Shaking hands and stealing land
Life for Palestinians in the Occupied Territories is now so miserable that it has become quite difficult not to be seduced by the theatre of the latest ‘peace push’, such is the desire to see an end to the conflict. When Condoleeza Rice expresses her sincere ambition to create an independent Palestinian state, and when Ehud Olmert hints about a willingness to divide Jerusalem, it is extremely tempting to simply forget about the facts on the ground and dare to hope that perhaps, this time, they’re for real.
Unfortunately, facts matter. It is axiomatic in politics that you don’t simply take what political actors (so to speak) say at face value. While political rhetoric can reveal important insights into the motivations and attitudes of each side, for it to be useful it must be evaluated and placed in a relevant context. In this case, Olmert’s platitudes must be placed in the context of Israel’s actions on the ground and the historical record, in order to evaluate what they might actually mean.
On Wednesday, two very respectable, knowledgeable observers of the conflict posted two very different perspectives on the current diplomatic surge. Tony Karon, a veteran journalist and senior editor at TIME magazine, argues that the Annapolis summit is doomed to “failure”, primarily due to U.S./Israeli rejectionism and the political weakness of both Ehud Olmert, who depends upon the likes of Avigdor Lieberman and the extreme-right Shas party to hold his shaky coalition together, and Mahmoud Abbas, who has no control over Gaza and whose political legitimacy is extremely suspect.
Charles Levinson, an American journalist and Middle East correspondent for the Sunday Telegraph, disagrees, arguing that “[t]hose who think this isn’t a serious peace push are mistaken”. He claims that, despite their threats, it is far from certain that Lieberman and Shas would actually withdraw from the ruling coalition in protest at Olmert’s negotiating positions with Abbas. The political prominence and influence conferred upon both parties by their involvement in the government, he maintains, could well be too important for them to follow through on their threats to walk away. His optimism places him in a distinct minority – both Palestinians and Israelis, including Israel’s military intelligence, view the Annapolis summit with extreme scepticism. “Since the goal of the conference amounts to a mere declaration of interests and doesn’t deal with the core issues,” explained Meretz head Zehava Gal-On, “it will be pointless”. Indeed, the U.S. and Israeli governments have themselves been at pains to downplay any hopes for a “breakthrough” at the summit, the White House press correspondent explaining:
“I think a lot of people are inclined to try to treat this as a big peace conference. It’s not…
I think what happened is it was being spun up as a major peace conference where people are going to be talking about final status issues, and that is not the case.”
Interestingly, Levinson acknowledges the possibility that the entire process is nothing more than “a cynical exercise by Olmert to placate the Bush administration until next summer”:
“If Olmert is not nearly as enthusiastic about peace as some suggest he is, he just has to do the pro-peace song and dance to the US tune for the next six to eight months and then Israel will have the US out of its hair until well into the next administration.”
There would, of course, be a precedent to this. Levinson also mentions the difficulties a peace process would face, even if sincere, given that Hamas are excluded from it. However, after raising these arguments, he simply leaves it at that, his original opinion intact, as if they are somehow insignificant or minor problems. In fact, Israel’s insistence on isolating Hamas reveals a lot about its true intentions.
Background
After the Hamas takeover of Gaza, both Israel and the United States rushed to portray the situation as a “historic opportunity”, a brief “window” of possibility that must be grasped before it is too late. It was an opportunity, certainly, but for what? In considering this question, it is worth recalling the events of the previous year.
Hamas took office in March 2006 after winning democratic elections in January, when they beat a divided and corrupt Fatah whose election campaign was funded in part by the United States. They came into power in the midst of a year-long, unilateral self-imposed ceasefire, talking about possible negotiations with Israel and a long-term truce accompanied by a two-state settlement, based on the 1967 borders. Hamas’ participation in the elections represented a significant ideological progression for the movement, which had vehemently opposed the Oslo Process and viewed the Palestinian Authority as illegitimate. It represented the triumph of the pragmatic, moderate elements within the party over the extremists. Statements by the political leadership, both at home and abroad, demonstrated a clear shift in Hamas’ thinking, to the point where they had effectively accepted Israel’s existence within the Green Line.
