What If Israel Had Turned Back? Tom Segev

by http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/opinion/05segev.html/partner/rssnyt">Tom Segev, New York Times

FORTY years ago today, on the morning of June 5, 1967, Jordan launched an artillery attack on the Israeli part of Jerusalem. In reaction Israel conquered the Arab sections of the city as well as the West Bank.

History is full of “what ifs,” and responsible historians should not indulge in such speculation. But journalists may. What if Israel hadn’t taken East Jerusalem and the West Bank in the Six-Day War? Would the Palestinian situation have found some solution and Israel be living at least in relative peace with its neighbors? Would Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism have been avoided?

Perhaps. But the alternate history is not as outrageous or inconceivable as one might think. Leading Israeli policy planners had determined six months before the Six-Day War that capturing the West Bank would be bad for the country. Recently declassified Israeli government documents show that according to these policy planners, taking over the West Bank would weaken the relative strength of Israel’s Jewish majority, encourage Palestinian nationalism and ultimately lead to violent resistance.

...When Jordan attacked the Israeli part of Jerusalem on the first day of the conflict, all reason was forgotten. Jordan’s attack obviously called for some kind of retaliation — but striking back at the Jordanian Army did not require the conquest of the West Bank or East Jerusalem.

Records of the Israeli cabinet meeting where the scope of the retaliation was determined are now available. Amazingly they show that not one of the cabinet ministers ever asked why it was in the interest of Israel to control the Arab parts of Jerusalem. Israel was about to take over some of the holiest places in the Christian and the Muslim world, but no analysts were called in to offer the cabinet alternative ideas. No experts on international law were asked to brief the ministers on the legal implications of their pending decision.

The ministers obviously felt there was no need to raise these questions: the answer was as clear as only fantasy can be. Acting under the influence of the age-old dream of return to Zion as well as Israel’s spectacular victory over Egypt’s forces a few hours previously, the ministers decided with their hearts, not their heads, to take East Jerusalem...

****************

Tom Segev is one of Haaretz's most distinguished correspondents.

I had not known that detail.

I think the thinking goes like this: we're a small country surrounded by big enemies. The only reasonable reaction to agression is unreasonably agressive overreaction. Fight fire with napalm. Considering a "proportional response" would be submitting to defeat by degrees.

Another thing that Israel had in its favor during the six (or was it seven, I can't remember) day war: The U.S. military was mobilizing to jump in, on the side of Israel. U.S. Army forces in Europe were packed, and sitting in motor pools or on runways ready to go. A few would stay behind in Europe (including U.S. soldiers who were Jewish, for some reason I don't understand). This may have convinced leadership in Jordan or Egypt that it was time to back off the fight.

The US had no capacity to move quickly into the Middle East with the heavy armoured forces they had in Europe. Most of the mobile assets were off chasing the VC in Vietnam or in recovering afterwards. Any change in alert would have been in response to Soviet actions with the main focus on action in Central Europe (Fulda Gap, etc.)

L-

not quickly enough for a six-day war, but at the time nobody was sure it was only going to last six days.

We could transport guys with guns, however. A bunch of us spent a day leaning on our packs, M14's slung, just savoring the diesel and kerosene fumes waiting for the order. Great relief when we were "stood down". I'd guess it was just a political "show", giving ammo to State Dept negotiators, but didn't know at the time.

well except maybe israel would have lost the yom kippur war in 1973.

but since jordan didnt renounce its claims to the west bank until fairly recently, the palestinians would still be occupied, just by the jordanians instead of the israelies.

lost pride from the 1967 war. There simply would have not have been a 1973 war without the conquest and occupation of the Sinai and the Golan. Every credible Israeli historian agrees with this. That was the reason for the Yom Kippur/Ramadan war of 1973. Remember, Sadat in February of 1971 offered peace talks to the government of Golda Meir but was rebuffed rather unceremoniously.

