swore to kill off every Jew in Israel? It wasn't the Israeli Arabs that asked 5 (or more) Arab nations to use their military might to attack Israeli Jews, who at that time had no military? It isn't the Israeli Arabs who, to this very day, as we speak, STILL swear to kill off every Israeli Jew and refuse to partition the land?

As I said, pick up any general history textbook (not some Palestinian website), and read about the Israel conflict and how it actually began.

Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa - or are they just "non-people."

contradiction to reality.

:)

*Now* I understand all of your comments!

:)

His absence will not be any better than his presence

n/t

Healed the Sick
Fed the Hungry
Clothed the Naked
Educated the Illiterate
A Nobel Prize Winner (Like William Shockley).

How can you speak of him in the same breath with Sharon.

:sarcasm:

1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/08/wus08.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_08012006>

2. http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html>

Yassir was a war criminal.

Seriously, why do you think he's a "war criminal"? Terrorwist, I can understand
why he'd be labeled as such, but why "war criminal"? Is there any basis for such
a labeling, or is it just something pulled out of thin air?

I said



You said " Seriously, why do you think he's a "war criminal"?" That's your inference from the facts.

You said it in post #51.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=110807&mesg_id=111131


So, I'll ask again;

Seriously, why do you think he's a "war criminal"? Terrorwist, I can understand
why he'd be labeled as such, but why "war criminal"? Is there any basis for such
a labeling, or is it just something pulled out of thin air?

<>

That's how I can speak of both of them in the same breath. I'm not sure what the sarcasm was in aid of as I'm critical of Arafat, so could you explain why him and Sharon shouldn't be talked about in the same breath?

Violet...

For years, people have said Israel must leave the West Bank and Gaza.

He did half of that,

' Israel: Gaza Power Cut Would Violate Laws of War

Jerusalem, December 23, 2005)
Human Rights Watch

>snip


Israel withdrew its military forces and settlers from the Gaza Strip in August and September. Nonetheless, Israel continues to hold responsibility for ensuring the well-being of Gaza's population for as long as, and to the extent that, it retains effective control over the area. Israel still exercises full control over Gaza's airspace, sea space and land borders with Israel as well as its electricity, water, sewage and telecommunications networks and population registry. Under the disengagement plan, Israel reserves the right to reenter Gaza militarily at any time.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/22/isrlpa12345.htm

Some points:

1) In case they haven't been reading newspapers - the Gaza-Egyptian border is not under Israeli control.

2) As for full control over Gaza's border with Israel - should I understand they are denying Israel the right to control its own borders?

3) If Israel supplying electricity to Gaza is a sign of occupation, is Canada occupied by the US? (I understand a substantial amount of electricity used in Canada is generated in the US). For that matter, if the US decides it doesn't want to supply Canada with electricity anymore - is it under some obligation to continue doing so regardless?

4) I assume France would consider itself within its rights to mitarily respond to attacks from Germany. Does that mean that Germany is under French occupation?

5) HRW might wish to review the recent ICJ decision in the matter of Uganda and the Congo - under the findings given there, Gaza is not currently occupied by Israel.

1} They're not saying it is.

2} Turn it around, substitute "Gaza" for "Israel".

3} Where's the relevance?

4} See above.

5} See above.

Directly relevent to point #5. Israel is responsible for Gaza if it occupies it; if it does not occupy it, it is not responsible for it - and under the standard set by the ICJ, Israel is not currently occupying the Gaza Strip.



Assume a State of Palestine is established tomorrow. Israel will still control their border with Israel (the ISraeli side at least, which is the same thing as far as restricting access is concerned). Likely, Israel will also be supplying it with eelectricity and other services. So by the standard set here by HRW, Israel will be in occupation of - and thus responsible for - Gaza in perpetuity

of the total area of the Occupied Territories, both in terms of the land involved and the number of illegal settlers involved. But then, we've visited the issue before. Did you not believe the figures I cited?

Can you cite any figures that back up your contention that Gaza represented "half"?

I enjoy a good debate too, but not one that is primarily semantic.

let me interupt here...modify the conversation for a post:

your turn for the hypothetical:

gaza is as it is, the new left wing prime minister of israel is willing to return the westbank etc tomorrow to the palestenians.....

you are now the PM of palestine, and you have full knowledge that the reality of gaza today will be the reality of the westbank tomorrow...only worse since the cities and towns have an even more complex mosiac of loyalties...furthermore you know kassams will be launched at the nearby israeli cities: hadera, jerusalem, netanya, airport, afula, etc.

are you going to accept the offer?

territories (no settlements allowed to remain) with these conditions placed on the Palestinians:

1. Significant reduction in violence for each phase to take place.

2. Agreement of the PA for outside assistance in getting violence under control and institutions rebuilt (this would include a lot of financial assistance and institutional expertise; the Palestinian leadership could direct the shape of it.)