In line with long-standing government policy, Israel moved quickly to crush this threatened “peace offensive”. It began illegally withholding the tax revenues collected each month as the occupying power on the PA’s behalf, which, together with a crippling sanctions regime imposed upon the occupied Palestinians by the ‘international community’ (instigated by the U.S.), brought the Palestinian economy to a stand-still and precipitated a humanitarian crisis. The objectives were clear: the Palestinians were being subjected to collective punishment in an attempt to undermine popular support for the Hamas government. As Dov Weisglass, advisor to Ariel Sharon and then Ehud Olmert, explained,
“It’s like a meeting with a dietician. We have to make them [the Palestinian people] much thinner, but not enough to die”.
Or as one Israeli border officer defined his mission: “no development, no prosperity, only humanitarian dependency“. When sanctions alone failed to produce the desired 
effects, Israel launched a sustained assault upon the civilian and political infrastructure of the Gaza Strip. Killing close to 700 people, most of them civilians, ‘Operation Summer Rains‘ was a calculated attempt to reduce Palestinian life to such abject misery that the population would turn against their elected government. In the West Bank the number of checkpoints was increased by 40%, dividing the territory into several de facto non-contiguous cantons and destroying what was left of the Palestinian economy, which was already suffering what the World Bank described as “the worst economic depression in modern history“.
With the Hamas government paralysed, starved of funds and a third of its legislators detained in Israeli jails, the U.S. and Israel began arming and training a group of Fatah militants under the leadership of Mohammad Dahlan. It had been predicted that the siege of the territories would eventually lead to internal Palestinian violence, and the U.S. wanted to ensure that the “good guys” won. The conflict that eventually culminated in Hamas’ takeover of Gaza was in fact engineered from the start by the U.S. and Israel, so much so that when the violence erupted, one U.S. official was heard to exclaim: “I like this violence…[i]t means that other Palestinians are resisting Hamas”.
A leaked 16-page internal document detailed the U.S.’ strategy for ‘undermining and replacing the Palestinian national-unity government’. It was essentially two-pronged: on the one hand the U.S. and Israel would cripple the Hamas government and undermine its popular support, whilst at the same time they would arm its opponents and build the “political credibility” of Mahmoud Abbas.
Finally, in June 2007, Hamas struck back against Dahlan’s forces in Gaza, and ended up taking control of the territory. Israel and the U.S., in accordance with the strategy outlined above, rushed to condemn the “coup” and began the current blitz of diplomatic engagement with the Abbas government.
Isolating Hamas
Given the background outlined above, it seems extremely implausible to suggest that, overnight, the Olmert government suddenly became interested in a genuine peace process. More likely, Middle-East specialist Henry Siegman is correct to conclude that “it is [the U.S. and Israeli governments'] determination to bring down Hamas rather than to build up a Palestinian state that animates their new-found enthusiasm for making Abbas look good”, in accordance with the two-pronged strategy discussed above.
This judgement is reinforced by the behaviour of the Bush and Olmert administrations towards Hamas since it seized control of Gaza in June. Virtually every serious analyst of the conflict, from the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee (.pdf) to Ephraim Halevy, former head of the Shin Bet, recognises that some basic level of political cooperation between Hamas and Fatah is a prerequisite to any serious attempt at peace. As the International Crisis Group put it,
“Security and a credible peace process depend on minimal intra-Palestinian consensus. Isolating Hamas strengthens its more radical wing and more radical Palestinian forces…a new Fatah-Hamas power-sharing arrangement is a prerequisite for a sustainable peace.”
It’s hardly rocket science: Hamas commands the support of a significant proportion of the Palestinian population. It controls Gaza, and possesses the capability to undermine and sabotage any political settlement that excludes it, for instance by resuming its campaign of suicide bombings. No Palestinian will accept a state on the West Bank only, and no settlement can be reached in Gaza without the cooperation of Hamas. Clearly, then, if Israel and the U.S. were genuinely interested in achieving a peaceful resolution to the conflict, one of the first steps they would take would be to encourage negotiations between Fatah and Hamas.
