THE NEED NOT TO KNOW: THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMUNITY AND THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT

http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/tik0701/frontpage/neednot

Excerpt:

"The Zionist dream is becoming a nightmare. There is no place in the world where the Jewish people are more insecure than in Israel, in part, of course, because of the continuation of anti-Semitism, especially in the Islamic world, but also because of the policies and behavior of the Jewish state. As for its role of moral exemplar, today defenders of Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians don’t even bother to claim a higher morality; rather, they wish Israel to be judged as an “ordinary” state and typically complain bitterly that the West has a double standard, condemning Israel’s human rights record but minimizing the even worse record of typical Arab autocracies. What a defense—it’s a long way from “a light unto the nations” to “better than Syria.”

Tikkun nails it again.

What will make it worse is that the Zionists are siding with the Americans and Brits to capture more Arab lands for themselves. Ah well.

I just want the Israeli government to stop militantly making everything worse with everything they do.
Is that asking too much?

Another good quote from the article:

"the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is no longer a continuation of an historically unavoidable "Original Sin"; rather,it has become an avoidable, ongoing, and ever-worsening sin. Avoidable because there was a reasonable chance that the conflict might have been resolved long ago, had the Israelis acknowledged the inevitable harms done to the Palestinians by the creation of Israel as well as the subsequent expulsion of some 750,000 Palestinians from their homes and villages, and resolved to do everything possible to make up for these injustices in any manner possible, short of abandoning the Jewish state in one part of the land of Palestine. Israel’s failure to acknowledge its responsibilities and moral obligations to the Palestinians has turned a tragedy into a crime."

Israel has tried repeatedly for a peaceful settlement - even right after the 67 war - but they were answered with the 3 no's at Khartoum. The latest 2000 Taba accords and the pullout from Gaza show Israel means business but the Arab world would rather keep saying NO to everything in order to keep the conflict going.

Imagine if the Palestinians really wanted to settle with Israel. No one doubts there'd be peace almost immediately between Palestine/Israel, as Israel would jump at the opportunity and give the well-intended Palestinians everything short of the kitchen sink. The problem is that without this conflict, the Arab world would implode against each other - not having Jews to blame for their troubles anymore - and what we're seeing now with Hamas vs. Fatah and the civil strife in Iraq, is just a glimpse of what happens when the Jewish scapegoat is taken away.

The arabs need this conflict. Al-Jazeera needs it and won't let it go. Take a look around the world in Sudan, Somalia, Rwanda, Phillipines, etc. Israel has nothing to do with the strife in those countries where Muslim conflicts are routine. The fact is that the Muslim world needs this "reason" or scapegoat to explain away their own problems. This is why nothing short of Jews completely abandoning Israel will end the conflict. Either that, or Israel completely and utterly forcing the Palestinians into an unconditional surrender (like the Nazis and Japanese).

Does anyone here in the USA really think that if both Canada and Mexico were lobbing missiles across the US border while blowing up American civilians in shopping centers, schools, and restaurants - that the USA would be more restrained or behave more morally than Israel in response? If yes, are you serious?

Now read The Rabin Memoirs and Shattered Dreams to get the real facts, THEN join the debates.

Also I don't think this country is as stupid as Israel as to go occupy another country. Unless of course we like insurgencies at our front doorsteps.

America would be all into Canada and Mexico if they decided to blow up buses, churches, schools, restaurants, and shopping malls. You'd better believe US citizens would demand Bush's head (or Clinton's) if all this anti-US hate were on our doorsteps and in our faces 24-7. Israel has been REMARKABLY restrained considering. If you were honest with yourself, you know full well the US wouldn't stop until there were unconditional surrender. Tell me, if this happened, would you be for a passive wall at our northern and southern borders? No occupying either country? No targeted assassinations of terror leaders in Mexico or Canada? Be serious now, okay?

I hope you don't get discouraged by the kind of responses that your thoughtful, well-reasoned posts will get here. OTOH this is probably the best place on the net to observe the psychology of belief.

Profile;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=199837

Was it something he said, among those "thoughtful, well-reasoned posts"? :)

If they are trying to invade and take over us, then yes we destroy their militaries, sign treaties of surrender, then get out.

But if we are as stupid as Israel is and occupy neighboring countries for decades, then we can expect nothing BUT assymetrical retaliatory attacks. You and I (assuming you are a patriot) would do the exact same thing if Canada or Mexico were powerful enough to occupy us.

40 years and still "Stay the Course"?

No it did not. Prior to the Arab Uprising the only land being settled was previously bought. While I understand that some of the families that worked the land were evicted that isn't exactly a great enough reason for going on a nationwide rampage.

Resistance came first.

won't make it so.

I'll remind you that the PLO - to name one organization, and not the first - was established in 1964.

its getting stale

1) It's only the Palestinians(or the "Arabs" as you insisted on calling them)that want the war to go on.
Not true. The mainstream of both major Israeli political parties have a vested interest in it as well.
Without a continued sense of Israel being in a "fight for survival", there would be no base of support for the Likud or Kadima parties. These parties have never had effective or popular economic and social ideas, they have only had a perception that they were "tougher" than Labor or parties to Labor's left.

Labor, for it's part, has abandoned a lot of its traditional social democratic values and has also become fixated with toughness and with Yuppie materialism. It needs the "fight for survival" meme to prevent its voters from switching to parties further to its left.

2) The Arab countries in general still NEED this war. Actually, not entirely true. Egypt is gaining nothing from it. Syria is asking for negotiations, and has been rebuffed on this several times by Olmert. Lebanon is being torn to shreds by the continuing tensions and the presence of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees is destabilizing it.
And, of course, the continuation of the conflict feeds the Islamist movements that could potentially topple every existing Arab government. So, actually, the Arab world needs this like a hole in the head.

A lot of compromises must be made. Negotiations and a non-victory or defeat method of solving this crisis must be found. The paradox is, Israel could crush the Palestinians militarily over and over and over and over and then still find themselves facing more Palestinians to crush, because the humiliation will make them feel obliged to keep fighting, as will the continuing repression in the Territories.

Israel needs security, but the status quo is NOT providing it.

As to the "Canada and Mexico attacking the U.S." metaphor, well, that's a tough one, but if it happened, it would probably be Mexico and I could accept giving them the Southwest back since the U.S. never had any real claim to it other than the fact that we created "facts on the ground" and invoked "Manifest Destiny", which was basically Old West for "ha breira".

I also believe that we need to be a lot less self-righteous about people coming across that border. They're not moving in, they're moving back.

The world needs to redress ALL the historic injustices if it is to survive.

shouldnt we actually give back the entire country to the american indian tribes?

after all they were here far before the spaniards or any other europeans.

should mexico go back to the spanish? the US to the british?

but we are discussing israel here. nice try at diversion though.

People keep citing these things... "country x got away with that, so we can get away with this"

thats all it is

They'll say "how come you are focusing on Israel when that and that regime is so much worse?" but then turn around and act like the terrorism faced by Israelis by the Palestinians is the worst thing happening in the world today (note to the partisans, I am not trying to diminish the threat faced by Israelis, Lord knows I wouldn't want to live under such a cloud).

there are two aspects to taking the I/P conflict in "context" of the larger world....

one: what is the real standard toward war and the civilian population, not the theory, but the actual standard:
is it russians version of chechnyia? rwanda? sudan? Ireland? Iraq? Tibet? W.Sahara?, taliban in afganistan? Egypt in Sudan?

if that is the true standard, than its clear israel is no where near those other conflicts in terms of cruelty.


Is israel being singled out?..given the actual numbers of people killed and the number of journalists, articles written, UN special reports, special this and that...its pretty obvious that it is, so the next question is why?

Even during S. Africa with its real apartheid, israel received more attention...is it because they are jews involved? (always a possibility that cannot be ignored given the jewish history with the world at large)

is it the arabs with their vast sums of money, control over the oil supply and tribalism culture that values honor over everything else?

Israel being a "client state of the US" using US military equip?
_____

its not a matter of one injustice makes another ok...its a matter of putting it into perspective. Perhaps if one is really interested in saving as many lives as possible given the tragedies of the world, it would be far more worthwhile to stop the massacres in dfur where the numbers are in the 10,000s as opposed to the I/P conflict where its far far less?

or in Chechnia?...Iraq?....but that adds another dimension....go to those countries and not only will you be ignored but given the value system there, you might just be killed, that is far more unlikely in the I/P conflict....hence we see israel being singled out because it attempts to stay with the ideals of the western value system, healthy criticism? or being singled out.....

israel is also singled out, because it can be singled out and public pressure can work.....thats simply not true in sudan, chechniya, tibet and other places as well.....
(places where real massacres actually take place)

its not a matter of one injustice makes another ok...its a matter of putting it into perspective. Perhaps if one is really interested in saving as many lives as possible given the tragedies of the world, it would be far more worthwhile to stop the massacres in dfur where the numbers are in the 10,000s as opposed to the I/P conflict where its far far less?

Us garden variety ordinary DUers can't save lives. What we do is discuss the politics of conflicts, and seeing this is the I/P forum, the I/P conflict gets discussed here. And when it comes to the big, wide world and yr view that it'd be far more worthwhile to stop the massacres in Darfur as opposed to the I/P conflict, I make the hopefully sound assumption that the international community can multitask and that it's not a matter of overlooking one conflict at the expense of another due to lower casualties....

israel is also singled out, because it can be singled out and public pressure can work.....thats simply not true in sudan, chechniya, tibet and other places as well.....
(places where real massacres actually take place)

Real massacres? So what Baruch Goldstein did wasn't a real massacre?

The US is also singled out because public pressure can hopefully work. I don't see what the problem is with that...

though this is a small miniscule place in the real world (DU), the discussions still influence people......as far as multitasking....resources are always limited, and its always best to go where they can do the most good. Whether intl politics would allow change in dfur, chechnia seems to be doubtful, but it doesnt change the facts:

whatever the reasons it should be obvious that the I/P conflict in terms of injured/killed etc gets intl attention/resources far beyond conflicts where the numbers are not just 10x not even 100x but 1,000x more killed and injured.

But I would accept a right of return.

Mexico should not go back to the Spanish, nor the US to Britain because in both cases that would be returning the land to those who stole it.

live in any neighborhood in this land.

Israel denies the right of Palestinians to return to abandoned villages, even if empty. Most are even denied the right to even visit the places where their villages stood for hundreds of years. Despite international law to the contrary. Israel still denies the great injustice of the Nakba. This will not lead to peace.

they are still at war. International law allows civilians to return following a peace arrangement. There has yet to be any kind of cessation in the violence, let alone a declared peace.

There used to be greater access to Israel for Palestinians but following the intifada Israel closed off access in favor of security. Are you really blaming them for that?

Yes, Israelis allowed the Palestinians greater freedoms to be their serfs, but the Palestinians were held under occupation before the intifada and they are occupied during the intifada.

Yes, but as I said, there has yet to be a cessation of violence. They were under occupation, sure, and it became far worse after every intifada. Had the PLO worked towards a respective peace and not war then the occupation issue could have been resolved. But there was never any point where the PLO was not actively attacking Israel. They never sought a peaceful resolution.

We can even go back to before the War of Independance, before any Palestinians were evicted and look at the Arab Uprising which predates any occupation. Occupation is an effect, not a cause.

and Israel did nothing but build settlements.

The PA was working with Israel to stop terrorists (there were no suicide bombings in 1999) but Israel gave a peace offer even Shlomo Ben Ami, Israel's chief negotiator at Camp David II, said he wouldn't accept.

And now Israel is building a new settlement and is importing new settlers. When you Israel supporters grow up and figure out what's going on with the those you defend without question, then add your commentary.

I think you misunderstood me. The first intifada began in 1987, not 2000. Between 1948 and 1987 there were constant attacks from the PLO directed towards Israeli civilians. Both before the six day war and after.

Now if we are going to talk about the period of time during Oslo, in the 90's, the number of people killed by Palestinian terrorists in the five years immediately after the Oslo accord (256) was greater than the number killed in the 15 years preceding the agreement (216).

