Israelis have big b*lls
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middle East
Posts: 1,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Bubbette, little confused on that last post. Who doesn't want peace??? And more to the point why Re: The Palestinians....I assume you mean the whole crises, the Palestinians are only part of the crisis, it is realistically the Middle East crisis.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackinicko,
I think your "Dealing with Terrorism-101" is great...... To make sure I understand it properly....
I have what I believe is a legitmate claim over your home as the land upon which it is built was many lifetimes ago seized illegally from a distant relative of mine. Last night I was going to seize your TV, stereo and car as reparation, however I restrained myself and as a reward I expect you to send me 1000 quid.....unfair you say....alright then compromise...750 quid..... Hang on brother Noel (who hates me) says if you give me any money at all, he will burn your house down. By the way, if you give me any money at all, I promise not to tell the boys down at the pub as some of them are really nasty and will take advantage of you......
I can't understand why more world leaders (apart from Mz Clarke) don't embrace your teachings.....
I think your "Dealing with Terrorism-101" is great...... To make sure I understand it properly....
I have what I believe is a legitmate claim over your home as the land upon which it is built was many lifetimes ago seized illegally from a distant relative of mine. Last night I was going to seize your TV, stereo and car as reparation, however I restrained myself and as a reward I expect you to send me 1000 quid.....unfair you say....alright then compromise...750 quid..... Hang on brother Noel (who hates me) says if you give me any money at all, he will burn your house down. By the way, if you give me any money at all, I promise not to tell the boys down at the pub as some of them are really nasty and will take advantage of you......
I can't understand why more world leaders (apart from Mz Clarke) don't embrace your teachings.....
Bubette,
Please let's not drag this thread down by adopting extremist positions based on one side's propaganda. There are Palestinian factions who do not want peace with Israel. There are still Palestinians who want to continue the armed struggle to achieve much more ambitious aims. They must be defeated - but that defeat must be achieved without contravening civilised norms or international law.
But to claim that this is the overall Palestinian position, or to say that Arafat doesn't want peace is simply wrong. Israeli propaganda may paint Arafat in a particular light, but Oslo alone demonstrated that he had a sincere desire for compromise and peace. (One doubts whether Sharon is as committed to a just and peaceful solution). But it is unreasonable to expect any Palestinian leader to accept peace on any terms - they have their own minimum terms which will have to be met. Something approximating to a return to 1967 borders, with the removal of the illegal settlements and the fence, is the compromise most likely to be acceptable to the majority of Palestinians. On the Israeli side, the minimum acceptable demand is for guaranteed security.
Liam Gallagher,
I don't understand your analogy at all. If I'm Israel (my home is built on land which was seized from you - not lifetimes ago, but when my Dad was a young man) then I'm the one in the position of power and I'm the one dictating the terms. And while you've been making a nuisance of yourself, I've beaten the crap out of you (and your neighbours) again and again, until you're a homeless cripple. You still continue to annoy me and stick your tongue out at me, and though you'd really like my allotment, I'm deciding that I'll give you that little patch of rough ground behind the garden shed, and that I'll stop beating you halfway to death every time I see you, if you promise to just stop annoying me.
But that's just silly.
The fact is that the kind of approach I outlined (backed by force, remember, and dictated from a position of strength) has proved successful in the only real world examples of where terrorism has actually been defeated.
Please let's not drag this thread down by adopting extremist positions based on one side's propaganda. There are Palestinian factions who do not want peace with Israel. There are still Palestinians who want to continue the armed struggle to achieve much more ambitious aims. They must be defeated - but that defeat must be achieved without contravening civilised norms or international law.
But to claim that this is the overall Palestinian position, or to say that Arafat doesn't want peace is simply wrong. Israeli propaganda may paint Arafat in a particular light, but Oslo alone demonstrated that he had a sincere desire for compromise and peace. (One doubts whether Sharon is as committed to a just and peaceful solution). But it is unreasonable to expect any Palestinian leader to accept peace on any terms - they have their own minimum terms which will have to be met. Something approximating to a return to 1967 borders, with the removal of the illegal settlements and the fence, is the compromise most likely to be acceptable to the majority of Palestinians. On the Israeli side, the minimum acceptable demand is for guaranteed security.
Liam Gallagher,
I don't understand your analogy at all. If I'm Israel (my home is built on land which was seized from you - not lifetimes ago, but when my Dad was a young man) then I'm the one in the position of power and I'm the one dictating the terms. And while you've been making a nuisance of yourself, I've beaten the crap out of you (and your neighbours) again and again, until you're a homeless cripple. You still continue to annoy me and stick your tongue out at me, and though you'd really like my allotment, I'm deciding that I'll give you that little patch of rough ground behind the garden shed, and that I'll stop beating you halfway to death every time I see you, if you promise to just stop annoying me.