In fact, they’ve done the precise opposite. Even before the takeover of Gaza, Israel and the U.S. worked hard to destroy any possibility of Fatah-Hamas cooperation. In early 2007, despite having won democratic elections, Hamas agreed to enter into a power-sharing arrangement with Fatah in an attempt to get round the U.S./Israeli sanctions regime. Hamas would concentrate on running the territories, while Abbas would be given the authority to negotiate with Israel, on the condition that any settlement reached would first be put to a national referendum. Instead of celebrating this national unity government, Israel and the U.S. moved quickly to undermine it. Hiding behind a series of “principles”, described charitably by Ret. Major General Shlomo Gazit, former chief of Israel’s military intelligence, as “ridiculous, or an excuse not to negotiate“, the ‘Quartet’ maintained the aid boycott, refused to negotiate with the new government and continued to arm and train Dahlan’s militia. UN special rapporteur for human rights in the Occupied Territories John Dugard was right to describe this approach as “hostile to Palestinian self-determination”. This attitude of viewing any hint of moderation by Hamas as a threat as opposed to a blessing is not consistent with a genuine desire for peace. Since Hamas took control of Gaza in June, Israel, supported by the United States, has explicitly and repeatedly warned Abbas that should he enter into negotiations with Hamas or enter a power-sharing agreement with them, all diplomatic engagement will immediately cease. The aid boycott would resume and the Palestinians of the West Bank would return once again to living under relentless siege. As Olmert explained to Abbas,
“Any renewed cooperation between Fatah and Hamas will be, from our point of view, a breakdown of the political process”.
As a result, Abbas has flat-out rejected all of Hamas’ overtures and requests for negotiations. His hands are by now well and truly tied. The fact that Israel and the U.S. have vehemently opposed, on the flimsiest of grounds, a development recognised by almost everyone as a necessary prerequisite for peace speaks volumes about their true intentions.
Facts on the Ground
It is also instructive to compare Olmert’s diplomatic statements with Israel’s actions on the ground. The latest round of the ‘peace process’ began, as discussed, in mid-2007, when Israel and the U.S. rushed to take advantage of the split between Hamas’ Gaza and Fatah’s West Bank. Yet, here is how John Dugard described the situation on the ground (.pdf) in August:
“The construction of the wall (or barrier) continues; settlements continue to expand; checkpoints remain in force; the Judaization of Jerusalem continues; and the de facto annexation of the Jordan Valley is unaffected. Military incursions, accompanied by arrests, continue unabated. House demolitions remain a feature of life in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.”
Construction of the wall, deemed illegal under international law by the World Court, has continued. 80% of the route travels through the West Bank, at one point jutting
out some 22km into Palestinian territory in order to enclose the Ariel settlement bloc. Israel has tried to defend it as a “security measure”, but in fact it’s clear that the route was drawn not to protect Israel but to annex the major settlement blocs. As veteran Israeli journalist Akiva Eldar and Israeli historian Idith Zertal write in their recent history of the settlement enterprise, the wall is being “constructed with no reckoning and no logic other than the purpose of enclosing as many settlements as possible on the western, Israeli, side and dividing up and seizing Palestinian lands.” When finished, the wall, described by the OCHA (.pdf) as a “de facto border”, will annex approximately 10% of the West Bank to Israel, trapping some 60,000 Palestinians between the wall and the Green Line. As John Dugard explains,
“The closed zone includes many of the West Bank’s most valuable water resources. Completion of the wall around the Ma’aleh Adumim bloc will separate East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank, restricting access to workplaces, health, education, and to places of worship. Further south, the route of the wall around the Gush Etzion settlement bloc will sever the last route between Bethlehem and Jerusalem and isolate the majority of Bethlehem’s agricultural hinterland.”
While Olmert hints vaguely about returning parts of occupied East Jerusalem to the Palestinians, construction continues on a wall that, when completed, will sever East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank. The recent IDF expropriation of over 1,100 dunams of land from four Palestinian villages, between East Jerusalem and Ma’aleh Adumim, further undermines Olmert’s claims. The purpose of this and other recent moves is to free up the E-1 area for Israeli development. If this goes ahead, Israel will have achieved territorial contiguity between East Jerusalem and the Ma’aleh Adumim settlement. The Palestinians would be cut off from East Jerusalem and the West Bank would be divided into de facto non-contiguous cantons, destroying any hope for a viable two-state settlement.
