Take risks for peace rather than hatred, Ashrawi urges Sydney...

By Tony Stephens
November 6, 2003

Hanan Ashrawi, whose 2003 Sydney Peace Prize drew so much hostility in advance, was received warmly in Sydney last night, in what she called "this luminous instant in history".

<snip>

Dr Ashrawi made several points which might help ease some critics' minds:

 Grievances and fears on both sides must be addressed; neither side could claim a monopoly of pain and suffering.

 The two-state solution was still possible, although it was becoming increasingly difficult with the expansion of Israeli settlements, bypass roads and the apartheid road.

 Jerusalem could be an open city, the shared capital of both states.

She opposed a simplistic view which divided the world into stereotypes of good and evil, urging instead diversity and collective responsibility under international law. She held out the promise that a just solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict would unleash forces for good, democracy, regional integration and sustainable progress.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/05/1068013263850.html

and a copy of her speech is here:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/05/1067989611611.html

Violet...

On her own I think she would be fair and do good.

But she has never had any critisism of Arafat or of the Fatah or Jihad when they send bombers out (of course even Arafat condems the blown up bomber - with a sincere tone in his voice).

She was interviewed on Foreign Correspondent a while back and her criticism of Arafat was loud and clear, especially for the part he played in derailing the road-map. But she also criticised Israel for its part in it, and I suspect that once Israel gets mentioned, some people ignore everything else that's said and focus on the criticism of Israel...


Violet...

Speech! :toast:

She's even given us a few good quotes to use against the "Bush Doctrine":

"The nature of preemptive action must be, by necessity and choice, constructive, peaceful, and therapeutic."

"...the indispensable universal instruments remain those that ascertain a global rule of law, encompassing both state and non-state actors, capable of assessing culpability, providing accountability, and ensuring redress with justice. Along with their multilateral institutions, they remain safeguards against unilateral power on the rampage or destructive military preemption on the basis of subjective criteria."

The logic of peace that had been formulated painstakingly (and painfully) as the substance of Palestinian-Israeli encounters and dialogue is currently being drowned by the din of war drums and the frenzied mutual infliction of pain over the last three years. Such tragic and unprecedented pervasive violence is not only eradicating previous achievements and agreements, but is also destroying the prospects of any future reconciliation. Its most alarming impact is on the perceptions and attitudes of both peoples, particularly in the regression towards the fallacies of the past and the stance of mutual negation emanating from the revival of deep-seated existential fears of survival.
Such fallacies and false assumptions must be boldly confronted and systematically deconstructed if there is any hope of extricating both sides from this lethal and self-perpetuating trap of mutual destruction.
The notion that a whole nation can be brought to its knees by the use of unbridled violence, or that the will of a people can be defeated by military means must be discarded once and for all. Armies may be able to defeat other armies, but the limits of power are most apparent when used against civilians and non-combatants. Along with that, the fallacy that there is or can be a military solution to the conflict must be completely and irrevocably discarded.
Conversely, the emergence of the bizarre concept of a "balance of terror" has reinforced the irrational and immoral killing of civilians and the victimisation of the innocent. The drive for revenge like the escalation of military brutality, has generated the most tragic and futile momentum for escalation and self-destruction. On both sides, the "no holds barred" mindset has taken over as a mindless, visceral, repetitive response with horrific ramifications. The erroneous assumption that greater pain and punishment, or the escalation of failed measures would somehow lead to "success" or the surrender of one side to the other is at the heart of the prevailing dynamic of death and devastation.

Dr. Ashrawi provides a cool assessment of a tragic situation. Hers is a voice of wisdom. The Middle East has too few such voices.

the Palestinians appreciate her enough. She should be their next leader, but I doubt the Muslim majority would vote for a Christian, and a woman too. In Indonesia the fundamentalist Muslim group, Jemaah Islamyah, wants to assassinate President Megawati because they can't stand a woman as leader.

On the other hand, in Bangladesh both the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition are women.

Sri Lanka also has a female leader.

...for the leadership of the PA.