as former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami put it in his book,"Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Arab-Israeli Tragedy (link:
http://www.amazon.com/Scars-War-Wounds-Peace-Israeli-Arab/dp/0195325427/ref=pd_sim_b_5/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&qid=1180427457&sr=1-2

from page 115

"But Golda Meir's intransigence derailed this last initiative as well. It is difficult to imagine a greater gulf which exited between the resourceful statesman Sadat, and the trivially immobile government led by Mrs. Meir"..
"The rejection of his last overture signaled for the Sadat the beginning of the countdown to war."

the from page 145, "But Sadat's strategy did not aim at military victory. His was a political move by military means. His was a political war a classic Clausewitzian move that complemented his peace strategy, his quest for a settlement."..."Sadat then betrayed both the Syrians, who never saw this as a political war--they fought for the liberation of the Golan Heights, pure and simple"
____________

I would say that the occupation by Israel of East Jerusalem, The West Bank and the Gaza certainly revived Palestinian nationalism though.

.

that the west bank and gaza would still be occupied, just by jordan and egypt instead of israel? since of course that between 1948 and 1967 those countries were not exactly allowing hte palestinians to have their own state.

in 1950 and Jordan only renounced its annexation in 1988; not recognized by international law of course. Still the Palestinians did have Jordanian passports and citizenship and could move rather freely back and forth to Jordan. Although they had little economic development. Jordan was more generous than Egypt. But even going back to post Balfour days the Hashemites where no friends of Palestinian nationalism. Nasserite Egypt was friendly to Palestinian nationalim only so far as it served Nasserite Egyptian interest. They actually established the PLO in 1964. But it was a huge fight to break away from Egyptian dominance. That was when Arafat emerged as an independent force.

But not too long ago I asked a West Bank/Jordanian Palestinian if he would agree that 1948 killed the Palestinian nation as a people and that the post 1967 Occupations brought it back to life...Of course this is a bit of a hyperbole..but he said yes that pretty much is what happened.

But I would agree that without the post - 1967 occupation Palestinian nationalism would have probably wained.

But I would agree that without the post - 1967 occupation Palestinian nationalism would have probably wained.

...rather ironic isn't it. Neither the egyptians nor the jordanians would have "given the palestenains the time of day" when it would come to their nationalistic asperations. In fact i even wonder if there would have even been a "separate identity" for those in the westbank and gaza, I suspect the occupier (egypt and jordan) would have made it clear to whom they own their alligence to.

One of the first things we learn we get educated is the self identity, who we are. In fact under the occupation when the standard of living rose, partially because of the education, which inturn help solidify the palestenian identity......

in about 100 years or so when there is peace the palestenains will be able to look back and thank the israelis for inadvertantly saving their culture and national identity...in the meantime we'll just keep on killing each other.

sides to recognize the positive in each other.

"in about 100 years or so when there is peace the palestenains will be able to look back and thank the israelis for inadvertantly saving their culture and national identity..."

Everything that has happened in the Occupied Territories since 1967 regarding Palestinian identity & national aspirations has been IN SPITE OF Israel. Not because of Israel. And if any Palestinian does look back & give credit to Israel it will be with a deep, bitter ironic grimace.

But not too long ago I asked a West Bank/Jordanian Palestinian if he would agree that 1948 killed the Palestinian nation as a people and that the post 1967 Occupations brought it back to life...Of course this is a bit of a hyperbole..but he said yes that pretty much is what happened.


in the exact same vein that it was the holocaust that gave the push for jews to finally get up and decide to defend themselves as jews. Pre 1945 the zionist movement wasnt doing so well.....and the jews were still being discriminated against as jews and that wasnt (hasnt) changed.

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

the russian pogroms werent enough, dreyfus wasnt enough...it took the holocaust to do it.....the Palestinians may not "thank" the israelis but its pretty clear as written above, their identity and Independence probably is because of israel.

in fact if we want to play a 'what if game"....if the Palestinians did try an intifada against their jordanians or egyptians occupiers we can all assume that the deaths, torture etc would be 1,000x time greater than what israel is doing.

a quick look at Jordan's war with the Palestinians in the 1970s...10,000+ dead
Syria's view of an uprising in 1982...40,000 dead (artillery and gas used)
Lebanon?...shelling refugee camps
egypt? have a habit of shooting demonstrators.....

on second thought, yes the Palestinians infact do have israel to thank...israel as an occupier is probably the best of the options with an "end game in sight"....i doubt egypt or jordan would have had any plans of ending their occupation of the Palestinians.....and given the fact that there is little interest in the minorities (kurds?) within the arab countries, the palestenians would have received little publicity, let alone the attention of the "left"....(for example: Saharawi under Moroccan occupation-ever hear of them?)