While it is great that there were no suicide bombings in 1999, there were still bombings, (albeit fewer.) It isn't like Hamas went out of business or anything. Any way you slice it there has never been a period when Israel was not under assault.

The Palestinians had one responsibility under Oslo which they reneged on. Maybe I haven't "grown up" yet but it seems to me that you don't seem to feel that the PA or the PLO should be held to any responsibilities. Why is that?

Don't give me facts I already know and we can all agree that during the time before the first intifada, the PLO operated mostly outside the occupied territories.

Even though the situation wasn't perfect, I'll bet many Israelis will give their left arm to go back to the cooperative situation they had during the first part of Barak's term of which the PA has held up their part of the deal, at least according to former Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz.

Now answer how Israel's building more settlements and importing more settlers is doing anything to alleviate the situation or forever hold your peace.

but that peace was broken by the Palestinians.

And I don't think that the settlements have anything to do with the peace process. No one has ever broken a peace deal or refused to make one because of settlements. Likewise, dismantling settlements has never brought about any seblance of peace. If anything, the opposite has shown itself to be true.

Israel has long believed that peace would be achieved via "Land for Peace." But in Gaza they traded Land for Terror. So, let them take back some settlements. So far it looks like the more land Israel relinquishes (to non-state groups such as Hamas, the PA or Hezbollah) the worse the situation gets. Perhaps taking lots of land will spur somwonw to consider peace before they lose everything? It can't get worse than what happened after they left Gaza, now can it?

Anyone who sees more and more of their land being stolen by invaders is naturally going to fight to save their land. As it was with the Navajo, so it was with the Irish, so it is with the Palestinian.
Zionism needs to find some way to get back to being a liberation movement and stop being right-wing and colonial.

If Israel hangs onto all the land the settlements now hold, there will be no possibility of Palestinian agriculture, since the settlements include virtually all the arable land in Palestine.

How can you think this has no effect? And what right does Israel have to ask for peace if it reduces the size of a future Palestinian state to virtually nothing at all, as the current settlement holdings do?

As for Gaza, maybe it wouldn't have been as bad if the settlers hadn't destroyed much of their infrastructure on the way out.

What infrastructure was destroyed by the settlers on their way out?

Roads. A port the Palestinians were rebuilding. I have an eyewitness account of this.

What kind of human beings make it impossible for other human beings to have drinkable water?

Could ANYTHING justify that?

the palestiinians couldnt have been "rebuilding a port", when the israelis left.......(the first time last year), they werent allowed to under the occupation (yes, i too have an "eye witness"...me)

perhaps you might want to show "some proof" that when leaving gaza the israelis destroyed more than their own settlements?...and dont confuse what the israelis destroyed with what the Palestinians destroyed after they left (greenhouses, etc)

The Palestinians could have used them. Why couldn't they just leave?

The Gaza had no significance in Jewish history anyway.

the destruction was agreed upon by the PA and israel...its was good for both.....and those jews in gaza disagree with you....

Do you read the papers at all Ken?

The military, after removing the settlers by force, demolished the housing infrastructure as agreed between the PA and Israel. The reasons were twofold. One, Israel figured they could do without having footage of Hamas militants flying their flag over evacuated settler housing. Second, the two or three child housing built for settlers was inadequate for Palestinians who have much MUCH larger families. They arrived at an agreement as to who would provide funds for demolition and new construction. Some structures were left intact. Most importantly were the greenhouses which employed hundreds of Palestinians when the settlers were there and were bought by the world bank after the pullout to be donated to the PA. Many greenhouses are still operational. But many were not protected by the PA and were immediately stripped for the bits of raw copper and other material. Totally looted and destroyed by the very same people that they were left to help. Some synogauges were also left as the Israelis could not destroy them. Despite assurances to the contrary they were immediately razed. The synogauges were de-consecrated (or whatever) so this action was more symbolic of the PA's inability to hew to their own agreements than it was a real affront to religious Jews. But it was not helpful in advancing trust and had no strategic value other than to try and humiliate the evacuated settlers, which it certainly did.

I follow this conflict VERY closely and I haven't found ANYTHING resembling the actions you described. Even in virulently anti-zionist websites. And the Gaza pullout was heavily covered by the international media. I find it hard to believe that lightly armed settlers were able to find the resources or time to destroy the structures you mentioned considering that they were busy being dragged into paddywagons and driven out by the IDF.

But I'd be very much interested in it if it did indeed occur. I am not a fan of the settler movement and I agree that destroying sewage plants, roads or water purification centers is abominable. But the water centers are among the only places that have remained untouched by war or terrorism, EVER. For very good reasons. So, you're going to have to link this one up, buddy. It's a big internet. If you aren't totally and completely full of shitte then I'm sure that you'll have no problem finding a credible source for your assertions.

In a way I hope you are telling the truth. Because it is an awful thing to do, and as such would be a truly hideous thing to wrongly accuse anyone of. Good luck.

it seems that most of the poster claims are simply 'not true" at best....or whatever is the proper PC terminology that can be used on the I/P board. Some of his claims are easy and obvious to refute, others involves a simplistic approach to get to the "evil political echelon/elite of the israeli system" agenda which seems to be driving the posts.

what is clear, is that even basic info/research is lacking (gaza port?, didnt know about the agreement to destroy the settlements?)...sheeesh....

the interesting question is, if the poster is actually intereted in learning something about the conflict or isnt, cuase if its the later, it brings up a whole new subject....

And that's really arrogant to use the old "If only you knew you'd agree with me" line.
There's nothing that inherently priveleges the Israeli hard line from a moral perspective.
And it doesn't even work as policy. The fact that the Palestinians continue to use the tactics they use proves that.

You are way too stuck in the "ha breira" mentality, pelsar.

And yes, the Israeli political leadership, as opposed to the rank-and-file people, clearly couldn't be serious about wanting peace and still defend the settlements and the annexations. They KNOW those things will never be acceptable to Palestinians and they know insisting on them will just perpetuate the conflict. Why, then could they insist on them other than the fact that they don't WANT the "fight for survival" mindset to dissipate. An Israel that felt secure would never accept this level of militarization, this level of governmental indifference to social needs, this level of disengagement from all issues other than fighting a war for the sake of fighting a war.

Clearly, Israel's leader's are a far greater threat to the survival of the state than ANY Palestinian.
They betray the people over and over again in the name of short-term political survival. And they DON'T create security in doing so.

And that's really arrogant to use the old "If only you knew you'd agree with me" line.,

I never even mentioned agreeing or disagreeing.....we havent even gotten to there yet......your knowledge of the basic facts, the historical time line are simply wrong. It seems you first have your conclusion and now your trying to make the events fit that conclusion, even it involves changing "dates" events etc.

if you dont even know the basic events, i find it rather difficult to believe you have any idea of the cultures involved and their values and that of the politicians as well....

sounds like an "agenda" to me, the only real question is why?

You may want to expand your sources though to include a few credible ones in the mix. This is a complex issue and there is plenty of room for dissenting opinions, especially in regards to ethical responsibility and to the best course of action to take. Ken, despite what your personal viewpoints on this subject are there is really no excuse for putting out false propaganda of the sort you did here. I realize that there is a tremendous amount of misinformation out there and everyone makes errors or misunderstands stuff sometimes, myself very much included. I'm assuming that's all that happened and you don't have some kind of "the ends justify the means" mindset that allows you to knowingly publish false and hateful propaganda.

That said, I have a question. I've brought this up a few times and no one seems interested in engaging it.

You believe that settlement expanding contributes to the resistance, right? And you think that Israel's leadership is doing this on purpose to keep a stranglehold on power at the expense of their constituents. You believe that the current policy of settlement expansion and strict occupation rules has proven itself to be counterproductive so Israel's leadership should at least TRY a new policy of settlement closure.

But then what about the whole unilateral disengagement thing then, Ken? Kadima closed every settlement in Gaza and had a policy on the table to close many in the west bank too. The current policy of expansion was not the original plan. The original plan (that they started to enact) was exactly what you seem to be asking for, yet it resulted in tremendous violence.

It was difficult for Israel to close those settlements. It strained their society and created a lot of bad blood. Considering the high price Israel paid in closing them it is the height of cynicism for you to then casually state that they were clearly never serious about peace for real because they razed the housing. Even though that was agreed to be the best course of action by all parties. You see, there will always be SOMETHING to point to as evidence that Israel is not doing enough, no matter what kind of concessions they make. Think about the enormity of pulling out of Gaza for a moment and then compare it to the relative unimportance of the housing demolitions that you seem to think invalidated the whole concession. Rebuilding the houses was supposed to provide jobs by the way. It was seen as a benefit.

I haven't seen any evidence that the level of Palestinian violence is in ANY WAY tied to Israeli concessions. This is not what I ever expected, nor is it something I desire. But the fact remains, they did try it your way. Many, many times. Peace will require sacrifices for everyone. It cannot be a case of peace only occurring once Israel meets every single last one of every Palestinian's demands. They did not deserve qassam attacks enabled by their evacuation of gaza. Likewise, they did not deserve never ceasing attacks from Hezbollah even when they ceded to their demands. Hezbollah just came up with new demands. Do you think that if Israel gave up Shebaa Farms and released every last Lebanese prisoner that Hezbollah would cease attacks of Israel? Or would they look at it as a military victory and then demand full dismantlement of the entire state of Israel? Because that's exactly what was demanded of them before they had settlements or occupation to justify their actions.

How about this? If the Palestinians were serious about peace at all, they would not have stepped up qassam attacks following Israeli concessions.

a link from 2004:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1319776,00.html


A link to how Israeli attacks on the power station NOW are endangering the sewage system:

http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=4319


another:
http://www.sources.com/Releases/HumanitarianCrisisinGaza.htm

And another:
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/emergencies/country/middleeast/gaza_dream.htm

So I'm NOT making this up. Water disruption is being used as a weapon.
I wouldn't defend my OWN country if it did this.


It's late. I'll try to find more links tomorrow.

and most of yours is wrong..assuming, at best, that you have arrived at your opinions based on real facts and not "made up stories"..then its reasonable to assume that your opinion may change

that we will see.....

a short list of info that you posted that is simply wrong (that i remember)

the two IDF soldiers that were kidnapped were on the israeli side of the border
settlements are on hilltops, no farming, no agri land
the PA and israel agreed it was in their best interests to destroy the settlements that were evacuated
there was no gaza port being built previous to the israeli pullout last year (and i dont know if it was started after)

jews bought the land previous to 48

these are just some things i remember

and a footnote: justice is not the end goal in the middle east conflict....since justice is linked to cultures and in the middle east the ones mans justice is anothers call to arms (i would suspect your version is a western style value system, a value system that ignores the local culture and its values. Your imposition and assumption that "YOUR western values are the correct ones, reeks of colonialism. You might have to learn to respect the local culture and its value system...or at least declare your version, the "superior" one

http://teeksaphoto.org/Levant2006/Pages/Offerings_8_2006.htm

And it's just as bad to be destroying infrastructure now as it was before.

And how do you make peace on a basis of anything OTHER than justice?
(and I can't believe you'd actually use the "trying to impose my western values" meme. Israel itself is supposed to have WESTERN values.

Why defend the harshest possible policies when they can't solve this?
The iron fist doesn't freakin' work. If it did you'd have HAD peace by now.

your initial claims are simply wrong.....

and your definition of justice is not necessary those of the middle east...it may be israels, which is a western style democracy, but its not for the Palestine's nor for the other players in "the game". And one should either learn to respect their different values or at least declare yours the better ones. There is no such thing as "absolute justice" here. Peace will be achieved through acceptance of each others needs and compromise on others.....neither will achieve "justice"



i have not even mentioned which policies i agree and/or disagree to.....wer're just trying straighten out the facts, time line and history first.

But the Israeli government should have known better than to do so, if it wished to see Gaza be a peaceful place.

There was severe infrastructure damage both at the time of the settler departure and after Shalit was captured or whatever other reasons the conflict of this last summer and fall occurred(and the causes of that particular conflict are still in dispute).