The settlements, described (.pdf) by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan as “the single biggest impediment to realizing a viable Palestinian state with territorial contiguity”, have continued to expand. Construction has continued on settlements both east and west of the wall, with political and humanitarian consequences described by the OCHA as “profound”. According to the OCHA (.pdf), the current rate of annual growth in the settlements is 5.5%, almost three times that of Israel proper, which if continued will result in a doubling of the settler population to nearly 900,000 in just 12 years. Some of the construction has occurred in settlements in the Jordan Valley, an area constituting roughly 25% of the West Bank that has effectively been annexed by Israel. Declaring it a “closed military zone”, Israel regularly demolishes Palestinian house in the Jordan Valley and orders entire villages to evacuate. As John Dugard reports,
“That Israel intends to remain permanently in the Jordan Valley is clear from Government statements and is further manifested, first, by restrictions imposed on Palestinians and, second, by the exercise of Israeli control and the increase in the number of settlements in the Jordan Valley.”
There is simply no way to look honestly at the settlement project and conclude that Israel intends to withdraw from the West Bank. The Israeli government allocates huge areas of land to settlements, way out of proportion to their actual size, to prevent Palestinians developing on it, and then allows the settlements to build right on the edges of this inflated jurisdiction to expand still further into Palestinian territory. Strategically placed on the most fertile areas of land and along the Jordan Valley, the continuing development of Israel’s colonial infrastructure in the West Bank gives lie to the government’s claims that it is sincere in wanting a genuine two-state settlement. It follows that the current “peace process” is nothing but a farce, intended not to achieve a lasting peace but rather to build Abbas’ “political capital” at the expense of Hamas, and to maintain Israel’s image as a peacemaker even as the theft and dismemberment of Palestine continues. As much as we may want to believe that the Annapolis summit represents a genuine push for peace, the facts tell a different story.
Filed under: Israeli / Palestinian, News and politics, US | 45 Comments
Tags: "peace process", Annapolis, colonialism, International & Foreign Policy
-
Subscribe to The Heathlander feed
-
Site Meter
It seems pretty clear at this point that Israel has every intention on ‘wiping Palestine off the map’. I’d have to say that they’ve been doing a brutally effective job at it.
What suprises and dissapoints me even more is the unwilligness of the neighboring Arab states to take a more assertive role in the sitution. But I guess the billions of dollars that fly in from the west to support Washington’s foreign policy does a good enough job at keeping the Arab theocrats and elites pampered. I mean, you just gotta have that new Benz right?
On a more optimistic note, there seems to be a lot of Israeli Jews who are seeing through the crimes of the occupation and are taking more direct action, I found this speaker very interesting: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5749615244432914878&hl=en.
Peace,
Ali
Frankly, I see no prospect of a two-state settlement at all now. The best thing the Palestinians can do is demand equal right and a vote in a single state. That will effectively end Israel as Israel has ended Palestine. If they can deny the Palestinians a homeland, Palestinians should simply demand democracy and see the zionist project founder. How will they explain their rejection of democracy?
Ali: Thanks for the link. Jeff Halper is a veteran activist who works for the excellent Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions. And there are many more like him – Anarchists Against the Wall, for example, do some fantastic work, as do Israeli journalists like Gideon Levy and Amira Hass.
As for the Arab states – as you say, they’re U.S. clients, which precludes them from doing anything serious to help the Palestinians out (and in any event, the Gulf dictators have proven time and again that they care little for the welfare of their own citizens, so it’s unlikely they have some principled concern for the well-being of the Palestinians).
Kebz:
Trouble is, I see even less prospect of that happening.
You’re right. The idea of a separate homeland for Palestinians has been ingrained into the Palestinian psyche. It takes some leadership and lateral thinking to outmanoeuvre the Zionists. The only reason that the Zionists bother to dangle the idea of a Palestinian state is to prevent Palestinians demanding a one-state solution (as well as for making the right noises to keep world pressure off their backs while they quietly continue to grab land).