But that's just silly.
The fact is that the kind of approach I outlined (backed by force, remember, and dictated from a position of strength) has proved successful in the only real world examples of where terrorism has actually been defeated.
Swounger
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York, NY USA
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
?
This is from the Palestinians themselves. Did you see the Jenin (the Palestinian one that was banned in Israel, not the Israeli one) documentary. I have to say, that made me feel so so sorry for them because they are imbued with so much hate from cradle to grave. Surely you've see the two year olds dressed up as suicide bombers (and this from reuters--no friend of the Israelis).
This is from the Palestinians themselves. Did you see the Jenin (the Palestinian one that was banned in Israel, not the Israeli one) documentary. I have to say, that made me feel so so sorry for them because they are imbued with so much hate from cradle to grave. Surely you've see the two year olds dressed up as suicide bombers (and this from reuters--no friend of the Israelis).
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No negotiation with Terrorists
Jackonicko,
I chose my anology such that it had no genuine claim as those on the receiving end of Terrorism always believe the perpertrators' claim do not justify their actions. (perhaps that's the difference between the Terrorist and the freedom fighter)
You cannot negotiate with Terrorists. We are all entitle to our definitions and my definition of a Terrorist is an individual or group who engages, or supports or facilitates others, in the random and expressed targeting of non-combatants, with the intent of making the remaining population believe that they may be next (Terrorizing) with the aim of altering the view of the same remaining population regarding a certain political cause or to destabilise their society in general.
You know much more about Middle Eastern affairs than me and you no doubt have your definition of terrorists and I leave it to you to decide who the Terrorists are. By negotiating with them you open the door to further vile acts from groups supporting them or opposing them....your favours can be sold to the person who does you the greatest harm!!
I remain sceptical that peace exists in NI and should the relatively low levels of violence in NI decrease further and last such that those living there can claim to live in peace, I do not feel that such a peace came about through any "blue-printable" means. Rather it came about through factors unique to NI, namely the Terrorist acts becoming so vile in the eyes of a moderate (civilized??)population and that the IRA's "stated" political cause became irrelevant with the fall of communism and the manner in which both the UK and Ireland have embraced the EU (particularly Ireland) and the economic and social benefits that have followed.
I chose my anology such that it had no genuine claim as those on the receiving end of Terrorism always believe the perpertrators' claim do not justify their actions. (perhaps that's the difference between the Terrorist and the freedom fighter)
You cannot negotiate with Terrorists. We are all entitle to our definitions and my definition of a Terrorist is an individual or group who engages, or supports or facilitates others, in the random and expressed targeting of non-combatants, with the intent of making the remaining population believe that they may be next (Terrorizing) with the aim of altering the view of the same remaining population regarding a certain political cause or to destabilise their society in general.
You know much more about Middle Eastern affairs than me and you no doubt have your definition of terrorists and I leave it to you to decide who the Terrorists are. By negotiating with them you open the door to further vile acts from groups supporting them or opposing them....your favours can be sold to the person who does you the greatest harm!!
I remain sceptical that peace exists in NI and should the relatively low levels of violence in NI decrease further and last such that those living there can claim to live in peace, I do not feel that such a peace came about through any "blue-printable" means. Rather it came about through factors unique to NI, namely the Terrorist acts becoming so vile in the eyes of a moderate (civilized??)population and that the IRA's "stated" political cause became irrelevant with the fall of communism and the manner in which both the UK and Ireland have embraced the EU (particularly Ireland) and the economic and social benefits that have followed.
Liam,
Of course there will always be room for different interpretations of what has happened in Palestine and in NI.
The moral position that one 'cannot negotiate with terrorists' is compelling, but in the end, one has to, even if one only negotiates with them when they have renounced or put aside violence. Peaceful solutions in Northern Ireland, South Africa, Malaysia, Cyprus, Kenya, etc. were only achieved when negotiation replaced armed struggle. Mandela, Makarios, Kenyatta et al were all terrorists or supported by terrorists, while many of those responsible for founding the State of Israel had been Irgun and Stern Gang terrorists. Arafat was a terrorist, but has renounced terrorism. He's the Gerry Adams or Nelson Mandela of the Palestinians, and should be negotiated with. In fact, because of the problems Israel has with him, there is now an alternative, in the shape of a legitimately elected Palestinian Prime Minister. What's the argument against negotiating with him.