The destruction of the water and sewage system was wrong whenever it was done. And it goes without saying that the Palestinians, whatever else you can say about them(and I'll agree they've made some mistakes) they damn well didn't deprive themselves of the water.

(and I personally wasn't even addressing where the Israeli soldiers were captured, as that question is irrelevant to a discussion of depriving people of water.)

but it definitely has a "white colonialist ring to it" of "we know better than the Palestinians of what they need"..

I hadn't known there was an agreement to destroy the settlements

But the Israeli government should have known better than to do so, if it wished to see Gaza be a peaceful place

so lets try to make sense of this: the PA wants the settlements destroyed...and your saying that israel should have ignored what the PA wanted because......they really dont know what is good for them?

and to continue...pay attention because this is your logic: the PA wanted the settlements destroyed, you say Israel shouldnt have listened to the PA and kept them standing, and though the PA believed they would cause much infighting amongst their own people, you believe the PA doesnt understand its own people and by keeping the settlement there would have been peace....


So are they're other requests/demands that the PA has that the israeli govt should ignore because "they dont know whats good for them?). Your perspective is legit as long as you dont hide it behind some false statements of "justice" or progressive" etc....yours is simply that of western ethnocentric person...who seems to have little patience for other cultures and believes your western values are the ones that should be used. or at least thats how i interpret your view that israel should have ignored the PAs request. (because the PA________________________(fill in the blank, it should be interesting)

you seem to be confused with dates and the time line:


What infrastructure was destroyed by the settlers on their way out?
________
Sewage treatment plants. The water distribution system. Roads. A port the Palestinians were rebuilding. I have an eyewitness account of this.


your links about the electricity being destroyed and the disruption of the water supply came after shalit was kidnapped (Palestinians crossed the 67 border in a tunnel, attacked some soldiers and took one). NOT during the withdrawl of the settlers....as per your claim.

and this is from one of your links:
millions of tons of rubble rendering the land surface "airtight" and unsuitable for agriculture I'm not really sure what an "air tight" land surface means, but the only rubble left was that of the houses and other buildings that were razed to the ground as per the agreement, as well as its removal to egypt (which the PA never carried out) as the various militias claimed the land for their own training purposes. (and for shooting rockets at israel)

If Israel hangs onto all the land the settlements now hold, there will be no possibility of Palestinian agriculture, since the settlements include virtually all the arable land in Palestine.

hate to ruin a good story, not that a few facts will change anything, but cant let this go by:

the settlements are on the hilltops for strategic reasons...the settlers do little farming...the farming, olive trees etc are either in the valleys or on the hillsides.

now, did you just make it up what you wrote?.....and since you did, perhaps you can explain why?

which prevents the Palestinians from farming. And, according to the emergency water regulations the Israeli military has had on the books since the Six Day War, Palestinians aren't allowed to drill wells as deep as the settlers can, which deprives them of water in another way.

Can your really defend using cutoffs of the water supply to subdue people?

Also, the current plans Olmert is pushing call for Israel to annex 40% of all the land in the West Bank. There can't be any real motivation to this other than to prevent the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, force Palestinians to leave simply to survive, and voila! "facts on the ground" Israel ends up with the whole West Bank.

And then still complains when they can't get a peace agreement.

That's the Likud/Kadima mindset(and remember, when you get down to it, the differences between Kadima and Likud on these issues are small enough to be trivial. It's all about crushing the foe.)

Meanwhile, Amir Peretz is permanently discredited because he allowed himself to be suckered into the Defense Ministry, where he took the blame for the failure to achieve anything in Lebanon, and Labor is in deep and probably incurable political crisis. Meretz is too weak to gain from this. And Hadash is proscribed because(G-d forbid)they include Israeli Arabs in their ranks.

It just seems bleak and doomed to get bleaker.

Israel needs a strong progressive peace party. The hard line is failed and no one is in a position to push for anything else, when a humane alternative approach is clearly the only way out of the situation.

you made a claim, which is simply not true, you just seemed to have made it up.....i asked why

for the rest of you comments i'll be happy to respond to afterwards.

Whether or not they are farming it they are keeping the Palestinians from farming. And the water is part of this. I assume you will agree that it is immoral to cut off people's water supply. And politically ineffective, since if it hasn't worked yet we can assume it never will work.

you wrote arable land... (good for agriculture)...the hilltops are barren, windy places with no soil......

the settlements are on the hilltops for strategic reasons...the settlers do little farming...the farming, olive trees etc are either in the valleys or on the hillsides.


The settlements on hillsides are there for the strategic reason of dominating the Palestinians by placing the settlements above them. And I know yr aware that farming by Palestinians is restricted due to the violence of some settlers, and also the lack of access due to checkpoints and military restrictions...

So more settlements will equal more peace? That is the type of logic that resides only in the mind of those who unquestioningly support Israeli policy - except those that give consessions to the Palestinians.

Be very careful about saying anything like that. In fact, I'd suggest not using phrases like "you people" at all in the context.

There is a lot of dissent against the establishment reactionary militarist viewpoint in Israel. It's just that there isn't a strong party at the moment to channel that support into. Labor and Meretz are discredited, Hadash is distrusted because they make the mistake as treating Israeli Arabs as political equals, and beyond them, there really aren't any other left parties at the moment.

And with Barak now likely to become the next Labor leader, Labor is once again going to abandon its commitment to social justice and fighting for the politically dispossessed in favor of going back to being(wait for it)yet ANOTHER neoliberal austerity party. What a brilliant strategic choice on their part. :puke:

but I'll take your advice and restrain myself from invidious language. Yes it is too bad that there is absolutely no party of sanity operating effectively in that country.

Since you referenced Rabin I'm assuming that "you people" refers to some group other than those that draw different conclusions on the conflict than you do.

So, I'm dying to know. Who are "me people?" And how do you know whether or not I desire peace?

http://www.counterpunch.org/cook01092007.html

Good read on Palestinian Christians leaving their homeland BTW.

On Edit: spelling

These are people who are trying to rebuild Palestine and make it better. It makes no sense to kick them out.

diaspora all over the world. Never are they allowed to return to their homes. Yes, Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza once had greater freedom to "work" (not live!) in Israel.

South Africa Blacks were also allowed to work in White communities during the Apartheid error.

It's funny how some complain so much of how dangerous it is for Israelis to be near Palestinians, yet say little about how so many Israelis have chosen to live in the West Bank settlements.

were citizens of S.A. Palestinians who are citizens of Israel can live and work wherever they want within Israel. It has nothing to do with their race or religion but their nationality and the conflict.

Up until 1988 Palestinians living in the W.B. were Jordanian citizens. Do you not understand why Jordanian citizens were not allowed to live in Israel? In 1988 Jordan relinquished control over the land and stripped the inhabitants of their citizenship (and now barring them from entering Jordan proper too. So the same WB Palestinians you mentioned are also barred from visiting their old homes or families in Jordan.) Anyway, taking away their Jordanian citizenship doesn't automatically make them Israeli, you know. You can't commit apartheid against a citizen of another nation. Otherwise America is committing apartheid in Iraq. (Gasp! Did you know that Iraqis can't even vote in American elections? Even Saddam let them vote! Once.)

Roughly half are citizens of one nation or another. About half of all of Jordan's citizens are Palestinian. (Just as most of Jordan IS technically Palestine.) Many are Israeli and many live in the west. The other half (who are generally living in the states surrounding Israel) are stateless.

The Arab League issued a declaration early on in the conflict forbidding any Arab state from extending citizenship to Palestinian refugees in order to keep the refugee issue alive, which obviously has more to do with hurting Israel than it does looking out for Palestinian's best interests. Jordan was the only Arab state to break this resolution, for obvious reasons. But the events of Black September ended Hussein's gregarious streak.

In all fairness I don't believe that we can ask any nation to grant the Palestinians citizenship if they have had the PLO start a civil war within their borders or have taken up arms against their governments in the past few decades. So I don't think that Israel, Jordan, Lebanon or Kuwait owe the Palestinians anything in terms of guaranteed citizenship. The PLO started a war with each of them.

Which nation are you referring to? They are stateless at the moment. You didn't answer my question.

that you can't commit apartheid against people who are not citizens of your nation. Whether they belong to another nation or are stateless doesn't matter.

jurisdiction and responsibility, then you some of your citizens live their, you control the roads etc., then you can run an apartheid system. And they are.

But right now it is just occupied territory. It isn't a state yet, the borders aren't set and there isn't a peace agreement. It's a little absurd to argue that an occupying power has to treat an enemy that it is essentially at war with the same as its own citizens and anything less is the equivalent of apartheid.

Look at Iraq for example. Iraqis are not just allowed in and out of the green zone, where many US non-military citizens live, enclosed from the rest of the country. A relative of mine worked on the Saddam Hussein trial (filming it) and lived in the green zone. Now, it is a little different than Palestine because the borders of Iraq are set, but for the day to day practicality it isn't very different.

Besides, apartheid is traditionally discrimination based on race. I don't think discrimination based on nationality is the same thing at all. Especially if there is a conflict at hand. Now I'm no supporter of the settler movement, but calling it apartheid is really a bit of a stretch for me.

Look at it this way. Apartheid is practiced in order to keep a specific group in a second class status. Oppression is the goal, it is the end result. In the case of Israel, security is the goal. The Palestinians are oppressed, sure. But not because oppressing them gives anything to Israel. Rather, it is a side effect of necessary security precautions that did not previously exist. While you end up with something that may resemble apartheid, motive is key. Had there been no intifada would you have this "apartheid wall" going up? No, of course not.

They were all supposed to be citizens of the "tribal homelands" remember? Meaningless little slabs of unusable land. Just like the land that's left in the West Bank after the settlements, whether or not they farm, take the good land for themselves.

The only way to peace is to get rid of that combination of fascist racist crazies(the "religious" settlers)and the people who were just looking for cheap homes(the rest). They can live in Israel Proper. There's no reason for them to be in the West Bank. They don't come there to live as equals with the Palestinians, they come their to act like freakin' conquerors. Actually, to act like the Romans did.

Just maybe, just maybe try humanity and common sense for a change, rather than arrogance and "ha breira". Being able to create "facts on the ground" doesn't mean those "facts" necessarily SHOULD be created.

you consistently neglect the fact that it was the Palestinians that first attacked the Jews. And attacked civilians no less. It is not disputed that the first real attacks were in 1929 and were not preceded by any violence on the part of the Jews. It is also a fact that all of the land that they occupied up to that point had been purchased, NOT appropriated by force. In fact, many were previously swampland that were drained using european technology.

Does that sound like the Romans to you?

There were several reasons that the Arabs attacked in 1929. Most importantly they felt that they were becoming a dispossesed economic minority in their own land. There was a classic historical snafu that I'm sure you're aware of whereby the JNF purchased land from out of state landholders and evicted the tenants, many of whom had been working the land for generations. Arab law gave the tenants ownership of everything ON the land, but the europeans, unfamiliar with this idea, assumed control of the crops as well. In the case of olive trees, which can last a thousand years, this was a big deal.

The Jews also made a habit of solely employing Jews to work the fields. Another classic mixup. This was read by the Palestinains as the Jews trying to usurp their land AND their jobs. In reality, the Jewish settlers were trying to avoid the trap they fell into in Europe where they became owners and supervisors and never tillers. They were attempting to avoid creating a two tier class system which relegated the Palestinians to laborers and the Jews to owners. At the same time they were attempting to break the mold of the diaspora Jew as a bookish intellectual in favor of a strong Sabra who tilled the land himself. In short, much of the tension was the result of a series of cultural misunderstandings. Yet none of it was an excuse for the massacres of 1929. Not by a long shot. Especially since the Arab population boomed during this time with their own immigration jump due to the new economic opportunities provided by the advanced farming practices of the settlers. The Palestinians lives were changing and it pissed them off. They felt that they had less control over their lives which had been static for centuries. What is overlooked is that their lives were ultimately changing for the better. In high tide all boats rise. But their boats were not rising nearly as fast as the Jewish settlers, and THAT is what prompted the Arab natives to start the violence. In any case, tough nuts. This was right after WORLD WAR ONE! The whole world had to adjust. Many had to adjust to far worse conditions than the IMPROVEMENT that the Palestinians faced. If the rest of the world acted in this way we would all be dead ten times over.