It is not clear at all that Israel intends to wipe the Palestinian entity off the map. However, Egypt and Transjordan did so when they occupied the captured territories rather then turning them over to the Palestinian people. They wiped Palestine off the map.
Of course, Palestine was never anything but a region ruled from other places.
As for the Palestinians living in the disputed territories demanding the right to vote… Good joke. They will vote in Palestinian elections, not Israeli ones. That is the democracy that is theirs to enjoy.
So far they’ve elected a party that specializes in the brutal annialation of other Palestinians. Good luck with that.
Kebz: Well, I think most Palestinians would still prefer a one-state solution, ideally, but they recognise that it ain’t gonna happen and would settle for two states. But even if they did demand it, I just don’t see it happening. Israelis are virtually unanimous in their desire to keep Israel as a Jewish state, so the only way to impose a one-state solution would be through force, and that’s simply not realistic. So it looks like a two-state settlement is our best bet for now, depressing as that is.
“However, Egypt and Transjordan did so when they occupied the captured territories rather then turning them over to the Palestinian people. They wiped Palestine off the map.”
You’re right, this was pretty terrible. And then they gave them back, and recognized Palestine as a nation.
“Of course, Palestine was never anything but a region ruled from other places.”
This is irrelevant. They’re a quite clearly a nation, and they quite clearly have a homeland, they were quite clearly ethnically cleansed from. And parts of this homeland have quite clearly been under occupation for the last 4 decades.
“As for the Palestinians living in the disputed territories demanding the right to vote… Good joke. They will vote in Palestinian elections, not Israeli ones. That is the democracy that is theirs to enjoy.”
They did vote in elections, and they certainly aren’t enjoying democracy, are they?
“So far they’ve elected a party that specializes in the brutal annialation of other Palestinians. Good luck with that.”
Hamas is popular because of its grassroots social programs – especially in Gaza. Brutality, though, was a hallmark of Fatah gangs (run by Dahlan, specializing in terrorizing activists during 90s), and of course, the IDF.
Yes. The two or three state solution is best. The only problem with the 2 state is how to link Gaza to the west bank area. It is not likely that Israel will allow Palestinian air traffic over Israel.
Listen to yourself, Jacob. Ask yourself how it is a democracy for one nation to have complete control over another. Ask yourself how it is possible for a people to have elected a government (in an election widely considered to be the most democratic in the Middle East) then to have that government ignored, vilified, imprisoned and shouted down.
This is the problem: everyone wants Palestinians to have democracy on their terms – meaning simply that they just want Palestinians to do what they are told. Which is tricky, given that nobody seems to be entirely sure what they want Palestinians to do, other than certain elements in Israel who see the rightful position of Palestinians to be in Jordan and away from the Occupied Territories altogether. Whatever they do, they can’t win can they? Even if they agree to an ‘peace agreement’ which basically means that Israel can do whatever the hell it likes and Palestinians are forced into ever smaller and ever more isolated bandistans, will the Palestinian lifechances amount to any more than a plate of beans? Having been pushed around for the last 60 years, it isn’t really surprising that they’re not really very willing to sign up to anything and content to say bollocks to any one-sided ‘agreement’.
One thing, joe:
In fact, they’re desperate to reach a just settlement, which is unsurprising given the hell they’re currently living through. The problem is that Israel isn’t interested in relinquishing economic and military control over the West Bank.
I don’t think Israel gives a fig about economic control of Palestinian territories per say.
The Israelis did not prevent the Palestinian elections. But just because there was an election, it doesn’t mean Israel has to deal with them. Israel is a democracy. They have the right to deal with who their people agree to deal with. Democracy, remember?
A peace agreement is a peace agreement. It does not mean Israel can do whatever it wants. When the Palestinians agree to compromise, there will be peace. If they insist on their concept of justice, there will be nothing.
As JamieSW intimated, they are not desperate to reach a settlement, they are desperate to get 4 to 7 million additional Arabs living in Israel as well as all of the territory lost to Israel in the 1967 war.
‘Olmert: Annapolis conference will not bring historic breakthrough‘:
Superb article. I hope you realise you’re effectively writing my dissertation here!
Thanks. Sounds interesting – what’s it about? Me?