And while peace in Northern Ireland is both fragile and imperfect, there is peace of a sort.
I'd say that the IRA was made aware that it could not win, militarily. I'd say that the IRA was cut off from moderate Republican support through the achievement of civil rights, policing reforms, etc, (and through the realisation that an end of the 'Troubles' would bring economic and social benefits) and through dialogue with moderate republican leaders. We weren't deflected from the peace process by the actions of rogue elements. We made painful concessions and difficult compromises. We kept our allies on side. We remained legal.
While your point about Terrorist acts in NI "becoming so vile in the eyes of a moderate (civilized??) population" is well made, the peace process was well underway even while the IRA still enjoyed widespread support. I think you under-estimate the Arab hunger for peace and prosperity. Arafat is a clever populist, and in working towards peace he has enjoyed much (though by no means universal support). You hint at the importance of the Irish Republic to the peace process - there is surely a parallel here with Jordan?
Bubette,
You are so thoroughly indoctrinated that discussion with you is quite impossible for me. I have no doubt that you sincerely believe that the Palestinians are bent on Israel's destruction, and that they have no right to live in the Biblical land of Israel (There's no such thing as a Palestinian, they're all just Arabs, so Jordan should be enough for them, right?) and that ethnic cleansing and murder is either ok, or has never happened. Moreover, until you can recognise that the Palestinians lost most of their homeland in 1948 and the remainder in 1967, and that they have been treated as third class citizens, subject to long-standing humiliation, and massive repression you're not living in the real world. I'm sure that you can't see how the illegal settlements and savage putting down of the Intifada might be a legitimate grievance, because to you they shouldn't be there anyway. If you're right (or even if you seriously believe that you're right), and if thousands of years of occupation of that land mean nothing, then no-one can argue with you.
It's ironic that the State of Israel, a Western-style liberal democracy, should be pursuing repressive, discriminatory and racist policies against the indigenous population, especially after what the Jewish people have suffered themselves. Many of us expect more from such a great people, and many decent Israelis (presumably including the guys who inspired this thread) are equally sickened by their Government's actions and policies. There are some evil and insane people on the Palestinian side, sure, but that does not excuse the present treatment of the general Arab population. After Sabra and Chatila, it's clear that there are some equally wicked people on the Israeli side too. Some would include Sharon in that group.
Of course there will always be room for different interpretations of what has happened in Palestine and in NI.
The moral position that one 'cannot negotiate with terrorists' is compelling, but in the end, one has to, even if one only negotiates with them when they have renounced or put aside violence. Peaceful solutions in Northern Ireland, South Africa, Malaysia, Cyprus, Kenya, etc. were only achieved when negotiation replaced armed struggle. Mandela, Makarios, Kenyatta et al were all terrorists or supported by terrorists, while many of those responsible for founding the State of Israel had been Irgun and Stern Gang terrorists. Arafat was a terrorist, but has renounced terrorism. He's the Gerry Adams or Nelson Mandela of the Palestinians, and should be negotiated with. In fact, because of the problems Israel has with him, there is now an alternative, in the shape of a legitimately elected Palestinian Prime Minister. What's the argument against negotiating with him.
And while peace in Northern Ireland is both fragile and imperfect, there is peace of a sort.
I'd say that the IRA was made aware that it could not win, militarily. I'd say that the IRA was cut off from moderate Republican support through the achievement of civil rights, policing reforms, etc, (and through the realisation that an end of the 'Troubles' would bring economic and social benefits) and through dialogue with moderate republican leaders. We weren't deflected from the peace process by the actions of rogue elements. We made painful concessions and difficult compromises. We kept our allies on side. We remained legal.
While your point about Terrorist acts in NI "becoming so vile in the eyes of a moderate (civilized??) population" is well made, the peace process was well underway even while the IRA still enjoyed widespread support. I think you under-estimate the Arab hunger for peace and prosperity. Arafat is a clever populist, and in working towards peace he has enjoyed much (though by no means universal support). You hint at the importance of the Irish Republic to the peace process - there is surely a parallel here with Jordan?
Bubette,
You are so thoroughly indoctrinated that discussion with you is quite impossible for me. I have no doubt that you sincerely believe that the Palestinians are bent on Israel's destruction, and that they have no right to live in the Biblical land of Israel (There's no such thing as a Palestinian, they're all just Arabs, so Jordan should be enough for them, right?) and that ethnic cleansing and murder is either ok, or has never happened. Moreover, until you can recognise that the Palestinians lost most of their homeland in 1948 and the remainder in 1967, and that they have been treated as third class citizens, subject to long-standing humiliation, and massive repression you're not living in the real world. I'm sure that you can't see how the illegal settlements and savage putting down of the Intifada might be a legitimate grievance, because to you they shouldn't be there anyway. If you're right (or even if you seriously believe that you're right), and if thousands of years of occupation of that land mean nothing, then no-one can argue with you.