There is a difference between having citizenship REVOKED and not having it to begin with. The Palestinians are, for all practical purposes, a separate nation, in identity if not in recognized statehood yet. And they are in a state of war with Israel. The Palestinians in the West Bank had their JORDANIAN citizenship revoked, not their Israeli citizenship.

It confuses the issue to try and draw an imperfect parallel between this conflict and apartheid for PR reasons. It's like when someone who disagrees with Bush's policies (for example) and compares him with Hitler. Just because one can draw a few weak parallels between the Bush administration and national socialism does not mean that Republican is equivalent to fascism. The same goes for Israel.

If Israel wanted a peaceful settlement they would abide by the 1948 UN decision that illegally divided the state of Palestine and return all stolen land back to its rightful owners. but we know what will never happen now don't we..

I think you have forgetton how Jews and Arab's lived in PEACE for centuries in the middle east.. Only the Jews brought the conflict.

Certainly living under dhimmitude beat conversion and/or outright murder. But "PEACE"?

What about the Wailing Wall clashes in 1928?

What about 1929 Hebron?

Beer-Sheva?

1936 attack on a Jewish bus that leads to a 3 year Arab rebellion resulting in a ban on land sales to Jews?

Any of this ringing a bell?

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

And the big one. Jews and Arabs lived in peace before the Jews brought the conflict. Well, the fact that Jews, living as dhimmi in Arab lands, were usually confined to ghettos, had their choice of jobs, education and opportunities limited by law, had to wear identifying badges, were frequently subject to widespread massacres and pogroms up until Israel declared independence in 1948. Then things got bad.

Whether you like it or not, and obviously you don't, there was relative peace between Jews and Arabs in the centuries prior to the 20th century. There wasn't the widespread violence you claim, and the discrimination you claim was solely reserved for Jews was a discrimination against all non-Muslims. Restrictions on employment didn't stop some Jews from reaching high ranking positions in the Ottoman administration....

there was relative peace between Jews and Arabs in the centuries prior to the 20th century. ...... and the discrimination you claim was solely reserved for Jews was a discrimination against all non-Muslims

you've got to be kidding?......so as long as the group(s) that are being discriminated against...keep their head down and dont do anything about it, then its considered "peaceful"....and acceptable?

at least thats what it sounds like:....can i then assume that pre intifada I, when there was relative peace between the jews and palestinians.....this would be considered "ok" by you?...and since i know you dont think it was, how can you consider the period when jews were second class citizens in arab countries "peaceful"?....or like pre intifada it can be declared peaceful but unacceptable?

There were quite a few incidents of mass violence against Jews by Muslims prior to the 20th century.

The Palestinians offer.

The simple reality is that with the possible exception of about 10 days in Taba, Egypt in Jan 2001 the Palestinians have never been offered anything remotely like a reasonable settlement in the past decades. Even then at Taba there is no evidence that they were presented with an offer. And even then Taba fell far, far short of the minimum requirements for settlement as established by international law. But there were possibly viable discussions. The Palestinians certainly never rejected a reasonable settlement. And Prime Minister Ehud Barak made it absolutely clear that the Taba talks did NOT have Israeli government backing as official negotiations.

The ink wasn't even dry from signing the Oslo Accord in September, 1993 and Israel was engaging in the most massive settlement expansion project in its history, along with building the Apartheid roads and imposing closure policies which devastated the Palestinian economy. Oslo was actually used as a pretext to justify closure policies which made a viable economy virtually impossible. And this was well before one single suicide bombing ever occurred; this first happening in Afula on April 6, 1994. In September of 1993 there were a total of about 95,000 Israeli settlers living in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. By 2000 the number had increased to the multiple hundreds of thousands. Estimates range between 300,000 and 400,000.

When the Israeli and Palestinian delegations met in the summer of 2000 for final status talks, the only offers the Palestinians were given were so outrageous that even a lead negotiator and the Israeli Foreign Minister Schlomo Ben-Ami has said very clearly that he would have rejected the offer if he had been Palestinian. links:
http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

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

It was not until the very final days of the Barak Labor government and under tremendous pressure from President Clinton did the Israeli government get serious about a credible offer.

Unfortunately with Mr. Sharon who was widely expected to win the election pledging that he would not honor the agreement and then Mr. Barak deciding to distance himself from the Taba negotiations, Israel--not the Palestinians unilaterally withdrew from the Taba talks on January 28, 2001. It must be said in fairness that Israel was just a couple weeks away from the election at that point:

Here is a link to the European Union summary document regarding the Taba talks first published in Haaretz on February 14, 2001:

"Moratinos Document" - The peace that nearly was at Taba

"In the current reality of terror attacks and bombing raids, it is hard to remember that Israel and the Palestinians were close to a final-status agreement at Taba only 13 months ago."

By Akiva Eldar

Ha'aretz
14 February 2002 - link: http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

snip" This document, whose main points have been approved by the Taba negotiators as an accurate description of the discussions, casts additional doubts on the prevailing assumption that Ehud Barak "exposed Yasser Arafat's true face." It is true that on most of the issues discussed during that wintry week of negotiations, sizable gaps remain. Yet almost every line is redolent of the effort to find a compromise that would be acceptable to both sides. It is hard to escape the thought that if the negotiations at Camp David six months earlier had been conducted with equal seriousness, the intifada might never have erupted. And perhaps, if Barak had not waited until the final weeks before the election, and had instead sent his senior representatives to that southern hotel earlier, the violence might never have broken out."

link to the rest of Mr. Eldar's analysis as well as complete summary documents known as the "Moratinos Document"

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html
_________________________________

link to a summary of what was actually offered to the Palestinians at Camp David in the Summer of 2000:

link:

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

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

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

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

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

snip:"In April 2002, the countries of the Arab League--from moderate Jordan to hardline Iraq--unanimously agreed on a Saudi peace plan centering around full peace, recognition and normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders as well as a "just resolution" to the refugee issue. Palestinian negotiator Nabil Sha'ath declared himself "delighted" with the plan. "The proposal constitutes the best terms of reference for our political struggle," he told the Jordan Times (3/28/02)."

read full article:

The Myth of the Generous Offer
Distorting the Camp David negotiations -- link: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113
__________________________

Here is a link to very long 43 page pdf file summary. The article is neutral and dispassionate. It gives a very calm and rational critique of all sides:

Visions in Collisions: What Happened at Camp David and Taba
by Dr. Jeremy Pressman, University Connecticut

link:

http://www.samed-syr.org/CampDavidAndTaba.pdf
_________________________


The Arab Peace Initiative (Also known as the Saudi Peace Plan)

It was unanimously affirmed by the Arab League and immediately endorsed by the Palestinian leadership in March 2002 and very recently reaffirmed. However, more or less the same plan has been offered by the Arab League and enthusiastically endorsed by the Palestinian leadership going back much, much longer.

link: http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm

"The Council of Arab States at the Summit Level at its 14th Ordinary Session, reaffirming the resolution taken in June 1996 at the Cairo Extra-Ordinary Arab Summit that a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East is the strategic option of the Arab countries, to be achieved in accordance with international legality, and which would require a comparable commitment on the part of the Israeli government.

Having listened to the statement made by his royal highness Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, crown prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in which his highness presented his initiative calling for full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967, in implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, reaffirmed by the Madrid Conference of 1991 and the land-for-peace principle, and Israel's acceptance of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, in return for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel.

Emanating from the conviction of the Arab countries that a military solution to the conflict will not achieve peace or provide security for the parties, the council:

1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.

2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:

I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries

5. Calls upon the government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighborliness and provide future generations with security, stability and prosperity

6. Invites the international community and all countries and organizations to support this initiative.

7. Requests the chairman of the summit to form a special committee composed of some of its concerned member states and the secretary general of the League of Arab States to pursue the necessary contacts to gain support for this initiative at all levels, particularly from the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the Muslim states and the European Union."

link: http://www.mideastweb.or

You might want to see some more accurate ones. :)


Jewish population
-----------------


1993
----
West Bank (excluding Jerusalem)- 111,600
Gaza Strip- 4,800
Parts of Jerusalem annexed in 1967- 130,000


2004
----
West Bank (excluding Jerusalem)- 231,800
Gaza Strip- 8,000
Parts of Jerusalem annexed in 1967- 177,000


According to Israeli government statistics, just under 400,000 Israelis lived in territories captured during the 1967 war as of November 2000. Since the Oslo Accords 1993, the settlers' number on the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem) has doubled, from 115,000 to 230,000.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlements#Population



EDIT: By the way, I noticed that you said that Israel rejects peace no matter how many concessions the Palestinians offer. Can you point out those concessions to me please. Because after looking at that peace plan that they are in favor of I was unable to find a single concession that the Palestinians would be responsible for. They did not compromise on a single demand. Or do you consider peace itself to be a concession for the Palestinians?

by renouncing the claim on 78% of their homeland?

But even over looking that--if the standard is International Law....that is--what are the Palestinians entitled to under International Law and what are the Israelis entitled to under International Law.

ALL concessions have been offered by the Palestinians...and Israel has offered exactly ZERO concessions.

Under International Law, Israel is not entitled to one single inch of the West Bank or East Jerusalem. International Law declares these areas to be Occupied Palestinian Land. The Palestinians have certainly offered to make compromises and adjustments to territory that is their indisputably legal entitlement. They also offered to compromise a great deal in regards to the rights of return for Palestinian refugees. Again this is their indisputably legal entitlement under International Law.

All Israeli settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory are completely illegal. This is affirmed by the Fourth Geneva Convention, UN Resolutions 338, 465 and 478 and more recently by the World Court decision of 2004. Even so the Palestinians have offered to compromise a great deal on these settlements.

link to a summary of what was actually offered to the Palestinians at Camp David in the Summer of 2000:

link:

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

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

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

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

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

snip:"In April 2002, the countries of the Arab League--from moderate Jordan to hardline Iraq--unanimously agreed on a Saudi peace plan centering around full peace, recognition and normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders as well as a "just resolution" to the refugee issue. Palestinian negotiator Nabil Sha'ath declared himself "delighted" with the plan. "The proposal constitutes the best terms of reference for our political struggle," he told the Jordan Times (3/28/02)."

read full article:

The Myth of the Generous Offer
Distorting the Camp David negotiations -- link: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113


BTW: I would have to agree that it appears that my figures were not so accurate --- Sloppy of me. I must concede. It appear to me now that the apartheid settlements only doubled between the signing of the Oslo Accord and the Camp David talks in 2000. Thanks for the correction.

That you learn a little more about the complex history of this conflict before you start determining the question of related legality. You seem to be pulling your information from biased websites and are missing much of the story. It's late and I'm not going to go through your whole thing pulling apart the inaccuracies now. But I'll voice an issue with the basic message.

First off, Israel does not make up 78% of Palestine. Palestine was partitioned in 1921 into two parts, Palestine and Trans-Jordan. The Palestine that was further partitioned in 1948 makes up only 20% of the original land of Palestine. 80% became Jordan. Once we remove the occupied territories from the equation we are left with 17.5% which is what became Israel.

Of the land in question, 9% was owned by Jews, 3% by Arabs who later became citizens of Israel and 70% by the British Mandate (which reverted to Israel after the Mandate ended.) That leaves 18% which was owned by Arabs who left or were expelled, thus losing their land. What is your belief that all of the land of Palestine belongs to the Arabs based on?

Since you also seem to place some value on the idea of a historical homeland, what are your views on Hebron? It is certainly in the West Bank and also almost entirely populated by Arabs. Yet is was also a center for Jewish thought for centuries (at least) ending only after the Hebron massacres of 1929. Who then, in your opinion, should be the rightful owners and why?

organization -- here is the link to the statement from Amnesty International:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE150132001

I will grant the fully implementing this right is not practical -- the point I was trying to make is that the Palestinians were willing to compromise on this legal right which is a major issue.