When Condoleeza Rice promised not to “impose” anything on Israel, she wasn’t kidding:
I agree Jamie. I think maybe I was confusing – what I meant was that Palestinians aren’t interested in signing up to any-old-agreement-which-comes-along unless it deals comprehensively with the issues they feel are important. I agree they are desperate to have resolution to the issues.
Jacob, once again you reveal your flaky understanding of truth. Palestinians have always compromised. Always. Since the creation of Israel – which marks a high-water emotional mark in every Palestinian family which was turned out of the land of their fathers – they have been forced to compromise over and over again. Even now Israel is taking land by force – and now you are asking them to voluntarily ‘compromise’ even more. If you keep going like this, the whole 4 million Palestinians will have ‘compromised’ themselves to living on a postage stamp. How about Israel tries doing a bit of compromising for a change?
What is so bad about the Palestinian understanding of justice? They just want to have life, to mourn the passing of the land that was left and build a better future for their children. What is so unethical about that? Exactly what is so bad about suggesting that those who have spent 60 years in refugee camps should either have the right to return to their old homes or compensation for all they have lost?
I’d really like to know, because I’ve been to the occupied territories several times and these things do not sound like the ravings of terrorists but a reasonable basis for negotiations.
If you wish to negotiate, you must compromise. Presenting a list of demands which are non-negotiable is a dead issue on the spot.
The faux ‘right to return’ is one of those demands.
Tell me what the Palestinians demand as a matter of justice and I will tell you what is wrong with it.
The Palestinians already own 78% of historic palestine, although it is ruled by a foreign King installed by the British. However, as the latest Jordanian queen is Palestinian (Ethnically cleansed from another Arab nation, Kuwait), the next King of the Palestinian nation of Jordan will be a Palestinian.
What you have stated as all they want, “They just want to have life, to mourn the passing of the land that was left and build a better future for their children.” is not what any palestinian leader, at any negotiating table, has ever stated was the sole Palestinian demand.
Thanks for not answering the questions I put to you.
Why is the right to return a faux demand?
There are many refugees living in bad conditions in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan because they were forced from their homes by the creation of Israel. It is not a solution to say that they can live in Jordan – any more than creating a new nation in Belgium and telling the inhabitants to live in France would be a solution. Furthermore, as the authority causing the displacement, it is the moral responsibility of Israel to rehouse and compensate everyone who was forced to leave their land, not to mention the legal responsibilty under international law.
Most Palestinians want to live alongside Israelis in peace, but a just peace which recognises all they have lost – rather than being continually treated as vermin by the Israeli regime.
The questions you put to me were predicated on an opinion you stated that was not supported by any fact. It is impossible to answer such questions. You seem to be confusing the definitions of compromise and I will not go down that road with you.
The refugees are living in inhuman conditions because their host counbtries insist on them being in those inhuman conditions. As you will recall, when the President of Syria offered to settle 10’s of thousands of refugees in Syria, he was promptly assassinated.
It would seem that by now, the rulers of those nations who have forced the Palestinians to live in squallor, to make a political point, are now the ones who should be required, morally, to compensate said refugees for the 60 years of torment. However, Arabic morality, based on Islam, is different then Western morality, based on Hellenistic Christianity and Judaism.
As for most Palestinians wanting to live alongside Israelis in peace, they must mean Israeli Arabs. As it has been proven, most Palestinians support suicide bombing, which means that most Palestinian want Israeli Jews to be dead. Hardly a selling point for any offer to settle Palestinians in Israel.
It would seem that half of Belgium would have no problem moving into France. And it seems that France would welcome the manpower.
“As for most Palestinians wanting to live alongside Israelis in peace, they must mean Israeli Arabs. As it has been proven, most Palestinians support suicide bombing, which means that most Palestinian want Israeli Jews to be dead.”
This is an over-simplistic, third-grade analysis.
I agree that statement regarding the assumption that most palestinians want to live in peace along side their israeli Jew neighbors is a third grade analysis, as third graders have few facts at their disposal and are often swayed by the simplist of propaganda.
As for Palesitnian attitudes regarding suicide bombers, the stats are in. Hard to question those statistics. Of course, there are those who question the science of statistics.