The more I read about this conflict and its history, the more I am convinced that it continues on year after year with such hatred and intransigence - not because the Palestinians are occupied - but because they are occupied by Jews.

When I first started following the threads in this forum a few years ago I had a sense that cultural factors played a large part in the nature of the conflict, especially on the Arab side. The decisions made, the reactions to events, the speeches, quotes, etc. - just did not make coherent sense in terms of any rational motivations that I could imagine or identify with.

But, when the conflict is viewed through the lens of an honor/shame culture (which also tend to be religiously patriarchal) many of the perplexing events of this conflict can be better understood - if not explained.

I'll admit that my own western cultural background makes this view easier for me. However, part of that western tradition is to be distrustful of culture - knowing that it can do great harm as well as provide cohesiveness to a people. For example, the American civil rights movement was largely a denial of existing racist culture in the US.

Israel's emergence as a secular, democratic society with flavors of everything from extreme religious piety to extreme socialism and even communism in the kibbutz - makes sense to me as a westerner. Being willing to die in suicidal attacks and sacrificing my family's future and livelihood to set right a 70 year old humiliation does not - although I can recognize such cultural forces at work.

I know that many here share the post modern view that Palestinians are just like us but with different clothing styles and customs. Like most insoluble conflicts though - I believe this one largely finds fuel in the relatively unchangeable cultural and psychological set of the participants' minds - more so than in the day to day events we discuss here. Here, events and words are forced into this simplistic freedom-fighter context where they can be used to justifying the beliefs of many on the left that Israel is a colonialist war power (just like the US) out to subjugate the Arabs of the ME.

The Palestinians themselves have learned to use this view to great effect. But, I strongly suspect that beneath all that and providing the foundation for it - is the Arab inability to accept the fact of historic and ongoing military defeat at the hands of a race always considered to be greatly inferior to their own - a grave humiliation that requires either victory over Israel or one's honorable death in an attempt to right such a cosmically fundamental wrong.

BTW - your posts have given me the opportunity to view this conflict through the eyes of a typical (intelligent and articulate) Israeli and have added tremendously to my understanding. Thanks. So have the relatively few posts we see here from Palestinians.

* I am not making generalizations about all Palestinians or all Arabs. However, I am attempting to describe forces that I believe exist at some level in Palestinian, Arab (and Israeli and western) culture - that are strong enough and prevalent enough to reliably explain and determine much of the course of this conflict as viewed over the last century. I always accept that my evolving view on these things could be wrong and I welcome any rational attempt to disabuse me of it.

The more I read about this conflict and its history, the more I am convinced that it continues on year after year with such hatred and intransigence - not because the Palestinians are occupied - but because they are occupied by Jews.

By Jews or just by anyone who is non-Palestinian, non-Arab, non-Islamic, and/or non-Oriental (as opposed to Occidental)?

I suspect that it's a matter of a steep cultural divide that promotes feelings of colonization. I think this is bore out by the fact anti-Semitism really didn't come into play until well after this divide had occurred (and were imported from the West). Bigots and simple thinkers break things up into "teams" of us-them. Dividing the camps up into Judaism and Islam is one of several ways that can be used to differentiate the team players even though that's not why. I am seeing the same effect in Iraq where Arab Christians also are affected as they are on the same "team" as the US. You can also see similar teams formed in Iran where people were criticized for adhering to Western culture in dress/mannerisms and in the US where people of darker skin (Arabs/Indians) were racially profiled and in some cases attacked after 9/11.

L-

Didn't want to let it disappear.