By the 1920's Palestine came to mean both to mainstream Zionist and to the Palestinian leadership that area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean which both sides viewed as Palestine and was then in fact British Mandate Palestine. There is clearly a difference in national identity between Jordanians and Palestinians. Even in Jordan today where over half the citizens migrated in or after 1948 from British Mandate Palestine there is a very strong awareness of who is Palestinian and who is Jordanian.

Obviously the 1929 Hebron massacre was an atrocity.

International Law clearly affirms and based on the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquirement of land by force that the areas of the West Bank, Gaza and pre-1967 Jerusalem occupied after June 4, 1967 is Occupied Palestinian Land, most recently reaffirmed in the World Court Decision of July 2004. However, if it is possible or becomes possible in the future to grant both Jewish and Palestinian people the right to live anywhere of their choosing as full and equal citizens in the area that is now under Israeli sovereignty in a system that respects the national, cultural, language and religious rights of the major groups, I personally believe that would be a preferable arrangement to the two-state solution.

though in an ideal world a one state solution may be a nice idea...one look at gaza and that "ideal" is brought down to its knees. There are in fact other places, such a lebanon where mixed cultures involving power sharing in the middle east is shown to be no more than a powder keg and the idea of risking (how many were killed in the lebanese civil war?) an ideal when the reality is so blunt, is nothing more than foolishness.

I agree that certainly includes a single state solution at least for the foreseeable future.

That leaves two other alternatives; the two-state solution or expulsion.

However a viable two-state solution is simply not possible if the West Bank continues to be carved up with settlements, roads that are off limits to Palestinians and even crossing many of those roads is forbidden in many cases, and solutions which would force residents of a Palestinian state to travel in and out of Palestinian and Israeli territory even for relatively short distances, Israeli control of the Jordan Valley which would drastically impinge on Palestinian access to the outside world and of course the whole system of walls, barriers and fences.

I am not necessarily endorsing a single-state solution. However, if things continue in the current direction -- a two-state solution will simply no longer be possible in the not too distant future. And the single-state/two nations solution does offer a possibility of getting pass the most intractable arguments regarding settlements, demarcation of borders and sovereignty over Jerusalem. But I agree that at the moment it sounds a bit utopian to put it mildly. In the future it might happen only because there is no alternative.

Even Prime Minister Olmert realizes that unilateral disengagements have turned into a disaster. Walls and fences that simply cordon off millions of people in restrictive cantons in nonviable economies will certainly be an explosive time bomb.

for your thoughtful response. I think you brought up several valid points. I'd like to mention something that often seems to get lost in discussions on this topic.

When people look at this conflict from the outside they see what looks to be a modern update on colonialism with Israel playing the role of the intruding resource and land usurper and the Palestinians playing the role of oppressed native population, desperately struggling to free themselves from underneath the weight of European totalitarianism. And I'll freely admit that it looks like that. And it is a natural reaction to try and apply memes that we are comfortable with and have served us well in understanding the forces that shape our history. You can see this tendancy in how people so often try and apply definitions (like apartheid for example) from other well known struggles to the I/P one. But, almost nothing in this conflict really resembles any of these things and in trying to hammer it in so it fits these pre-concieved notions we end up with a fun-house distortion of what is really going on and especially what the motives and desires of all the players are.

Look at unileteral disengagement for example. The thought here was not to lock up the entire palestinian population in some kind of giant prision. Israel has a real problem in that they really don't have anyone to negotiate with. Under Oslo for instance, while the PA agreed to the terms Hamas rejected them leading to a situation where Israel was expected to play by the rules yet Hamas had a free hand to attack them at will. The new Hamas government is another example. Upon taking office they rejected any standing agreements between Israel and Palestine. So Israel has very limited options.

When they left Gaza they left a strong gardening infrastructure in place and the PA was left in charge of controlling their own border to Egypt. They were given a lot of autonomy in fact, and had they not used it to fire rockets at Israel and start a civil war, Gaza could have become an example for what could be in the West Bank.

Another thing to note is that while the Palestinians themselves are poor, the PLO is not. Not at all. They receive a ton of aid, until recently the biggest donor by far was the US followed by the EU and then, Israel, beleive it or not. They have had many many opportunities to kickstart their economy but they hjaven't for several reasons. Primarily there is the conflict. But in times when the PLO or Hamas were less aggressive there was a lot of investment and help coming from all over the place. Primarily from wealthy Israeli Arabs who wished to both help their relatives and get in on the ground floor of a brand new economy. But the corruption of the PA and PLO also played a big role.

In short, you can't take this situation at fasce value. The fact of the matter is that the PLO has managed to fail their people despite having more money pumped into their economy per capita than any other similar state. Suha Arafat's personal wealth has been estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The Palestinians do not HAVE to have a non-viable economy. But corruption took priority for Fatah and nor ideology takes precedence for Hamas.

The other important thing to remember is that the resistance preceded any of the things you mention. It preceded occupation, it preceded Israeli violence, it was there when the Palestinians were the majority in Palestine. So you are working with a faulty cause-and-effect system. The occupation did not cause the violence because the violence came first. It is vice-versa. And explosive and violent population can certainly lead to hardship for them in regards to being stuck in fenced off areas with nonviable economies. And it is because of that, that the PA has to show that it is willing to renounce violence before peace can truly take form. Because the very first tool that they used to change the way their society was heading was extreme violence. And they have never once abandonded it for a moment.

and the picture was becoming clear to the Arab people of Palestine that these new immigrants from Europe were not just coming to live in their communities -- they were coming to establish a state -- a state by the definition of the dominant wings of the Zionist movement -- would mean that Jewish people would hold the upper hand and the Arab peoples would at the very least would hold an inferior status and might possibly face dispossession -- Under such a picture it should not be too surprising the Arab people of Palestine resisted and came to oppose this migration from Europe.

As Benny Morris put it, "the fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was the chief engine that drove Arab antagonism to Zionism".

It was not entirely irrational paranoia on the part of the Palestinian Arabs to fear that this coming state might mean their displacement and dispossession. Please allow me to quote former Israeli Foreign Minister and Israeli historian Shlomo Ben-Ami from Scars of War Wounds of Peace, the Israeli-Arab Tragedy, page 25-26

http://www.amazon.com/Scars-War-Wounds-Peace-Israeli-Arab/dp/0195181581/sr=1-1/qid=1166681762/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books

"The idea of transfer of Arabs had a long pedigree in Zionist thought. Moral scruples hardly intervened in what was normally seen as a realistic and logical solution, a matter of expediency. Israel Zangvill, the founding father of the concept, advocated transfer as early as 1916. For as he said, ' if we wish to give a country to a people without a country, it is utter foolishness to allow it to be the country of two people...."

"The idea of transfer was not the intimate dream of only the activists and militants of the Zionist movement. A mass exodus of Arabs from Palestine was no great tragedy, according to Menachem Usishkink, a leader of the General Zionist. To him the message of the Arab Revolt was that coexistence was out of the question and it was now either the Arabs or the Jews, but not both. Even Aharon Zislong, a member of the extreme Left of the Zionist Labour movements, who during the 1948 war would go on record as being scandalized by the atrocities committed against the Arab population, saw no 'moral flaw' in transfer of the Arabs...But again, Ben Gurion's voice had always a special meaning and relevance. At a Zionist meeting in June 1938 he was as explicit as he could be. 'I support compulsory transfer. I don't see in it anything immoral.' But he also knew that transfer would be possible only in the midst of war, not in 'normal times.' What might be impossible in such times, he said 'is possible in revolutionary times.' The problem was, then, not moral, perhaps not even political,it was a function of timing, this meant war"
______________

Even the Peel Commission in the late 1930's acknowledged that a viable Jewish state would not be possible without a transfer of hundreds of thousands of Arabs.

It now appears obvious even to many Palestinians that rejection of the November 1947 U.N. partition plan was a mistake. However, in the context of the time with much of the Zionist movement claiming that their acceptance was only a first step and with open talk of transferring major portions of the Palestinian population and with 66% of the population being offered 45% of the land it may not have seemed like a very generous or even a very wise offer at the time.

In retrospect, since the indigenous Palestinian independence movement had already been bitterly defeated and most of its leadership exiled by the British as a result of the rebellion of 1936-1939, it may now seem apparent that accepting the 47 partition would have at least left the Palestinians in a much stronger position.
__________

I think there are a number of reasons why Gaza was a disaster. When would you guess the following paragraph was written:

"Economic conditions have deteriorated so dramatically that there is no formal economy any more. Hunger is now a growing problem. The family unit has been weakened; the classroom has been barred. Children of all ages are traumatized; parents no longer exist as such. Gaza is a very different place today than it was just two years ago when I first started working there. It is a society on the verge of imploding."

This was written in July of 1993 by Dr. Sara Roy of Harvard University who has lived, worked and researched in the Gaza much of the past 21 years. This article was originally published in The Women's Review of Books under the title, "Writing out of Crisis" then reprinted in Dr. Roy's book; Failing Peace: Gaza and and the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict-
Amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/Failing-Peace-Gaza-Palestinian-Israeli-Conflict/dp/0745322344/sr=11-1/qid=1164990855/ref=sr_11_1/102-8701952-4352901

Dr. Sara Roy is a Professor at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University. Dr. Roy has worked in the Gaza Strip and West Bank since 1985 conducting research primarily on the economic, social, and political development of the Gaza Strip and on U.S. foreign aid to the region. Dr. Roy has written extensively on the Palestinian economy, particularly in Gaza, and has documented its development over the last three decades.

Here is a link to an article by Dr. Roy which gives an political and economic overview as to reasons why the Gaza situation is as it is:

http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/images/informationbrief.php?ID=169
__________________

Frankly, the situation in Gaza is obviously not good especially for the Gaza Palestinians as well as the Israelis in nearby communities. Unfortunately opportunities to bring Hamas to a more realistic and nonviolent position have been greatly weakened by the endless cycle of violence. Yes, part of this, a large part of this, is the fault of the Palestinians. However, I do not believe that the American and Israeli response to the election has made a positive contribution to bringing peace and security to everyone concerned. Hamas had after all maintained a fourteen month unilateral cease fire prior to their election in spite of members of their leadership killed in targeted assassinations. And the Hamas leadership had adopted a much more conciliatory tone both prior to and immediately after their election victory.

Once again former Israeli Foreign Minister Schlomo Ben-Ami(by the way this is an excellent and very civil one and a half hour debate he had with Professor Finkelstein, it can be downloaded or listened to by streaming online or one can read the transcript):
link: http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

"SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Yes, Hamas. I think that in my view there is almost sort of poetic justice with this victory of Hamas. After all, what is the reason for this nostalgia for Arafat and for the P.L.O.? Did they run the affairs of the Palestinians in a clean way? You mentioned the corruption, the inefficiency. Of course, Israel has contributed a lot to the disintegration of the Palestinian system, no doubt about it, but their leaders failed them. Their leaders betrayed them, and the victory of Hamas is justice being made in many ways. So we cannot preach democracy and then say that those who won are not accepted by us. Either there is democracy or there is no democracy.

And with these people, I think they are much more pragmatic than is normally perceived. In the 1990s, they invented the concept of a temporary settlement with Israel. 1990s was the first time that Hamas spoke about a temporary settlement with Israel. In 2003, they declared unilaterally a truce, and the reason they declared the truce is this, that with Arafat, whose the system of government was one of divide and rule, they were discarded from the political system. Mahmoud Abbas has integrated them into the political system, and this is what brought them to the truce. They are interested in politicizing themselves, in becoming a politic entity. And we need to try and see ways where we can work with them.

Now, everybody says they need first to recognize the state of Israel and end terrorism. Believe me, I would like them to do so today, but they are not going to do that. They are eventually going to do that in the future, but only as part of a quid pro quo, just as the P.L.O. did it. The P.L.O., when Rabin came to negotiate with them, also didn't recognize the state of Israel, and they engaged in all kind of nasty practices. And therefore, we need to be much more realistic and abandon worn-out cliches and see whether we can reach something with these people. I believe that a long-term interim agreement between Israel and Hamas, even if it is not directly negotiated between the parties, but through a third party, is feasible and possible."
_________________

Please do not interpret anything I have said as an apologias for terrorism. That is not where I am coming from. But I do believe it is always valuable to understand why things might happen.