Whatever.
Go on, call me an antisemite. Then I’ll have the full-house of insults.
“As it has been proven, most Palestinians support suicide bombing, which means that most Palestinian want Israeli Jews to be dead.”
Or, y’know, there could be an easier explanation for this, one other than that they’re all irrational Jew-haters? It seems like the most obvious explanation is that Palestinian antagonism towards Israel stems from being placed under a brutal occupation for the last 60 years. It’s pretty simple. Just maybe, if Israel soldiers stop killing them, bulldozing their houses, and stealing their land, they might lighten up a little?
It doesn’t really matter what the explanation. What does matter is that there is a strong desire, on the Palestinian front, to kill Jews.
The brutal occupation of the first twenty years, that of Jordan and Egypt, did not produce terror attacks against either, except when it looked like they were going to actually sit down with their israeli counterparts.
It seems that it is not as simple as you would like it to be.
The IDF reacts. It doesn’t have a mandate to initiate.
And why would anyone call Joe an antisemite?
You really should moderate your comments. I have no problem with intelligent debate, but idiotic commenters like Jacob Wolf add nothing to the discussion.
joe:
Yes, this sounds better. Palestinians are understandably desperate for an end to the violence and the occupation, but most are unwilling to give up on their basic legal and human rights to achieve this. And nor should they have to.
Peter H: I know it’s annoying, but I try not to delete comments unless they really do go beyond an obvious red line. I’ve only ever deleted a couple before, and even then I probably shouldn’t have. There’s always the easy option, which is to just skip past his comments. I personally have given up engaging with him, because as you say it’s unlikely to prove very productive, but if joe and others feel differently then I see no real harm in allowing the discussion to continue as it is. As I say, if worst comes to worst, you can simply do as I do and skip past his comments to more interesting ones.
Yes, there is always a Peter around to call those, who disagree with his possibly bigoted concepts, idiots.
As for giving up, Jamie, that is exactly what Israel appears to have done regarding engaging with Palestinians. So far, engaging with palestinians has been unproductive so it seems better to just do what seems best and retaliate with overwhelming force when a Palestinian does something annoying like try to kill any israeli that might get in the way of a rocket fired nilly-willy.
Palestinians are cool. Israelis are cool. Whats the problem?
“It doesn’t really matter what the explanation. What does matter is that there is a strong desire, on the Palestinian front, to kill Jews.”
In as much as there is a strong desire by Israelis to get rid of all Palestinians by making their lives as miserable as possible.
Isael is imposing an illegal and murderous occupation on the Palestinians, and they react with suicide bombings. Deplorable, yes, but I imagine if Palestinians had the same firepower as the Israelis they wouldn’t be using human bombs.
It is Israel’s, America’s, and England’s responsibility for what has happened to the Palestinians. By blaming puppet Arab regimes for their treatment of refugees is merely shifting the blame from those that are committing the crime.
This state of affairs did not occur overnight. No Israeli woke up and stated “Today, we will place the palestinian arabs, who live in Gaza and on the west bank of the Jordan River, under military control and make their lives so miserable that they will move into Jordan.”
No one is shifting any blame onto other Palestinian and Arab regimes. There has just been a shift of moral respomsibility for restitution as those regimes deliberately made the Palestinian arabs lives far more miserable than they could have, for the sake of politics.
If the Palestinians had the same fire power as the Israelis, I fear that the population of Palestinians in Gaza and the west bank of the Jordan river might shrink from 4 million to 4 thousand.
However, if they had the same fire power in 1948, they would have thrown out the Jordanians and egyptians who imposed an illegal and murderous occupation, maybe.
It doesn’t seem that Arabs care all that much when other Arabs do it. Only Israelis.
I wonder why?
“This state of affairs did not occur overnight. No Israeli woke up and stated “Today, we will place the palestinian arabs, who live in Gaza and on the west bank of the Jordan River, under military control and make their lives so miserable that they will move into Jordan.”
Looking back at history, it sorta does seem that way. One day Israel just pretty much got up and started taking over the country, murdering many, and having many others flee.