I've read it a few times now and I'm not sure what your main point is. Also, I'm not sure if the "Not quite" title is to be taken literally, as in I'm close - or sarcastically, as in I'm not even close.

But I hate to pass up a chance to discuss cultural influences on this conflict - which I tend to think form the greatest part of the motivation - especially for the Palestinian side of it.

You say, "I suspect that it's a matter of a steep cultural divide that promotes feelings of colonization."

I don't doubt that's true. However, "colonization" is but one of the "feelings" that Palestinians express in their denunciations of Israel and the west.

It's important to remember that such expressed feelings are only narratives. They are what their society provides as acceptable and/or useful ways to justify their actions - that helps them "fight the oppressors" - which is how I suspect most Palestinians use them. They therefore, are narratives that have been shown over time to have adequate impact for the purpose. The success of the "colonization" meme probably has more to do with the collective guilt-trip that the western left so loves to engage in over the topic.

The actual emotions that guide Palestinian decisions - such as whether to seek peace and cooperation with Israel or continue to support and cheer the armed attacks - are not the same thing as the narratives they choose to justify their decisions.

Those emotions exist on a very basic human level - which I suspect is a place well within human nature where we all have that very basic survival adaptation - the ability to identify "others" as "the enemy" so that instead of cooperating with them - which is another human adaptation - we can dehumanize them, despise them utterly, kill them, lie to and about them and destroy or "wipe them out" if we can.

Both of these kinds of psychological reactions live in our nerve networks and synapses and flow from hormones and other neurotransmitters - not in the brain regions where we experience reason and intellect. These deep emotions go well beyond narrative (or intellect) in terms of their ability to guide important decisions in life. The narrative is just a cognitive cover story.

I suspect that most Palestinians are well over that emotional line - certainly all Palestinians who could be considered part of Palestinian leadership.

So, it makes little difference what cognitive categories we assign those emotions. Whether we call them fear of colonization, Arab nationalism, hatred of Jews, religious fervor or something else. Existentially, it is none of them. It exists, at least the part of it that most potently guides decisions, in the emotional dimension only - independent of cognitive labels.

But, back to the question - what part does culture take in all this?

I think culture proscribes how easily we allow such strong destructive emotions to live and grow inside us. As we develop we pick up important cues from our culture about how much of that capacity we wish to own. In some societies a deep capacity for hatred and violence makes one suspect - in others it is cause for admiration. And that balance can shift over time within the same society - according to external conditions.

A good example is the US south - especially going back in history. Fifty years ago, when I grew up there, whites openly expressed this type of deep emotional hatred toward "Negroes", Catholics, Jews, homosexuals, etc. No-one was particularly bothered by historic photos of lynchings - or contemporary news stories about northern "Jews" coming down on the freedom marches, being beaten or even disappeared. George Wallace was a hero.

That's the same kind of deep emotional force I sense coming from Palestinians toward the Jews of Israel. Not many Palestinians actually engage in attacks against Israelis - but not many find anything wrong with it either.

So, I think we are talking about emotional capacities learned from one's culture as one grows up. Not just a hatred of a specific group of humans - but a capacity and desire to have such deeply despised enemies in life - as a way to deserve the honor and respect of others.

And that is why, IMO, such hatred does not generally exist in Israel toward Palestinians. Certainly there are individual Israelis who have crossed the line - and as more Israelis die at the hands of bombers and Qassams that number can rise. That's because while culture can define the ordinary boundaries for such strong emotions in a society - the capacity in all of us is there under the right conditions. And those boundaries can change culturally with time as well. But in Israel today - they are outliers on the curve. Such deep hatreds are not welcome in the hearts of most westerners.

Among Palestinians it is my sense that today, the capacity for such deep emotions - the need to hold such hatred of despised enemies in one's soul - forms the bell of the curve.

* I hope no-one misunderstands this. I am saying that Palestinian culture today seems to provide a welcome place for such strong destructive emotions. This has nothing to do with race. Culture can change. Palestinian culture was not always this way and I expect like all cultures it will change again. I look forward to that day.