______________

If I may be so bold as to recommend one interesting book I just finished
on the political history of the Palestinian movement:

The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood
by Rashid Khalidi, Professor of Middle East Studies - Columbia University

The book is not particularly a polemic or an advocacy book for the Palestinian cause. It's more an examination of the numerous obstacles that stood in the way of Palestinian political self-determination. I would say it is quite critical and self-critical on the question as to why Palestinian statehood has not been achieved. I suppose one might say that Dr. Khalidi, who comes from a leading Palestinian political family, is sort of the Palestinian equivalent of a quote, "new historian".

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Iron-Cage-Palestinian-Struggle-Statehood/dp/0807003085/sr=11-1/qid=1166258958/ref=sr_11_1/102-8701952-4352901

thats just a political game....the answer really is simple and it lies in gaza for everyone involved, no matter how difficult it may be for the palestinians (hamas/islamic jihad/fatah....).

If and when the palestinians make a positive society out of gaza, with real responsibility towards its own citizens, as written about by the hamas spokesman

'Let's admit we erred' "We didn't succeed in preserving the victory of liberating Gaza. 500 people died in the Strip since the withdrawal, as opposed to 3-4 Israelis killed by rockets. The reality in Gaza today is one of neglect, sadness, and failure. When someone errs we are scared to criticize him to avoid being accused of being against the resistance," Hamad wrote

Ali Waked
Published: 
08.27.06, 20:
____________

the solution has two aspects: the Palestinians accepting 100% responsibility for gaza....no matter what the hardships, thats an attitude change that must come about.

israelis like myself seeing that very turn around and understanding that the Palestinian society is now more concerned with their own well being and success as opposed to continuing the conflicts.

blaming someone else for your troubles is the attitude of "losers" if you'll pardon an expression we hear frequently on all those wonderful psycho talk shows.....

_______

an interesting note about the 48 war and the "wish" for the arab transfer:..The arabs that decided to stay and not fight, as in the village Pharadis next to where i live, spoke with the local hagana commander, told him, they're staying out of the conflict....and the war "skipped over them.' No transfer, no killing, just israeli citizenship and a very successful village....a familiar story to many of the existing arab villages throughout israel (and they're "other" stories as well-hence the conclusion is that war is a very confusing situation with no one single "storyline")

Frankly, I do. If you can get the drift of my point.

Regarding the war of 1948 approximately -- 15% of Palestinians were able to stay within Israel. I don't believe anyone would suggest that all of the other 85% were combatants.

"The reality on the ground was at times far simpler and more cruel than what Ben-Gurion was ready to acknowledge. It was that of an Arab community in a state of terror facing a ruthless Israeli army whose path to victory was paved not only by its exploits against the regular Arab armies, but also by the intimidation, at at times atrocities and massacres it perpetrated against the civilian Arab community. A panic-stricken Arab community was uprooted under the impact of massacres that would be carved into the Arabs' monument of grief and hatred."

from page 42, Scars of War Wounds of Peace, the Israeli-Arab Tragedy, by former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami
_____________________

check in to the palestinain post of the time..when the arabs of haifa decided to leave AFTER the fighting.....that in itself tells volumes of the "ruthless israeli army"

http://palestinepostings.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_palestinepostings_archive.html

or here for the complete archives;

http://jic.tau.ac.il/Default/Skins/PalestineP/Client.asp?Skin=PalestineP&GZ=T&AW=1168809000078&AppName=2

reading the post of the times reveals some very interesting details about the conflict......far better than any book

as far as the armericans go...they are still in iraq....the israelis are no longer in gaza.

its funny a thing about gaza, the fact that israel left twice, once with minimal negotiation and the second time under full negotation seems to be forgotten, and BOTH times the result was the same: kassams on israeli cities......there seems to be a problem here and in this instance, its pretty clear which side it is.

invasion and occupation continue for some time to come? I think most likely they would. If the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from a small but heavily populated and extremely hostile section of Iraq but remained in the rest of Iraq, could it be reasonably expected to that resistance would then stop? I don't think so.

Whether one wants to subscribe blame in the Gaza situation as 60/40, 90/10 or 51/49 or whatever, it is clear that whatever percentage of blame -- it cannot reasonably said to be 100% the fault of the Palestinians.

Just as the fighting in Iraq is not 100% the fault of the Americans.

There are big differences between the two conflicts though. The motives are not the same. And I think it is unreasonable to ask Israel to continue to make concessions to a Palestine that hasn't recognized them and isn't making real efforts (perhaps is incapable of making real efforts at this point) for peace. While it can't be expected that the resistance would stop just becuase Israel left Gaza, it is expected that violence doesn't escalate because of it. Peace doen't have to burst into bloom instantly. But they do have to refrain from punishing the Israelis every time they make a sacrafice benefiting the Palestinians.

in the West Bank simply was not that much of a sacrifice. Anyone in their right mind in Israel knew keeping the colonies in Gaza was far more trouble and far more expense than it could possibly be worth.

The history of Israeli actions and policy in the Gaza going all the way back to 1967 hardly did much to set the stage for a viable economy or meaningful government institutions. And to be honest, the Egyptian occupation wasn't that great either.

But I do agree with you that the Palestinian leadership have screwed up. Even though it would be very difficult to control such an environment with numerous small armed groups even if they had much better and stronger institutions.

The U.S. and Israeli decision not to honor the election results and to impose crippling political and economic sanctions which do amount to a form of collective punishment do not help matters either.

representational of the kind of (excuse me here, I don't mean this obnoxiously) double standard that westerners have regarding what kind of behaviour we deem acceptable from Israel vs. the Palestinians. In a sense I think this is understandable. After all, Israel is a Western nation populated by Europeans and as such I feel we should hold them to a higher standard.

But while I agree when you said "it should not be too surprising the Arab people of Palestine resisted and came to oppose this migration from Europe."I disagree with the relative insignificance you assign it compared to stuff like the security fence or military occupation. Sure, everyone knew that the Jews were coming to establish a nation, no one was blindsided by it. It was part of the treaties that ended WWI. But there was a specific instance that sparked the initial violence and I think it's worth noting.

One of the first major outbreaks of Palestinian violence against the Jews under the British Mandate for Palestine took place between 4 and 7 April 1920 in the Old City of Jerusalem. These events are sometimes referred to as the Nebi Musa riots.

After Emir Faisal I agreed to the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine by signing the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, the local leaders of the Palestinian Arab community, among them the Jerusalem Mayor Musa al-Husayni, rejected this agreement made in their name, and relations between Arabs and Jews worsened. The agreement was rejected because it did not meet the condition that Prince Faisal wrote next to his signature, which rendered the agreement non-binding. This condition was that an independent Syrian state be created prior to the agreement taking effect. This state was not created during Prince Faisal's reign.

What is important about this event is that the violence didn't spring from a legit fear that their society was going to be lost as much as it did a sense of wounded pride at having to compromise in the creation of what they saw as their state by birthright. This is supported by Chaim Weizman's statement concerning the subject.

"I should like to point out that we do not aspire to found a Zionist State. What we want is a country in which all nations and all creeds shall have equal rights and equal tolerance. We cannot hope to rule a country in which only one-seventh of the population are at present Jews."

This sentiment was repeated time and time again along with pleas for peace between the Christian, Jewish and Arab factions by the Zionist leaders. Yet violent uprisings initiated by Arabs were evident after this in 1921, 1929, 1936-39 and preceding the actual war of independance in 1947-48. More indicitave of the mood at the time was the lead up to these clashes which usually entailed Arab leaders riling up the population with false claims about what the Jews would do once they were able, such as destroy the AlAqsa Mosque and other nonsense.

By the time anyone was expelled by Israeli forces the Jews had been dealing with the spontaneous rebellions under the relative security of the British Mandate. But suddenly they were facing both an entrenched rebellious population AND the whole of the Arab world's armies. I can't say that I blamed them for doing what they did and I think it is really cynical to say that the expulsions were solely due to a Zionist hunger for Arab land in light of the historical events. Could they really be expected to allow avowed enemies of Zionism such as the followers of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem to stay? Remember that the Grand Mufti was an ally and personal friend of Adolf Hitler and his followers were fanatically loyal. Despite instances like this Ben-Gurion encouraged everyone to be a part of the new nation in his declaration of independance.

in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions. We extend our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

At what point did the Palestinians become the downtrodden? They certainly did at some point after losing war after war after war, not just to Israel but to Jordan and then Lebanon. I just find it hard to pin their situation, let alone the solution to it, solely on Israel.

Incidentally, I listened to the debate you posted a few months ago. I found it funny that the two spent so much of the time just agreeing with each other. I didn't find it to be very stimulating or spend much time on any real disagreement as to the issues at hand. I am especially not a fan of Finklestein. As Amos Oz might have put it, (although certainly somewhat sardonically) he represents the mindset of the despised diaspora Jew to such a great extent that his personality risks sliding into parody.

pride or some war like cultural peculiarity of the Arabs of Palestine.

If hypothetically a European people discovered a steady stream of new immigrants were carrying out a settlement process in their land--in which that European people had every natural right to consider their lan--with the intent of establishing a state, would they not resist? If the requirements of that state meant at least the political dominance of the new immigrants and possibly the dispossession of much of the established local population, would they not resist? If it was the other way around due to some massive usurpation of the current world order and the Israelis were facing an ever increasing stream of new non-Jewish immigrants seeking to establish a new state in part or all of current Israel, would they not resist?

Even so, somethings are fait a compli. Israel has clearly won this conflict. Either we can have a two state solution in which the Palestinian state truly is a state and the solution at least comes as close as possible to the minimum requirements of international law or we can go back to the ideals espoused by at least some early Zionist and see one land of Israel/Palestine in the whole of the former British Mandate of Palestine in which their is full and equal citizenship rights for all groups concerned regardless of race or creed.

I don't think it is possible to subscribe motives for resistance simply as wounded pride or some war like cultural peculiarity of the Arabs of Palestine.

is the editor in chief of Al-Jazzera says EXACTLY that:

http://www.worldpoliticswatch.com/article.aspx?id=395 An Interview With Al-Jazeera Editor-in-Chief Ahmed Sheikh


Do you mean to say that if Israel did not exist, there would suddenly be democracy in Egypt, that the schools in Morocco would be better, that the public clinics in Jordan would function better

I think so.

Can you please explain to me what the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has to do with these problems

The Palestinian cause is central for Arab thinking.

In the end, is it a matter of feelings of self-esteem

Exactly. It's because we always lose to Israel. It gnaws at the people in the Middle East that such a small country as Israel, with only about 7 million inhabitants, can defeat the Arab nation with its 350 million. That hurts our collective ego. The Palestinian problem is in the genes of every Arab. The West's problem is that it does not understand this.
_____________________

i would say that "there is a serious problem here"......

Even my Palestinian co-workers roll their eyes when they hear non-Palestinian Arab politicians pontificate about the "suffering of the Palestinian people". They've been taken for a ride on that one too many times. Just last night I asked a Palestinian fellow I work with how most Palestinians feel about Iranian (Persian not Arab of course) President Ahmadinejad. He told me that everyone he knows, without exception, thinks he's and idiot and wishes he would shut up. "It's Gamal Abdul Nasser all over again".

From a Islamist viewpoint though there is a religious thought that equates the establishment of the Israeli state with the European Christian conquest of the holy lands during the crusades. The Crusaders may have also targeted Jews. But I doubt that the Islamist know that or take that into consideration. The Crusades have long held a big tradition in the folklore of Arab Muslims in a part of the world that think ancient events of a thousand years ago happened just last week. Of course Arab Christians look at the matter in totally secularist terms.

from a guy who does work on my house (israeli arab)....

the problem lies with "group think"....the hamas spokesman made some comments last month about the Palestinian society in that realm, how it prevents criticism etc. (though i believe thats its a larger arab/muslim society characteristic as well).

one the other hand haartez had two letters from an israeli journalist as well as an arab...what i noticed was the israeli was far more forth coming about the changes in the israeli society towards the Palestinians whereas the arab writer kept to the official line....i thought that was very typical of the societies.....