"The notion that a whole nation can be brought to its knees by the use of unbridled violence, or that the will of a people can be defeated by military means must be discarded once and for all. Armies may be able to defeat other armies, but the limits of power are most apparent when used against civilians and non-combatants. Along with that, the fallacy that there is or can be a military solution to the conflict must be completely and irrevocably discarded."

WWII brought two vilent nations to their knees and instituted a form of democracy acceptable to both countries. Terrorists do not listen to reason, only to self-interest.

you're comparing apples and oranges here.

There is no only military solution to terrorism. A national army, however, can be defeated militarily.

agree there is no Palestinian nation. Therefore there are only rogue terrorist who need to be stopped by any means possible?

but yes, there is no national armed forces to battle - that is contrary to the diea of guerilla warfare, which is what the terrorists engage in.

Trying to destroy thewm by any means is foolish. Those aggressive means only fuel the flame of anger and fear that generates popular support and therefore sucess for the militant groups in the West Bank and Gaza. Military solutions to guerilla insurrections have many times been tried and almost always have failed. Vietnam and Afghansitan (Soviet invasion, not the current American occupation) stand as proof of such, along with the very existence of the United States.

The only effective way to destroy a guerilla army without resorting to genocide or ethnic cleansing is removing their popular support. In the West Bank and Gaza, this means making life better for the Palestinians, not worse. Dismantling settlements, reducing raids and extra-judicial assasinations, and building a Palestinain government that is capable of democratically running a Palestinian state, along with the creation of said state, will destroy popular support for terrorism. This will allow measures to be taken against them by both the Government of Palestine and the Government of Israel.

"Any means" is never acceptable.

or terror organisations in this polemic..what has been a consistant and rigorous attempt to undermine this woman ..absolutely disgusts me..I will support any voice for peace..regardless of race or religion..

Well she got something right.

"conciliatory lecture", "Historical records must be reconciled"

Did she actually equate the Holocost to the plight of the Palestinian people? And in who's mind must they be reconciled? Not in the minds of those who killed that butcher Hitler and his crew! My my how some need to catch up.

"regional integration"

That sounds strangely Bushlike.

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

The claim that many, if not most people here equate the Holocaust with the plight of the Palestinians is something that's just not true. There seems very little to gain in exaggerating and distorting the views of people you disagree with in this forum. Who are all these posters who equate the Holocaust with the plight of the Palestinians? No offense, but you appear to have a habit of making sweeping generalisations about the views of many posters in this forum and then refusing to clarify what you mean when asked about it...

Violet...

once again you lob stuff out there that can't be backed up in an attempt to portay one side in the way YOU wish.

These is generalizing. If one or a few posters says it, it doesn't mean that most of the people here equate Holocaust with their plight.

Of course she didn't equate the Holocaust with the plight of the Palestinians, and anyone who actually read her speech would see that. Here's what she said in it's entirety:

The denial or distortion of the narrative of the other has served as a convenient vehicle for the dehumanisation of the adversary and hence as a justification for all forms of violations and atrocities while evading accountability. Historical records must be reconciled, whether in the recognition of the horror of the holocaust and all its horrendous implications, or in the historical victimisation of the Palestinian people and their dual tragedy of dispossession and exile, on the one hand, and oppression and occupation on the other.

I'm sorry that it offends you so much to see someone point out that illegitimate historical revisionism used for the purposes of justifying atrocities should be done away with. Nowhere does she equate the Holocaust with the plight of the Palestinians, but points out correctly that distortion of historical narratives are done both by those who deny the Holocaust and those who trot out nonsense about the history of the Palestinian people, some of which nonsense has been in full force in this forum recently....

"regional integration"

That sounds strangely Bushlike.

The entire sentence was: "She held out the promise that a just solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict would unleash forces for good, democracy, regional integration and sustainable progress." How exactly is that Bushlike? Her speech was very critical of neo-conservatism, and her support of multilateral institutions would have had neo-cons everywhere frothing at the mouth in disgust...

Wasn't the post you were responding to asking people to find support for terrorism in her speech? Unless opposition to neo-conservatism makes someone a terrorist supporter, I'm still waiting for someone to have that support shown to me...

Violet...