For that reason, I suspect that it is not the occupation that causes such Palestinian violence against Israelis. The people of Palestine have been occupied - on and off but mostly on - for the last several thousand years by an unending succession of overlords.

It is that Israel's Jews so perfectly satisfy all the possible emotional criteria to fill that deep capacity for violent hatred that current Islamic/Arab/Palestinian culture has created - for whatever reasons - in the Palestinian soul.

i'm so very tempted to say: i'll answer this one if you'll answer my unanswered questions


no, jews dont really thank hitler and "friends" for killing in such a horrific way 6million unarmed people.....do the germans and japanese thank america for saving them from their own internal tryanny of a militaristic culture?..in some indirect ways they do....so too with the palestenians. Once they chose the wrong option (or perhaps its more accurate to say, the wrong option was chosen for them), they're good options were very limited. In the end, they got the best of the available ones, the one that offered them a national identity and a future.

for contrast: take a look at the palestenians during the years of egyptian and jordanian rule....and then perhaps get back to me and explain how those might have been better.....

Palestinians towards Israel for 40+ years of occupation.

if their self rule turns out to be the typical arab style govt with the usual ruthless violent put down of the opposition, then avg palestenain might be pretty pissed that we left (as some have already said as much in gaza)....and then we wont get the indirect "thank you" that japan and german offer the US.

If however they manage to work out a democratic system based on the israeli system (as much as some fatah members who have studied israeli history at israeli universities have said), then yes we will get an indirect thank you.

.....because if they manage to throw off their cultural baggage of arab/islamic dictatorships it will because of their exposure to the western democratic system via israel.......

i've seen/heard/read quite a few interviews with palestenians over the last 2 decades......those that are educated and have a liberal outlook and prefer democracy, as well as those who have worked in israel have a very favorable view of israeli democracy. They may not like the occupation but it doesnt mean they hate all things israeli....(of course leaving gaza has also changed some of those views as well)


perhaps you have other sources that i can learn from?

You seem quite certain of how all of the Palestinians will feel 100 years from now. (Got any stock tips?)

So would you say the occupation mean something much worse to them, now, than the Afghanis felt about the Russian occupation? How about the French colonization and occupation of Cambodia and Vietnam? Were those people less hateful of their occupation than the Palestinians are? How did the Rhodesians feel about Britain?

Because something that all these examples of occupation have in common is that, to a large extent, many of the people who lived through them, (and despised them), later grew to think of them as golden years; times of oppression, yes, but also of stability and relative peace, which were infinitely preferable to the horrors that followed.

I doubt that the Palestinians could despise Israel more than Algerians hated France. And should Palestine (God forbid) become anything like what Algeria eventually became, they would probably hate Israel far more for having left Palestine than they possibly could for the occupation itself.

We forget that the border was only 9 miles from the center of the country, Tel Aviv.

Would any other country tolerate this?

But what Israel should have done was to follow Uri Avneri's proposal to establish a federation with a Palestinian state then and there.

We forget that while the UN vote from 1947 was for a two states solutions and that Egypt and Jordan took over the West Bank and Gaza and that only Pakistan and the UK recognized the Jordanian annexation.

Had Israel opened talks with a new Palestinian state ruled by moderates - these were the only kind then - many lives would have been saved, many missed opportunities would have been avoided. That may not have been the final outcome, but at least there would have been a dialog.

In my opinion anyway. The Palestinians had long experience being a province under the Ottomans. Then being part of Jordan. I doubt that a simple change in rulers, as such, would have created all this trouble.

Only a change to Jewish rulers could have cause "all this trouble".

Actually, any objective look at early occupation under Israel shows that the management was much better, less repressive and more open and conducive to economic progress than under the Ottomans or the Jordanians/Egyptians.

If only they had the good sense to agree with you about everything, peace and tranqility would prevail. And of course the Palestinians own opinions about how they are ruled are "obviously" incorrect.

. . in a culture where such forces have much power over one's life - to be objective about those cultural motivations. It's the sea they swim in - the water itself being invisible.

And yes - I believe that if more people would become naturally mistrustful of the cultural forces that control their lives - and forced themselves to see the world rationally - the world would become a more peaceful and tranquil place.