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/813391.html

there is more concern about causing offense or rocking the boat with words. I spend part of the year in the Philippines. And in that respect --concern about not saying the wrong thing (in public where you can be quoted) Filipinos and Arabs are very much the same.

But as the saying goes(admittedly a hyperbole): "In the West you can say anything you want as long as you don't actually do it. In the East you do anything you want as long as you don't actually say it."

"In the West you can say anything you want as long as you don't actually do it. In the East you do anything you want as long as you don't actually say it."

Generally speaking the Arab's of 1920's–30's Palestine did not resist against the Zionist immigrants but against the non-Zionist long-term residents of cities like Jerusalem and Hebron. Despite the fact that the Zionist settlers surely played a major role in sowing Arab seeds of discontent, (or at least in giving Arab leaders a justification for sowing said seeds themselves,) there's really no way to spin the riots and massacres committed against the Palestinian's own Jewish neighbors.

At this point if we take a look at some of the propaganda coming from militant firebrands like the Mufti of Jerusalem a fairly clear picture starts to emerge of some bigoted Arab leaders choosing to lever their constituents xenophobic fears into starting a conflict that they had every reason to believe would benefit them. I am sure that it isn't a coincidence that the attacks were concentrated in cities that either had substantial (Hebron) or majority (Jerusalem) populations of Jews. Whether the motive was truly based on anti-semitism or just a more common attempt at consolidating power I can't say. But it certainly wasn't just caused by a legit sense of fear and frustration at the settlers.

"Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of foreign settlement. This is how the Arabs will behave and go on behaving so long as they possess a gleam of hope that they can prevent Palestine from becoming the Land of Israel".
(from 13, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab Word by Avi Shlaim)

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

The fact that some Palestinians had been misguided and beguiled by the extreme language of the Mufti and others into resisting in a destructive manner does not change the reality that resistance against a movement that sought to create a new order dominated by European settlers in the land of Palestine was the natural reaction of any established local people facing a similar situation. Was the native American Indians resistance motivated by anti-Christianity?

In spite of what Mr. Weisman said about not seeking to create a Zionist state in Palestine, did he not go on to become President of a Zionist state in Palestine?

or had a sense of nationality as palestinians. But they didn't then. Palestine was a land of different tribes and communities with loyalty being divided along ethnic and religious lines, not modern notions of nation-states. Not to mention the inhabitants of Palestine had always had people of other lands living there. They were part of the ottoman empire for 400 years. Now, you can have this romantic notion that they finally decided to resist this colonial status quo and assert themselves as independant but that isn't quite what happened.

They were expecting the entire middle east to become a single Arab state with no consideration to any of the minority groups living there and that's what everyone was fighting for in the beginning. The zionist movement was an excuse to spark a hot rebellion along ethnic lines. That there were humanitarians present in the population of Arabs doesn't have much bearing on anything. There were heroes who sheltered Jews in fascist europe too. That doesn't mean that the holocaust in and of itself was not anti-semitic. No one is arguing that every Arab Palestinian was morally bankrupt or evil. I'm just trying to outline the general motives behind the rebellion. I think it had less to do with hating Jews than it did with trying to assert themselves. They wanted their "tribe" to be dominant. And since they were not able to compete on economic or political levels they chose open rioting. When they were rewarded for that violence, when the british sought to placate them by halting jewish immigration and land sales, it encouraged them to continue with it, which is what happened.

Remember that the settlers could not have started their kibbutzes without Arab participation. All they had to do was stop selling land to them. But some of the community leaders who spoke out the loudest against jewish immigration were the very ones selling large tracts to them at inflated rates. Even after the land sales became illegal there was no shortage of Arabs willing to sell land at the right prices. To draw a comparison between the american indians and their settlers is not really fair. The american settlers came and began stealing land outright, attacking and killing the indigenous people. The Jews were joining a community of their own who had always lived there. You can't play down the cultural and historical connection that the Jews have always had with this land. They WERE coming to be a part of a new nation, not create a new nation where the natives had no role, unlike in america.

Just because their intention wasn't to create a zionist state doesn't mean that they were willing to leave or surrender in the face of violence. The zionist state was proposed by the british as a way to end the fighting. And under the peel plan, the areas to be ceded to the Jews had jewish majorities. I don't see why cities and towns that had always been traditionally Jewish are stubbornly seen as being Palestinain land only, and are referred to as having been stolen. So weisman didn't immigrate to create a Jewish state... a jewish state though, was fast becoming the only viable option. Even after partition was planned, f you look at the speeches of the time, they almost always made references to including the native arabs into the coming nation.

In short, I'm not sure what you're arguing. Since we agree that the Jews did not actually START the violence and since there wasn't much they could do to stop it other than leaving, they were not left with many options. While I may be able to understand WHY there was such an outbreak of violence I don't think it was in any way justified or beneficial. And I don't see what the Jews there could have done differently to improve the situation. It's not like what happened in America, where the settlers took 99% of land that they had no claim to and screwed the remaining Indians. The Jews took a small fraction of a percent of the middle east. The most worthless, barren fraction of a percent with no natural resources. One they had a strong historic tie to and which they wanted to share with anyone who was living there. They revitalized the agrigulture and economy meaning that anyone who did stay peacefully was greatly rewarded economically compared with their neighbors in Jordan or Syria.

If any other nation acted this way towards immigrants they would be roundly condemned by he same people who give a pass to the native Palestinians. Look at anti-immigration demoinstations in modern France. Those people are thought of as small minded bigots. Can you imagine if they started slaughtering whole towns worth of people? Or look at the minutemen patrolling the border of Arizona. Most liberals consider them nuts. I've certainly never heard anyone call their actions "understandable" and defend them. And it isn't like they are killing Mexicans either. And it isn't like Mexicans are escaping certain death in Mexico. I think that many hardline liberals have a double standard with Israel that doesn't exist with many other issues.

state, backed by the great powers. Naturally this would have left the indigenous population anxious about their future and wondering what an explicitly Jewish state would mean for them.

Most of the land sold was sold by absentee landowner. The people who tended the land had little or no control over their destiny. It is indeed true that their were demagogues who sold land on one hand and then rabble roused against the colonization process. Well, that was pure hypocrisy.

My point on this matter is the same point that Mr. Jabotinsky made, no indigenous people would have accepted what they saw going on before their eyes without resisting.

But on the other hand these are all now all "angels dancing on the head of a pin" questions. The Zionist enterprise was very successful. The Israeli state was established. And Israel is now a regional supper power. None of this is going to change any time soon.

Whether there is a two-state solution, a one-state solution or a five-state solution (not that I have heard anyone suggesting the latter). But it must be a solution that grants security and full political rights for everyone concerned.

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

"Well, they're in Lebanon because they were forced out of Jordan and more recently, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. They're in camps in Lebanon because they previously took over half of the south sparking a civil war. They were booted out of SA for supporting Saddam Hussein in Gulf War I. They were murdered and then tossed from Jordan for staging a failed coup and botched assasination of the King. NO ONE likes the Palestinians. Many Arab states have massacred them themselves. Often for understandable reasons."

keep your racist drivel to yourself

Please dude. There's nothing racist about anything I wrote. If you care to refute any of it, be my guest.

but of course, he's a terra-ist supporter and had to be taken out. And Israel is better off for it

And you are right, Palestinians are scum. Nobody wants anything to do with them :eyes:

switch the subject and put words in my mouth if its all you can think to do. But I certainly didn't voice support for the Gulf War II nor did I ever refer to Palestinians as scum. The point I made was that Israel is often singled out for specific actions which many of the surrounding states (supposedly Palestinian allies) have done themselves, (or worse.)

But calling someone a racist is far easier than discussing these unfortunate facts. As I said before, feel free to refute what I've said. Try cracking a book. Or just call me names if reading gives you too much trouble.

Is far easier than facing the culpability the Israelis hold in this conflict. Here's a deal, after you and I have performed our jeremiads against the all the crimes committed by the nations of the world, then we can retain the right to complain about the problems facing the Israelis and Palestinians, 'kay?

How would you react if someone posted "Many European states massacred Jews themselves. Often for understandable reasons"?

I'm thinking you'd want to beat the crap out of the Nazi bastard who'd post such a thing. And I'd help you, because that bastard would deserve it.

See why people might find your arguement there a bit disturbing?

If not "racist", it is definitely wack.

What if someone said, "Some Palestinians have massacred Israelis themselves. Often for understandable reasons"?

Would you feel the same desire to beat the crap out of that person?

There have been posts which have expressed disapproval for Palestinian suicide bombings of Israeli civilians, but have also expressed some understanding as to the reasons why Palestinians might be inclined to initiate such an action.

Which, to most people's ears means "well, they had it coming".

Both sides have done horrid things in this conflict, but Israel has far more power to bring it to an end than the Palestinians do. The fact is, if the Palestinians did everything the Israelis are currently asking them to do, the Israeli government would just say "see, they did everything we told them to, and now we don't have to think about them any more. No Palestinian state, start the transfer, we win".

You KNOW that's what Olmert wants deep down inside.

I think that Olmert and the majority of Israelis desire a peaceful coexistance next to an independant Palestinian state. Obviously there are serious disagreements as to what the borders between the two states should be, but I truly feel that this is the end to which most in Israel aspire.

Of course, there are extremists who make it difficult to get the two sides to sit down and try to address the logistics of making this into a reality.

That is why I hope that we can soon elect a Democratic president who, like Bill Clinton, will actually make a concerted effort to engage intelligently with the parties involved and really push both sides to make some difficult compromises in order to bring an end to this conflict.

Clearly the political leaders in Israel have not really been interested in peace. If they had been they would have dismantled all the settlements as soon as the Oslo process was put in place. IF they had been they would stop cutting off the Palestinian water supply(a practice I assume even YOU will agree is barbaric). If they had been, they'd have begun treating the Palestinians as human beings.
Using the iron fist instead has guaranteed that the war would go on, as it was meant to do.

The political class, as opposed to the Israeli people, are determined to keep the siege mentality going. Like any other political leadership, they don't like giving up power. And a non-crisis situation would inevitably leave them with less power and facing more accountability. And a non-crisis mentality would force Israel's political leaders to cut back the size of the military machine, allow greater freedom of the press, and spend money on social needs and economic justice rather than on a perpetually expanding national security state.

In this, they've learned well from their American masters.

One of the interesting things I've noticed in various forums when I discuss this issue is that many people superimpose their beliefs about America onto this particular conflict, especially when it comes to motive. I'm going to take a wild stab here and say that you probably don't know all too much about Israeli politics or Knesset history, do you Ken?

I'm sure you're aware that the responsibilities given to different sides under Oslo were painstakingly worked out. Your assertion that Israel can't be serious about peace unless they go far above and beyond their stated obligations under Oslo contrasts with the fact that you apparantly don't expect the PA to fulfill any of theirs at all.

Here's the thing. I don't think settlements have anything at all to do with the peace process. Crazy, right? But settlements didn't hamper the peace deal with Egypt. Dismantling settlements in Gaza certainly didn't help the peace process there, did it? No, it made it much worse. And it isn't as if the PLO only started attacking Israel after settlements were built.

And I am not of the belief anymore that Israel should hew to the green line exactly. I think that any Jewish or Christian historic sites of importance should be outside of the Palestinian state. Obviously this includes the old city. It's been made painfully clear that no matter what assurances are made, any non-muslim places of worship or interest stand a high probability of being desecrated or, more likely, destroyed. They can be given other land as compensation. So far the only nation to administrate the holy sites with a modicum of fairness and respect has been Israel. I see no reason to change that; many of these sites transcend modern politics or this conflict's history. They need to be preserved. As such I have no issue with the wall encompassing them.

which is dividing up the community with devastating affect. On a personal note, a coworker of a friend of mine - from a Bethlehem Christian family - has seen the wall cut off their families olive grove from the home..It has left her poor old father a complete wreck. It was his pride and joy. And now it's being taken away.