This would of course require the sort of agreement that could not in any way be reneged upon for it to work. It would have to be based on pre-1967 borders, less any territory that the Pals were willing to negotiate. And it's true that it wouldn't happen overnight, but is continuing the way it is now any better?

You see, I have been thinking about your question. If the Pals were willing to accept outside assistance, would it make a difference to you? It is my belief that such an agreement would go so far in strengthening the moderates, that it would allow them to get better control over the extremists by changing public opinion in their favor.

There would of course be a myriad of details that would have to accompany such an agreement, but in bare-bones form, I think this would work.

I mean, wasn't the violence supposed to be reduced back then? and it wasn't.

The incitement by the PA continued and got worse.

What I'm suggesting is that the PA agree to international assistance as a way of countering the "Gaza is in chaos so lets renege on all our agreements and make our illegal occupation a success" theme.

(Failing to mention of course, the agreements on the Israeli side also have been reneged upon all along.)

it armed them and provided them with sufficient support to allow them set up a sustainable government. What exactly did the PA do that indicated their compliance with Oslo? They continued the incitement in schools, they refused to hold known militants who had blood on their hands and they essentially spent the Oslo period fattening their wallets on that elusive "outside help" you discussed before.

And wasn't the whole Rafah crossing about International Assistance? and what happened? The Palestinians are now attacking the European and Egyptian monitors instead of Israelis.

when do we get to a point where we start saying (or rather you start saying, since I'm clearly saying so right now) that the PA is not being held accountable and some punitive measures must be implemented?

those who...as in gaza today, dont agree to the intl presence, who will now shoot kassams from the westbank into hadera? and react violently to any intl interference?

what shall you propose israel to do when the kassams land in w jersualem? (i hope its not let its citizens die).

so who shall reign in the extremists?

i have no problem with intl assistance....thats not the problem, the problem is the endemic corruption and extremists.

your making a huge and unsupportable assumption:
that the jihadnikim will stop attacking israel and accept an intl presence.

lets assume the opposite, as per whats happening in gaza today:

an intl presence appears or doesnt appear, IJ, etc dont accept them and now launch kassams on w.jersualem, hadera, afula, and other israeli population centers.....

now what? do you propose that israel do nothing and lets its citizens be terrorized and killed? Intl do not stay long if and when their own personal are killed or engangered as is happening in gaza.

now what?

withdrawal relative to the overall illegal occupation. I pointed out that Gaza was just a very small part of the territory illegally occupied. And that the number of settlers remaining in the occupied territories is huge compared to the tiny few pulled out of Gaza. (In fact, there were nearly twice as many more illegal settlers added to the West Bank as settlers removed by Sharon in Gaza.)

Will you confirm that, please?

that the amount of settlers increased by the number you stated?

i'll check it out for myself, but I somewhat doubt it. The settlers from Gaza didn't move to the West Bank; they moved to the Negev,

For relative population (1997):

http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/stats_data/settler_populations/israeli_settler_population_1997.html

Estimates of West Bank population:

http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/stats_data/settler_populations/israeli_settler_population_west_bank_1972-2004.html

Some analysis & commentary so one can see their POV:

http://www.fmep.org/analysis/overview.html

The last number I remember for Gaza was 8 or 9 K settlers removed, that would have been Haaretz I think, which is indeed a small number relative to the West Bank, but of course a lot of the West Bank settler population is in only a few large sites.

increased upon the gaza withdrawal.

I'd like to see something backing that assertion.

"In fact, there were nearly twice as many more illegal settlers added to the West Bank as settlers removed by Sharon in Gaza"

That would seem to mean that the number added in some time period, say 2005, in the West Bank is almost twice the 8-9K removed from Gaza, hence more than 15K added in the West Bank in 2005 would seem like the right idea.

Not completely off, but high. Maybe if you include E. Jerusalem ... But like I say, data for 2005 seems hard to come by yet. But Wordie is much more industrious than I, so perhaps he has sources I am not aware of.

Unfortunately, the link that was working when I previously posted the numbers is no longer working, for some reason. Nonetheless, here are numbers from other sources which confirm those that I posted:

This is from the BBC and confirms that the overall number of settlers I mentioned previously (430,000) in the West Bank was accurate, if not understated (the BBC says it's actually 450,000).