And are you implying that they can't see what's good for them but you can?

. . expectation about seeing the world rationally to myself?

I don't see it as an expectation as much as a goal. Rationality is a late human adaptation. It requires willful energy to engage it. Subjectivity come naturally - as it does to all animals, not just humans. It's how we are wired.

My posts in this forum are a few of my attempts at rationality - and I'm sure I'm not always successful. That's what makes it so interesting. You get to show me where I fail. I don't have to depend on my own (necessarily subjective) conclusions about that.

Am I implying that they can't see what's good for them but I can?

I am offering one different window through which to see the conflict. There are many possible windows - each offering its own particular insights, and each obscuring some things as well. I am certainly not claiming that this window is the only one that would yield "the truth". There are many truths.

If the common view of a problem fails to find a path to a solution year after year - and the problem only worsens - then I start looking for new windows.

better education, more employment, more universities, higher percentage of kids in school, lower death rates, longer lives, higher standard of living....all of that happened in the territories after israel took over.....and has since gone back down again now that israel has left.

the problem is not how well the territories were run, its who was running it. (when jordan and egypt ruled, not only was there no pressure for them to give the palestenains independance, there were no "leftest, progressives, pressuring them as well - it was a non issue.

Respecting the legal and human rights of the original occupants, with due respect for their autonomy in managing their local affairs, treating them as equal to Israelis on their own lands?

no question about it.....occupation is not a "nice way of governing"....or are you claiming that the egyptians, turks and jordanians were better?....that seems to be your assertion. if so in what way?...how are you measuring it?

If only they were sensible, they would realize that the last 40 years have been far better than anything they have ever known or could ever have hoped for without Israeli "help" ...

that israel did a poor job.....i'm simply asking by what measurement?

It's not the same thing. If I'd wanted to say they did a "poor job", I would have. Are you really meaning to say they Israel could not and should not have done better by the Palestinians?

But as far as that goes, it is measured by the ruled's opinion of their rulers, nothing else really matters, and the opinion of the Palestinians of Israeli rule seems fairly clear. And no, you will not convince me it is all because they always hated you. You seem to be asserting that it ought to be OK as long as you were better than the Ottomans in terms of modern conveniences and the like.

your saying they could and should have done better...i'm asking how?....in what area?..economics, health?, culture?...i'm asking you to be specific.

i believe it was i who had the simple question: by what is israel being measured in terms of running a "poor occupation"...was that not what you accused israel of?

better by the Palestinians?"

i believe that is you, I just asked for specifics.....Any job can be done better.....if that is what your claiming, then sure i agree with you. But thats a pretty general accusation that fits 100% of any job and ruler any country...... I was just under the impression that you had some specifics that showed israel did a poor job.

And post #38 likewise.

Maybe the Jordanians should have and could have done better.
Maybe the Ottomans should have and could have done better.
Maybe the British should have and could have done better.
Maybe the PA should have and could have done better.

Do we know what the peoples of this area thought of their rulers before Israel came into existence. Tell me, are the Palestinians delighted with the current Hamas/ Fatah rule?

As near as I can tell Fatah and Hamas suck at governing, but they have no power. Authority and responsibility go together. Once you assume the right to order people around, you become responsible for the results. You can't just make a big f**king mess of the place and then say it's got nothing to do with you, like you are some sort of passive bystander who wouldn't think of messing with the Palestinians.

Perhaps an irreversible effect. I think it's one of the reasons the Palestinians are on the "verge" of civil war now. And I think it is one of the reasons there is not really democratic rule anywhere in the Mideast, except Israel.

it's not a pretty sight is it? But it's good of you to see that it isn't really cultural, it's how they are governed.

since all the suicide bombings, inner implosion of the palestenains came during israeli rule, and not during the previous rulers, one then concludes that it is israeli rule that caused the disintegration of the palestenain society.... (if that is what you are claiming, you could have simply wrote it out....)