The denial or distortion of the narrative of the other has served as a convenient vehicle for the dehumanisation of the ISRAELI POPULATION and hence as a justification for all forms of violations and atrocities while evading accountability FOR MINDLESS INHUMAN RELENTLESS TERRORISM ALLOWERD BY MY PEOPLE. Historical records must be reconciled, whether in the recognition of the horror of the holocaust and all its horrendous implications, or in the historical ATROCITIES COMMITTED BY Palestinian TERRORISTS AGAINST THE JEWISH STATE and their dual tragedy of CRIMES AGAINST INNOCENT ISRAELIS on one hand WHILE PERPETUATING THE APPEARANCE OF INNOCENCE on the other.


HOWS that VI??

Maybe you should stop trying to put words into people's mouths that they didn't say? I suspect that she actually cares about the suffering of all people, not just one particular group as yr post seems to indicate you do...

Just curious, but why do you hold so much antagonism towards this woman? Does the fact that Palestinian moderates do exist offend you in some way?


Violet...

would wish to reconcile anything regarding the Holocost!! Why would she want to reconcile the facts? Jews were horribly murdered simply because they were Jews! The Jews did not blow up German children and in response the Germans throw Israeli's into concentration camps to make lamps out of their skin! Or do gastly medical experiments on their women and children and men! It was done to the Jews simply because they were Jews. There is no comparison whatsoever here except to fire up the base and inflame. And its not only neo conservatives who are opposed to what the Arabs goal is regarding Israel but historically the Democratic Party has opposed it too. Its just the revisionist Bushlike words that Ashwari speak, she must be depending on the amnesia of the world audience to cover her tracks.

The majority of the Palestinian population is in Jordon. That constitues a majority, wheres the outrage in Jordon about repressing the Palestinians from ruling there? Or do you want all those millions of Palestinians in Jordon to be sent to Israel? That is the real issue here, Israel knows it and can not acquiesce to the demands of the Arafats because to do so would be to give up their right to exist and national identity. Do you know what the per capita income of the Palestinian's are in Jordon?

I don't see how you can make that claim--it is just not true.

The reconciliation she seeks is between two peoples locked in a terrible conflict that is informed, on both sides, by the denial of the other's history and expereince.

Then you yourself go on, of course, to deny the right of the PAlestinians to define themselves historically, which is rather like the pot calling the kettle black.

I lived through the 90's and listened to her almost nitely appeasment of why the terrorists were justified in blowing up innocent Israeli's.

If she never said a word about the Hitlerite attrocities it would be proof that she harbored a revisionist, Nazi sypathetic, anti-semetic version of history.

Instead she is bad for bringing up something that is used ad nauseum to justify any horror these eternal victims bring down upon the Palestinians.

She can't win. In an interview a few days ago Dr Ashrawi said, "Those who have agendas will try to distort whatever I say and whatever I do...."

http://abc.net.au/7.30/content/2003/s983009.htm

would deny the Holocaust and the woman, though many things, is not an idiot. However:

"The denial or distortion of the narrative of the other has served as a convenient vehicle for the dehumanisation of the adversary and hence as a justification for all forms of violations and atrocities while evading accountability. Historical records must be reconciled, whether in the recognition of the horror of the holocaust and all its horrendous implications, or in the historical victimisation of the Palestinian people and their dual tragedy of dispossession and exile, on the one hand, and oppression and occupation on the other."

There is nor can there be any reconciliation between the Holocaust and the victimization (by fellow Arabs and the PA I might add) of the Palestinian people. To even indicate so is beyond indecency, it is an out and out lie.

is that the Holocaust does not excuse the atrocities committed against the Palestinian people.

she was opening a door to moral equivalency.

The distortions of history that serve as a pretext for maltreating people ought to be left go, in exchange for an honest record. There is no need to go into any great detail on Nazi ideology, but it was grounded in a view of history and culture so wholly false to fact as to constitute delusion, yet it was acted on just the same.