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

http://www.openbethlehem.org/




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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________

Two Excellent books from a Palestinian Christian point of view by Rev. Mitri Raheb, Pastor of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Bethlehem:

Bethlehem Besieged: Stories of Hope in Times of Trouble

Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Bethlehem-Besieged-Stories-Times-Trouble/dp/0800636538/sr=1-1/qid=1169126170/ref=sr_1_1/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books

and

I Am A Palestinian Christian

Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Am-Palestinian-Christian-Mitri-Raheb/dp/080062663X/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b/102-8701952-4352901


.

So long as that Democratic president wasn't treated like Howard Dean, who was forced to back down from saying that U.S. Middle East policy should simply be "more even-handed". As if that was the moral equivalent of saying "Y'know, Mein Kampf was my favorite book".

Let's use a real example. What action other than attacking and expelling the Palestinians do you think King Hussein had during the events of Black September? Every peace initiative he tried was ignored by the PLO, they created a state with a state complete with armed security details and even tax collection. They attacked any of Jordan's real police or military they came across. They attempted several coups and assasination attempts against Hussein. He was out of options.

I believe that under these circumstances the military actions undertaken by Hussein were "understandable." Disagree if you like, but the situation did not have any obvious peaceful solutions available. Those of you who say that there is never any excuse for widescale violence such as this may very well have some realistic alternatives in mind. I would love to hear some of them.

The situation in Jordan is similar to the current one in Lebanon with Hezbollah. So if you can crack Black September then we can all relax as you apply the same reasoning to them and we enter a new era of peace and understanding.

Incidentally, between 3 and 5 THOUSAND people were killed during the TEN DAYS of black spetember. Compare that to the number of folks killed since 2000 between Israel and Palestine. While many of you scoff at the idea that Israel has acted with a modicum of restraint it is a worthwhile exercise to compare it to a similar conflict. 5000 people. 10 days. And this was a nation made up of Palestinians. This was an ally, not an enemy.

------

I do not see how Israel has more power to end the conflict. They have better defense and military capabilities, sure. But they are no more able to halt Qassam attacks than anyone other than the Palestinians themselves. Just because they can do more damamge or control the movements of Palestinians better than vice versa does not mean they can halt the conflict. Every consession that Israel has given them has been rewarded with increased violence.

Now if the Palestinians did everything that Israel asks of them then they would cease fighting. That is really all that Israel is asking. But if Israel concedes to every Palestinian point they would be ceding land that could not be retrieved. You think Israel would not hold to their side of the bargain? OK, give me one example of when an agreement was arrived at that was upheld by the Palestinains and not by Israel.

Because every single action that Israel has taken to help Palestine, every single step towards peace has been interpreted as a sign of weakness and had the effect of increasing the conflict. And every aggressive action they have taken, such as putting up the security wall, has resulted in greater security for them.

You are making assumptions that Olmert is trying to steal as much land as possible, that he is being dishonest. I can point to many, many examples of Israel aiding Palestine, often in more solid ways than any of the surrounding Arab states. They have given more aid to them than all of the Arab states combined (except for saudi arabia.) Please cite a single example of the PA or PLO taking the initiative and making some kind of real concession towards peace. Hamas has yet to even pay lip service to a peaceful solution.

It proves that the old right-wing Israeli arguement that "They could just move to Jordan. Jordan IS the Palestinian state", is complete and utter bullshit.

Thanks for admitting that.

Obviously sending all the Palestinians to Jordan is not a real solution. It is not usually meant as a legit solution but is raised to cite that the kingdom of Jordan is comprised of 80% of Palestine and that most of its citizens are Palestinian. In a lot of ways it really IS a Palestinian state, it depends more on your personal political views as to how you may prefer to view it.

Before Black September there wasn't much of a Jordanian national identity to speak of. Black September helped galvanize Jordanians into seeing themselves as more than just members of various tribes but as modern citizens of a nation state.

But none of this really changes anything about the ethnic makeup or the past geographic history of Jordan. I don't think Jordan has any obligation to take any of the people it expelled back. But it is still a Palestinian state. Just one that's ruled by Hashemite kings.

OK, give me one example of when an agreement was arrived at that was upheld by the Palestinains and not by Israel.

There's agreements like the Gaza-Jericho agreement where there was little to nothing to be upheld by the Palestinians. The onus was on Israel to carry out the terms of the agreement, and it wasn't some sort of 'I'll give you this concession if you give me that concession' type of thing. Israel, being the occupying power and being responsible for the settlements that have been built on Palestinian territory, are generally always going to have a lot more things of a tangible nature to do than the Palestinians...

That the I/P thing is tit-for-tat as much as that I have seen a legitimate effort on the part of Israel to move the peace process forward that has not been reciprocated by Palestine. Look at Oslo for example. There is no question that Israel held up their side of that bargain. Arafat used the time and the relative freedom afforded to him by Oslo to arm and plan so when he was offered an unnacceptable deal at Camp David he was able to respond with an intifada and not any sort of counter offer or continued negotiation.

Israel's needs are very very simple. They require security, which is perfectly understandable. Despite all of the other assumed motives that many people here enjoy extapolating, every single action on the part of Israel can be traced back to their need for security. Palestine's job, their only real job, is to provide security for Israel. Both Jordan and Egypt were able to do so and they were rewarded with peace and even total settlement dismantlement and land reimbursement (for egypt.)

This conflict was not started by Israel. Their continued success has given them a position of military dominance. Because of that many people look at the situation and view Israel as the aggressor. But the hsitory says otherwise. Palestinians could have had a state ten times over by now had they rejected their flawed strategy of forcing Israel to cede to their demands using terrorism. Force did not win them a state in Jordan. It did not benefit them in Lebanon. It is not working with Israel. There must be a change and it must come from Palestinian leadership for the peace process to continue.

But for that to happen the Palestinian leadership has to desire peace. Is it your belief that Hamas is interested in making peace with Israel? It doesn't seem to be theirs.

Look at Oslo for example. There is no question that Israel held up their side of that bargain.

The problem with painting one side as being responsible for the failure of Oslo while painting the other as being blameless and wanting nothing but the success of the peace process is that Netanyahu must be erased from the memory banks....

Therefore Israel did NOT keep up its end of the bargain.

My nephew believes in the tooth fairy.

Can you guess what else these two beliefs have in common?

Hint: You may want to try actually reading the Oslo Accords to help figure this one out.

From the thread on settlements.


Breakaleg
11. This makes me enraged!

Israel has lost all credibility by continuing in this land grab of theirs. I don't see how anyone can defend Israel when they are doing this. As far as I'm concerned, they deserve whatever comes their way. In fact, they are bringing it on themselves.

Never. Never.
One of the saddest statements i've seen posted in a long time.

Because I meant "understandable" meaning "not without motive" or "as part of a clear string of events" not meaning "justifiable." Big difference there. I wasn't exclaiming that I found it ethical. Some actions, particularly during war, can be hideously brutal, yet that does not necessarily make them senseless.

You said that once. Is that not stating that there are circumstances where such things can be understandable even if you don't agree with them?

Sure violence can be an understandable reaction to colonialism. But I think that violence is most justified when it is a reaction to violence itself. And I do not particularly see Israel as being born of colonialism. And while understandable I do not see violence as being justified by frustration at ones changing environment.

I lived in Fort Greene, Brooklyn during its period of gentrification. Beforehand it was an almost entirely Black neighborhood and as it gentrified it became a diverse mix of races. Families who bought their houses were rewarded with skyrocketing rents and property values but those who didn't buy and were of lower income households were forced to move out. Some of them had lived in that neighborhood for generations yet found themselves unable to afford to stay any longer. They were justifyably angry. Yet it would not have been acceptable for them to begin killing every white or asian person they saw.

Do you see what I'm saying?

The Israelis did not come to Palestine to suck it dry of resources and move back to France. They came to be a permanent part of the nation they were building. As such they made improvements to the land. Some Palestinans had to leave their agrarian lifestyle and move to the city. But the immigrants brought with them new technology, jobs, a modern economy and trade, etc. Look at modern Israel's economy vs. Egypt's. If the changes the settlers were making when they first moved were harmful to the native population then why did so many Arabs from surrounding states move there in the early part of the century? Before then everyone was leaving.

The settlers were good for the Palestinians as a whole. Not necessarily every individual Palestinian, but most of them, yes. But they were also humiliating for them. They were an educated, wealthy class that displaced the original Palestinian elite and created a lot of social friction. Just like Fort Greene to some extent.

It seems to give lie to his statement above.

It's a common talking point in the political vicinity of Tikkun that "Israel is the least secure place for Jews". While that might be true (though you may ask Jews in russia, for instance, how they feel) that is in large part because most of the Jews in "less-secure" places moved to Israel - IOW, if you have a numerical scale of insecurity, the establishment of Israel eliminated all the contenders above it.

As for the second point, see what pelsar wrote in this thread.

doesn't mean it should be dismissed.

I'd like to see Israel survive and return to the values it was founded to stand for. I'd like justice for the Palestinians. It can't do the first until the second is achieved. The leaders of Israel's political establishment don't see the second as being in their interest. Indeed, it strongly appears that they feel the preservation of the siege mentality and the perpetual "fight for survival" are essential for THEIR political survival, and they seem willing to sacrifice the physical safety of their constitutents in the name of perpetuating this situation.

There's the rub.

"ha breira" just doesn't cut it anymore.

that the conflict is, at this point at least, being perpetuated by Israeli leadership for political gain? I'm asking because Israelis tend to be much more interested in politics than Americans are and they tend to be fairly canny as well. I have trouble believing that they would be unable to detect such a treasonous ploy when there are so many other (much more plausible) potential motives for their actions.

Israel has a history of really "spirited" political debate. If what you say is true, then why wouldn't Meretz or Labor, or... hell, even Ha'aretz call them out on it? Even PeaceNow supported the Lebanon actions taken this past summer. When PeaceNow is backing the party of Sharon in taking military action it may be a bit cynical to start looking for hidden conspiracy theories and just take things at face value.

Remember, this is a society where everyone's sons and fathers are in the military. Not to say they shy away from conflict but when everyone has such a big stake in the peace process succeeding, politicos included, they would need a pretty hardcore reason to purposefully extend the conflict. I mean, even Begin, probably the most hardline, hawkish PM that Israel's ever had, leapt at the chance to make peace with Egypt. And Olmert is on the ropes right now. More war is not going to help him. (Especially with his abysmal track record in "using" the IDF.) But a substantial jump forward in the peace process might save his legacy.

And until 1994 the Israeli government ananthemized anyone who supported a 2 state solution as "anti-Israeli" and the 2 state solution itself as a "2 stage solution", i.e., that it was just a trick to ultimately destroy Israel.

And Olmert's insistence in resuming settlement construction and in drawing the border so that all the good land and all the water that should logically be in a Palestinian state would be within Israel are hardly indicative of a man with honorable intentions.

The people can be brought along to this with constant fear-mongering and with the false insinuation that all Palestinians are terrorists who deserve collective punishment. It works her, it works there.
That's probably why Peace Now stopped being a peace movement and supported the vicious and completely unjustified carpet bombing of South Lebanon, a tactic we now know did Israeli security needs no good whatsoever.

fear mongering doesnt do much for us.....qassams on sederot do, AFTER we pulled out TWICE....missiles on our cities do, AFTER we pulled out of Lebanon.....watching the palestinians shoot each other does as they cant seem to control their own society....

PeaceNow is a peace movment....just not a naive simplistic one....who members live on the norther borders, live in sederot, etc

All that was achieved was destroying the homes and lives of innocent Lebanese civilians in the name of Olmert's jut-jawed ego.

Negotiating a prisoner exchange would always have been a better solution.

Can you not YET see that the iron fist isn't working anymore?

the israeli farmers can once again reach their fields and orchards near the fence, in areas they werent allowed to go before......

the lebanese army is back down south, where it belongs

one may or may not agree with the methods used, but those facts are simply facts