_____

interesting idea, as long as we ignore the brits blowing up houses of suspected "terrorists", night time raids, the jordanian and egyptian policies of keeping palestenains uneducated, unemployed and "in their place." (arrests without trials etc).

i guess israel should have followed those models and the palestenians would have remaind "docile"....no education, no health care, no industry, no employment......stuiped israelis. (of course they're probably would have been claims that israel is breaking intl law if israel was to follow those models...)

__
oh btw..hamas disagrees with you...as do many many palestenians who live in and are watching the gaza today....some have actually learned to blame themselves for their societies short falls.

by the Palestinians? Or is that what you've told yourself so that you can look yourself in the mirror?

the question was:
What would have happened if Israel had ruled the OPT well



the assertion is israel did a poor job of being an occupier....I'm claiming that as an occupier, within the confines of that definition, israel did a better job then the previous occupiers.....thats all.

It's like saying - given that they are our prisoners, we treat them pretty good.

International Committee of the Red Cross/Palestinian Territories:

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/palestine?OpenDocument



http://www.btselem.org/english/About_BTselem/Index.asp

Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions:

http://www.icahd.org/eng

The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel

http://www.stoptorture.org.il/eng/background.asp?menu=3&submenu=3


Amnesty International/Israel and Occupied Territories:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/israel_and_occupied_territories/index.do

Human Rights Watch/Israel and Occupied Territories:

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/israel/

Machsom Watch (Monitors abuse at checkpoints)

http://www.machsomwatch.org/eng/homePageEng.asp?link=homePage&lang=eng

.

to compare israels list of sins against the palestenains vs the palestenains list of sins against themselves. Obviously we'll never know given the lack of ability to publicly self criticize within the palestenain society.


Purly on a theoretical basis: whats better for avg citizen palestenain:

a hamas style govt (as in iran, with its internal terrorism and inability to self criticize) or an israeli occupation with the outside/internal pressures and limited democracy (lets call it pre intifada I)

self determination with internal terrorism (moral police, arrest without trail, stoning, etc) vs occupation.

From what i understand the deciding factors are usually based around personal security. In which environment would citizen palestine feel more secure?
____

btw everytime you list israeli sins by israeli groups...i'm always tempted to find parallel groups within the palestenain society or at least within the "left wing' for those how claim "human rights.....alas not much to be found. Does anybody really really care about the palestenian human rights?....or is it just vis a vis israel?

In fact most of the organizations above do monitor both and the links above contain a fair amount of detail on both.

One distinctly Palestinian organization that makes an aggressive and meticulous attempt at monitoring both is led by Bassam Eid. You may remember Bassam Eid from the Doha debate where he joined with Yossi Beilin on the debating team that argued in favor of the Palestinians compromising significantly on the right of return.

link for The Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group (PHMRG):

http://www.phrmg.org/

.

yes i read up on him...as well as the phrmg site.....but its a lonely uphill battle for him, and he seems to get precious little support from within and from without his community. (ISM?)

though i am aware of the internal political battles and culture involved, i dont believe either of them can be used as excuses for not attacking the palestenian govt for its own abuses. Abuses which will only continue and expand as time goes on if nothing is done about it.

and the Palestinian community in the Occupied Territories need a lot more Bassam Eids.

And you are absolutely right that the Bassam Eid and those that share his vision have an upward battle.

link: http://www.phrmg.org/profile.htm

"About us

The Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group (PHRMG) was founded in December 1996 in response to the deteriorating state of democracy and human rights under the newly established Palestinian Authority. The group was founded by a diverse group of well-established Palestinians, including Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) members, newspaper editors, journalists, a union leader, veteran human rights activists and religious leaders. The political composition of its founders is diverse - including members of many Palestinian organizations and institutions - thereby ensuring the non-partisan character of the organization.