Similarly, though to a much lesser degree, both sides in this dispute are attached to visions of the past that are not quite true, but which serve to justify present actions toward the other. One example of this, from one side, is the idea you seem to have bought into, that somehow the desert interior east of the Jordan River is the homeland of those who dwelt on the coastal littoral. One example, from the other side, is the idea that "terrorism" was the key to foundation of the Jewish state, rather than political and economic action, and skillful diplomacy.

We agree, as long as you agree with me. Our proposal can go forward as long as the proposal is mine. We can agree on the interpretation of facts as long as the interpretation is mine. She's starting to sound more and more like a Republican.

if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and now sounds like a duck; you are correct, "she's starting to sound more and more like a (duck) Republican." excellent, sir

For reminding of the dangerous consequences of ideological delusions---and their direct and disastrous impact on real, living human beings.

But I fear that for some on this board, Dr. Ashrawi's sin does not lie in what she has to say, but in WHO she is, or rather, the fact that she is a Palestinian, which makes her a "terrorist," no matter what she has to say.

It is the true fanatics on either side who hate the "moderates"--people like Rabin and Ashrawi, who actually want to see this miserable conflict come to a peaceful end, for the very reason that they endeavor to expand discussion beyond the finger-pointing (and denial of the "opponent's" humanity) on which this hatred thrives.

Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) has written in a thesis that it wasn't six million who died in the holocaust, but only a few hundred thousand, but Israel was willing to negotiate with him. I don't understand that.

I have never read that Hanan Ashrawi doesn't accept the historical accuracy of the Holocaust.

But because he spoke about Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence over 70% of the Murican people believe Saddam was responsible for 9/11. These people know what they're doing. I won't be gullible or believe their lies.

why Israel's PM is willing to deal with a man who questions the number of the victims of the Holocaust.

As for the majority of the Americans believing that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, I can't believe how gullible people can be.

used the Holocost, showing that Bushie does the same thing with Saddam and 9/11 then denies they were making the connection.
I was answering another post with yours. I apologize. As far as Israel's PM Sharon dealing with Abbas, I don't know. I do know he's no longer in power and what you brought up might have been the catalyst behind the scenes as to why thats the case. Israel controls the events in Israel. Period. That's the way it should be.

are in I/P now: Logic Need Not Apply.

you're talking about?

"Israel controls the events in Israel. That's the way it should be."

Of course. I agree. And Palestinians should control events in their territory, not Israel. Do you agree?

Abu Mazen resigned (out of frustration?) because his own people didn't cooperate with him and didn't want him. It sure looked like Israel's PM was willing to talk to him, in fact they did talk.

The majority of the Palestinian population is in Jordon. That constitues a majority.

From the Central Intelligence Agency:

Population (2002 est) of the {link:www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/we.html#People|West Bank]: 2.2 milllion (plus 187,000 Israeli settlers)
Population (2002 est) of the Gaza Strip: 1.3 million (plus 5,000 Israeli settlers)

Total population of the West Bank and Gaza: 3.5 million (plus 192,000 Israeli settlers)

From Nation by Nation:

Population (2002 est) of Jordan: 5.3 million, including about 1.5 Palestinian Arabs.

Population of Jordan by percentage:

Palestinian: 28.3%
Non-Palestinian: 71.7%

Total Palestinian population of the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan: 5 million

Broken down by percentage:
West Bank: 44%
Gaza: 26%

Total West Bank and Gaza: 70%

Jordan: 30%

You posted in number 18 something about more Palestinians living in Jordan than anywhere else; in the same post, you also stated that a majority of the population in Jordan is Palestinian.

I have posted in number 29 information challenging both of those assertions.

Your response to that is about free elections in Jordan. I'm all for free elections in Jordan and everywhere else, for that matter, but I don't see how that rebuts my challenge to your assertions.


(Correctd links to the information about the West Bank and Gaza.)

They do, by the way, do something along the line of a free-ish election in Jordan periodically, it is my understanding, though the Parliament produced has little tooth to it....

in the Foreign Affairs forum - I'll see if I can find it.

and gave the idiot, whom some in America call pResident the ammunition to say Saddam was an imminent threat? That CIA?
Well from a site (http://www.countercurrents.org/)that is much more pro Ashwari/Arafat states something totally different:

"The elections also held significance for the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Jordan is one of the United States' closest friends in the Arab world in part because of its willingness to engage in dialogue with Israel. This was the first time since the king took office in 1999 that Jordanian citizens, 60% of whom are Palestinian, could vote. They did so as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, just across the border, worked arduously to keep forward momentum in the sputtering "road map," which has the strong support of Abdullah but has engendered deep skepticism from most Jordanians, whose ballots could have been used as a referendum on the issue."