“No one is shifting any blame onto other Palestinian and Arab regimes. There has just been a shift of moral respomsibility for restitution as those regimes deliberately made the Palestinian arabs lives far more miserable than they could have, for the sake of politics.”
But you are shifting the blame. The moral responsibilty lies on Israel, and to a lesser extent the United States and Britain. They are the ones perpetrating the occupation, not the other Arab regimes, who pretty much care only about themselves. Yes, they have used Palestinian refugees as a political tool, but they aren’t the ones who kicked out Palestinians from their land, and they’re not the ones conducting an occupation (save for Syria in Lebanon).
“If the Palestinians had the same fire power as the Israelis, I fear that the population of Palestinians in Gaza and the west bank of the Jordan river might shrink from 4 million to 4 thousand.”
I doubt that. It would certainly make Israel far more reluctant to fire on them, as the reverse could also hold true.
“It doesn’t seem that Arabs care all that much when other Arabs do it. Only Israelis.
I wonder why?”
It doesn’t seem that Westerners care all that much when other Westerners do it. Only Arabs.
I wonder why?
Looking back on history shows nothing of the sort.
Again, the original blame stays where it is, there is just now a much larger playing field for moral responsibility regarding restitution. The Arab regimes deliberately and forcefully kept the palestinains in brutal and squalid conditions for political reasons. Sort of keeping a man on death row when you know he is innocent and you have the ability to free him from prison.
Based on the previous Arab Israeli wars, your assertion is wishful thinking. The same sort Saddam dreamt.
Funny, when westerners do it, there are trials, rallies, uproar in the UN. Who was up in arms when Lebanese Arabs murdered palestinian Arabs in Shatilla? 300,000 Israelis. But no Arab demonstrations.
If you wish to mimic my assertions, you have to have some facts to back them up.
“The Arab regimes deliberately and forcefully kept the palestinains in brutal and squalid conditions for political reasons. Sort of keeping a man on death row when you know he is innocent and you have the ability to free him from prison.”
The Arab regimes are for the most parts puppets of Western governments, propped up by all military aid. The regimes will do what is necessary to save face at home and please their western overlords at the same time.
“Funny, when westerners do it, there are trials, rallies, uproar in the UN. Who was up in arms when Lebanese Arabs murdered palestinian Arabs in Shatilla? 300,000 Israelis. But no Arab demonstrations. ”
Lets talk briefly about Shatila and the moral greatness of the Israelis. The area at the time was under Israeli control when the Lebanese, backed by Israel at the time, entered and conducted the massacre. The minister of defence at the time (Ariel Sharon) then went on to become Prime Minister. So much for the trials and rallies.
The arab regimes are, for the most part, frightened of their people and are willing to do anything to keep power, including deliberately screwing the Palestinian people. Remember the assassination of the Syrian president who offered to absorb 10’s of thousands of Palestinian refugees?
As for Shatilla, you failed to mention that the only uproar was israeli when 300,000 Israelis marched in Jerusalem demanding justice. The Lebanese and Syrian people demanded nothing.
Afetre all, it was merely arabs murdering arabs. So much for the greatness of Arab morality.
You’re heading down a dead end. Try a different street.
“As for Shatilla, you failed to mention that the only uproar was israeli when 300,000 Israelis marched in Jerusalem demanding justice. The Lebanese and Syrian people demanded nothing.
Afetre all, it was merely arabs murdering arabs. So much for the greatness of Arab morality.”
Israel never wanted a democratic Lebabon, and would have stopped at nothing to see that happen. The Israelis trained and armed the Lebanese militias to do what they did, yet you seem to overlook that so easily.
Also, its not the Arab regimes that fear their people, but more like Israel and the U.S. who are afraid of having independantly elected democratic governments. We’ve seen the U.S. install dictator after dictator to any country that opposes its foreign policy which is more or less Israeli foreign policy.
On a final note, Yes, people in the Arab do speak out believe it or not, just not so much in the media, due to state sponsored censorship which is all too pervasive unfortunately.
This has nothing to do with what the Israeli government desired. Regardless, there was never going to be an actual Lebanese democrasy, especially within the constraints of thier constitution.
Israel did not train any arab militia in a political sense. Nor in an ideology sence.