The PHRMG documents human rights violations committed against Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, regardless of who is responsible. In effect, the PHRMG has dedicated much of its work to the monitoring of human rights violations committed by the Palestinian Authority. The PHRMG has instituted a number of projects to deal with the ongoing human rights violations. The projects include monitoring unit, freedom of expression and democracy center, settlers watch hotline and legal unit, etc… Our future projects in the coming two years include peace building development, peace building and conflict resolution monitoring, reforms to the Palestinian judicial system, democracy center, public education and out reach unit, etc…

The PHRMG believes that in spite of the ongoing Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories and the need to denounce Israeli human rights abuses, such scrutiny is essential in the current process of state building, to ensure that the future Palestinian State will be a truly democratic one. In the long run, the protection of human rights can only strengthen the Palestinian Authority.

Due to the absence and/or poor reliability of traditional democratic mechanisms, the PHRMG's principle strategy since its foundation has been to appeal to Palestinian public opinion and to international opinion in order to bring about positive change in the human rights situation. Violations of Palestinian human rights by both Palestinian and Israeli authorities persist with little accountability and, for the foreseeable future, the PHRMG will maintain and improve upon its traditional human rights monitoring and outreach activities.

PHRMG Relationship with the International, Local Community

The PHRMG maintains strong ties with international human rights groups, media and donors. Their cooperation and partnership has proved vital to PHRMG’s outreach and support internationally, as well as to PHRMG’s ability to maintain its high degree of independence at home. As illustrations; Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Reporters without Borders regularly utilize PHRMG unpublished and published research for their reports. Since 1999, PHRMG director Bassem Eid gave 220 interviews to international media.

About Monitoring Unit

Our monitoring unit provides the monitoring and research base for PHRMG human rights outreach and legal activities. Field researchers located throughout the West Bank and the Gaza Strip divide their responsibilities into their geographic areas. Researcher responsibilities include keeping abreast of local developments, pursuing long-term monitoring tasks, and responding to urgent human rights situations, in order to record the eyewitness testimonies of victims, witnesses and other actors.

About Outreach Unit

Our outreach unit works closely with the Monitoring Unit. One of the main activities of the PHRMG is the publication of a bi-monthly report; the Palestinian Human Rights Monitor. Each edition of this publication has a particular focus: from torture and unlawful detention to freedom of expression and the censorship of the Palestinian press, or the right to education of Palestinian children in East Jerusalem. The Monitor has now earned a reputation for the quality, accuracy and objectivity of its reports. 1'000 English copies of the report are available for subscription in the form of a magazine, and 26'000 Arabic copies are distributed freely throughout the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, in the hope to educate the Palestinian public and to strengthen democracy and the role of civil society.

Other Outreach activities include facilitating local and international media access to human rights issues in Palestine, initiating dialogue activities with institutions responsible for human rights violations, and implementing special projects. The PHRMG also maintains an extensive website - both in Arabic and in English - to grant wide access to all the publications of the Monitor, unpublished reports, and additional data and statistics collected by the organization.

About Bassem Eid

The PHRMG derives great strength from the experience of its Executive Director, Bassem Eid. Mr. Eid worked as the senior fieldworker for the Israeli information center in the occupying territories, B'Tselem for seven years. During this time, Mr. Eid earned international recognition for his documentation and publication of a wide range of human rights issues.

Mr. Eid is the co-author of the B'Tselem report on the Palestinian Preventive Security Service, "Neither Law nor Justice," and was involved in research for nearly every B'Tselem publication from 1989 to 1996. In appreciation for his work for B'Tselem and as a journalist, Mr. Eid was awarded the 1992 Emil Grunsweig Human Rights Award by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI).

Mr. Eid was also awarded the 1996 McGill / InterAmicus Robert S. Litvak Memorial Human Rights Award for his outspoken human rights advocacy. More recently, in 1999, the Gleitsman Foundation's Board of Judges presented Mr. Eid with the International Activist Award, in recognition of "his long effort to bring peace to the Middle East." This award was jointly received with ten other activists, including Mahmoud Abbas; Abu Mazen, Yossi Beilin, Faisal Husseini, Ahmed Qurei; Abu Ala and Uri Savir. 2002 nformazione Senza Frontiere (Information Without Boundaries), granted by an Italian organization for freedom of press in the world in Siena-Italy."



Published Articles by Bassem Eid:

http://www.phrmg.org/articles/index1.htm

.