The reference to that stink of a Republican Colin Powell and the now infamous 'road map' would make my facts from the year 2003 wouldn't it?

So like I said when Jordon has democratic elections we'll talk.

Can be trusted over simple census data. Any encyclopedia or almanac will give you similar figures. It is rather, at this point, up to you to provide figures, and their source, demonstrating your contention that a majority of Arab Palestinians reside in Jordan today. You will be unable to do this, of course, since neither is true, but the attempt might provide some low amusement. Even if your polemicist's figure from the "countercurrents" site is taken as accurate, which it is not, three fifths of Jordan's populace falls short of the population of the territories overrun in '67, and to these must be added substantial populations in Lebanon, and elsewhere throughout the Near East, and the world at large.

Your tangent concerning Jordanian elections does not seem to be supported by the paragraph you cite. It clearly states elections were held, and does not disparage them as rigged or conducted under the gun. You might be misled by the reference to the first elections after the new king took office, but there were elections under the previous king, who had ruled for many decades.

It would, as a point of curiousity, be interesting to know what connection exists in your mind between elections, and accuracy in census figures....

When it comes to the sort of census information that's provided, the CIA Factbook is a credible source. When it comes to census information and there's a discrepancy between the CIA Factbook and a claim made in an article at countercurrents.org, then the CIA Factbook is obviously the more credible source in that case. I think it gets its information direct from censuses (or is that censii?) while an author of an article might have got theirs from some much less credible source. But if RuB is saying they don't believe anything the CIA says based on the fact that they don't believe something else they've said, I wonder if that means that RuB believes everything said at countercurrents.org because they believe this one bit of uncited information that just conveniently happens to concur with whatever it is they think they're arguing right now?

I was going to point out the same thing about their paragraph about Jordanian elections, but you beat me to it. Reading what they posted was like watching someone post a quote from somewhere saying 'JFK was assassinated in 1963' and then saying: 'See? Proof that JFK wasn't assassinated in 1963!!'

Violet...

anyone seriously disputing the CIA Factbook about countries. Those are plain facts that have nothing to do with politics/ideology. Even the stats for Cuba are correct, and one could hardly say that Cuba is beloved by the USA or the CIA. They cannot deny the facts and they don't even try doing so when such data is concerned. So I really can't understand the whole shebang about it...

They probably saw the word CIA and ran with it in a sort of knee-jerking manner. I know the Canadian government and several others use the information from the CIA Factbook in profiles of tax havens, and I think if there was anything whiffy about the information from the CIA Factbook they'd be getting their information from somewhere else....

All these unrelated tangents that RuB is going off on is enough to make my head spin!

Violet...

Yes, this is a credible source for census information. Anything they have to say about recent history may be up to dispute, but their demographic information is reliable.

The reason I didn't use the CIA factbook for Jordan is that it didn't answer the question that I was posing when I did research: How many Palestinians live in Jordan? The Nation by Nation site provided an answer to that question, so I used it.

Your invectives against the CIA are a non-sequitor, but thank you in any case.

And you may even be right. Then again, maybe not. When I looked for specific numbers of Palestinians in Jordan, the figure I got was 1.5 million (quoted above) or 1.6 million form this story on the website of Radio Netherlands dated February 2002. I went with the former since that site also provided the figure for the total population of Jordan (5.3 million). That total population figure is close to the 5.46 million reported on the World Factbook (CIA).

That still works out to less than 30% of the population (source: MSWindows calculator).

However, when other sources give vague percentages, we get assertions that the population of Jordan is "majority Palestinian" (according to the BBC in a piece run last week) to several sources citing the 60% figure that you give. One informative site, AllRefer.com gives the percentage as being between 60% and 70%. According to AllRefer:

The exact number of Palestinians living on the East Bank was unknown. Estimates usually ranged from 60 to 70 percent of the total population. Official government statistics did not distinguish between East Bank and West Bank Jordanians.