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4480072.stm

And this, from Peace Now, although not directly confirming the 2 times number, comes close if you think it through:


http://www.peacenow.org/briefs.asp?rid=&cid=1393

So, we know the number of additional settlers in the West Bank for the first half of 2005 alone was 9,370. Since the trend of West Bank settlement has shown an ever-sharpening increase, particularly over the last couple of years, we can assume a there was a much larger number of new settlers for the last half of the year, not counting those who moved from Gaza itself. However, we also can assume that at least a portion of those settlers who left Gaza moved to the West Bank (particularly those who moved to Gaza for political reasons in the first place would be likely to do so, imho). Although I am as yet unable to find any other firm numbers, looking at it in the way I've outlined, I think the numbers I posted earlier must be pretty close. So, the statement that there were two times the number of new settlers that moved into the West Bank than there were settlers that were moved out of Gaza appears to be accurate.

Israel: Expanding settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Letter to President George W. Bush

Office of the President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Bush,

I am writing to you with respect to multiple Israeli announcements of its plans to continue expanding settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). This directly contravenes international law and Israeli commitments under the Road Map.

You recently reiterated Israel's obligations to stop expanding settlements when you said, on October 20, 2005, following your meeting with Palestinian President Abbas: "Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes its road map obligations, or prejudices the final status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. This means that Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion." Israel has acted contrary to these obligations, escalating the building of settlements in 2005. According to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, in the first half of 2005, there was a 28% increase in settlement housing starts compared to the same period in 2004. Israel now proposes to further expand West Bank settlements in the coming year.

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/RMOI-6KH3PB?OpenDocument

Issue: net gain of settlers overall. Read more about this issue in this article regarding this issue and the letter sent to President Bush from Human Rights Watch:



http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/04/11/isrlpa10462.htm

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/666918.html

<snip>

"Senior physicians treating Ariel Sharon at Hadassah University Hospital, Ein Karem, said Monday that the prime minister had begun breathing on his own after his sedation was reduced but that his condition remains critical and he was still hooked up to a respirator.

The level of sedation is to be reduced gradually to gauge Sharon's responsiveness and the extent to which the 77-year-old leader's faculties have been impaired. The process could take hours or even days.

"The prime minister started immediately to breathe on his own but he's still hooked up to a respirator," Hadassah Hospital director Dr. Shlomo Mor-Yosef said Monday morning.

Channel One television reported early Monday doctors hoped to see an initial response from Sharon within minutes of reducing his level of sedation, then might sedate him again for another 24 hours.

The process of weaning Sharon from the anesthetics was expected to take six to eight hours, and experts said doctors should have a good idea of the extent of the damage by the end of the day."

I disagreed with that move completely.

as much as i find it quite humerous that so many of the "pro palestenains" think of it as a 'trick" or not enough....the reality of it is, is that it has exposed the problems that both the PA has in governing its own, as well as the potential problems that would come from the westbank. This is very good for the "avg israeli" as it has given israel a general concensus, that giving back parts of the westbank would be sucidal.

but whats most fascinating is how israel, even now is being blamed for palestenains chaos and violence in gaza...
let me list why israel is to blame for gaza chaos, as taken from various posts here:

israel had a few raids 3, 4 years ago
israell controls the electricity
israel controls its side of the border
israel didnt support abbas enough
the occupation destroyed the PA

israel attempting to stop the kassams (shelling the launch sites has been deemed "illegal" here)
___________________________________

so what has gaza shown us?
it has shown that the PA has not the capability or abililty to control its own population at the present time, if ever.
it has shown us that attacking israel is not only a "given" but will not meet resistance from the local governing body
it has shown us (here at the DU) that israel in any practical format, is not allowed to defend itself, since the shooters shoot from civilian areas

it has made it equally clear that if parts of the westbank is given back, with the PA incapable of controlling the palestenians, there will be additonal kassams on the israeli population centers as they will be within range....and there will little israel could do, outside of retaking those parts military. ( a move that no doubt would be cried "occupation" while there would be silence concerning the kassams, and condemnation concerning any and all israeli actions...thats what gaza has made obvious to those of us who live in its reality.
__________________________________

as far as the palestenians are concerned..those in the westbank now have some real options....the self rule of gaza or the occupation of the westbank. Hardly good options, yet that is typical of this war, choosing between two bad options.

it does however give the palestenans there only real chance at self-rule. Perhaps someone there in gaza, will decide that the best route is to take things in their own hands and create a lawful society, their success at that, is their only real hope for independance and further advancement into the westbank, but that will take several things:

explaining to the people and their supporters that the "blame game" is now over, its time to start taking responsability.

stop the kassams and work with israel in doing so, what ever it takes

stop the gang/tribal warfare

protect the karmi border control to israel with all theyve got. israels their natural market for their agricultural products, blowing it up, will only be "suicidal".


they do that, and they have a chance....they dont do those minimal things and they'll be remembering the "good ole days" of the occupation...and that will be the end of the withdrawls.....

As far as a lawful Palestinian society, I don't think Palestinians are able to have a lawful society, with so many thugs and criminals in control of their society.