Again, using the calculator, 60% of 5.4 million is 3.25 million, a little more than double the hard figures given by Nation by Nation and Radio Netherlands.

The Radio Netherlands story also gives percentages:

Although there's huge poverty amongst the refugees, many Jordanians regard them as a threat. After all, at least 35% of the population are of Palestinian origin. Some estimates even put the figure at 50%. And while the native population growth has declined gradually in recent years due to emigration, the Palestinian population is increasing at a rate of around 4% per year. The Palestinians also control business. Even in the financial sector they are over-represented. Jordanians, who are employed especially in the army and by the government, are afraid the Palestinians will dominate the economy. A growing Palestinian population that controls business could be the first step towards a Palestinian takeover of Jordan.

If Jordan's population is 5.4 million, then 35% of it is 1.89 million, not 1.6 million. If 1.6 million is 35% of Jordan's population, then the total is 4.57 million.

Part of this confusion may be due to the fact that Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950 (illegally, according to many experts) and then relinquished its claim in 1988. According to AllRefer:

Accurate demographic figures were difficult to compile because of the substantial number of Jordanians residing and working abroad and the continuous flow of West bank Palestinians with Jordanian passports back and forth between the East and West banks. According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, about 224,000 people were admitted to UNRWA refugee camps in the East Bank immediately after the June 1967 War. In 1986 UNRWA cited 826,128 registered refugees living on the East Bank, of whom about 205,000 were living in refugee camps.

AllRefer gives further reasons why there is such confusion as to how many Palestinians live in Jordan:

Jordanians tended to refer to Palestinians as persons who fled or were driven from Palestine during the Arab-Israeli War of 1948 and the June 1967 War. Some immigrants from Palestine who had entered Jordan in preceding centuries, however, were so thoroughly integrated into the local society as to be indistinguishable from their neighbors. The Majalis, for more than a century the leading tribe in Al Karak area, came originally from Hebron. For political and social purposes, they and others like them were considered Jordanians. Other Palestinians from Hebron, who came to Al Karak as merchants well before 1948, remained to a considerable degree outsiders, for the most part taking their spouses from the Hebron area and maintaining economic and other ties there.

Overall, we are getting a picture of Palestinians being regarded as outsiders in Jordan. Palestinians on the East Bank are for the most part refugees who arrived after 1948 and were not regarded as permanent residents of Jordan either by the Jordanians or by the Palestinians themselves. Simply put, Jordan is not a Palestinian state, even if for the moment a majority of the population is Palestinian.

Another question is whether Jordan is indeed majority Palestinian. It very well could be, but it seems to be in dispute. Nobody seems to know exactly how many Palestinians are in Jordan. The only hard figures given are those by Nation by Nation and Radio Netherlands, and those put the percentage of Palestinians as part of the total population of Jordan at slightly less than 30%.

Would seem to be the phrase "East Bank Palestinians". One of the difficulties with the Trans-Jordan partition was that the river was not a dividing point in the human geography, but rather a focal point. The valley, on either side, was a commom community of agriculturalists, with many ties of family. These were certainly distinct from the Bedouin further east, whose means of getting a living, and whose tribal allegiances, were rather different. Thus, "East Bank Palestinians" would seem more a term of art than of accuracy, in discussing this matter. Most people mean by Palestinian persons who can trace to Mandatory Palestine, not persons who never resided in that jurisdiction, or did not descend from persons who did. This has its own inexactnesses, of course, but such is the difficulty of imposing borders within living memory, and it has at least the sanction of most common usage.

There is something of a game here being played with the word Palestinian by those who, for whatever reason, do not care greatly for what happens to the people denoted by that word.

On what we can agree is that the West Bank and Gaza are populated by three and a half million Arabs who don't want to be citizens of Eretz Israel, either as full or second class citizens, and have a natural right to use their own land natural resources for their own benefit. I would call those Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians, and I would call that land Palestine, regardless of whether it has been formally declared a state or not.