It's ironic that the State of Israel, a Western-style liberal democracy, should be pursuing repressive, discriminatory and racist policies against the indigenous population, especially after what the Jewish people have suffered themselves. Many of us expect more from such a great people, and many decent Israelis (presumably including the guys who inspired this thread) are equally sickened by their Government's actions and policies. There are some evil and insane people on the Palestinian side, sure, but that does not excuse the present treatment of the general Arab population. After Sabra and Chatila, it's clear that there are some equally wicked people on the Israeli side too. Some would include Sharon in that group.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko,
The more I learn, the less I understand regarding the Palestinian issue and make no comment upon it, save for the don't negotiate with terrorists mantra.
To clarify the point of an Irish Republic; I found/find it wholly unacceptable to negotaite away any part of NI to form a larger or united Ireland. The point I am trying to make, since the early 90's at least (say the Treaty of Masstrict) it seemed stupidity of the highest order that innocent people were being slaughtered for the holy grail of a United Ireland when the legitimate Political Leaders of all persuasions were rushing head long into a United States of Europe, where one's national identity will be redefined in more nominal role and, rightly or wrongly, a large chunk of economic and social decision-making would move away from Dublin, Belfast and London. Perhaps it took Adams and Co until the late 90's to figure this out, but then again I don't see the Provisionals disarming so perhaps they are still thinking about it.
Further, Wales and Scotland got their devolved assemblies before NI and their assemblies, such as they are, were achieved with little or no bloodshed.........what a complete and utter waste of lives "the troubles" were/are and I find little in the process to commend to any other parties save for the British govts policy of not negotiating with Terrorists and the govts occasional very hardline, and some may say illegal, means of dealing with suspected Terrorists (Gibraltar et al).
The more I learn, the less I understand regarding the Palestinian issue and make no comment upon it, save for the don't negotiate with terrorists mantra.
To clarify the point of an Irish Republic; I found/find it wholly unacceptable to negotaite away any part of NI to form a larger or united Ireland. The point I am trying to make, since the early 90's at least (say the Treaty of Masstrict) it seemed stupidity of the highest order that innocent people were being slaughtered for the holy grail of a United Ireland when the legitimate Political Leaders of all persuasions were rushing head long into a United States of Europe, where one's national identity will be redefined in more nominal role and, rightly or wrongly, a large chunk of economic and social decision-making would move away from Dublin, Belfast and London. Perhaps it took Adams and Co until the late 90's to figure this out, but then again I don't see the Provisionals disarming so perhaps they are still thinking about it.
Further, Wales and Scotland got their devolved assemblies before NI and their assemblies, such as they are, were achieved with little or no bloodshed.........what a complete and utter waste of lives "the troubles" were/are and I find little in the process to commend to any other parties save for the British govts policy of not negotiating with Terrorists and the govts occasional very hardline, and some may say illegal, means of dealing with suspected Terrorists (Gibraltar et al).
As long as large numbers of PIRA weapons have been put beyond use, and as long as PIRA confine themselves to punishment beatings, shooting miscreants through the calves, knee-capping and the like, and refrain from shooting British squaddies, UDA and RUC men, and stop planting car bombs over there or over here, I'm simple minded enough to view it as a huge improvement. 'Peace' for want of a more suitable word.
And all without selling Ulster too far down the river. It's still Northern Ireland, rather than part of Eire, and will remain so until the demographics make it possible to democratically unite the two portions, if they ever do.
And if it took talking to pond-life like Adams to achieve it, then so be it. And while proclaiming 'we won't talk to terrorists' that's exactly what successive Governments did, but only after making it clear to the IRA that they could not win. Negotiating from a position of strength.....
Anyone who claims to understand the Palestine problem is either lying or exaggerating.....
And all without selling Ulster too far down the river. It's still Northern Ireland, rather than part of Eire, and will remain so until the demographics make it possible to democratically unite the two portions, if they ever do.
And if it took talking to pond-life like Adams to achieve it, then so be it. And while proclaiming 'we won't talk to terrorists' that's exactly what successive Governments did, but only after making it clear to the IRA that they could not win. Negotiating from a position of strength.....
Anyone who claims to understand the Palestine problem is either lying or exaggerating.....
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko,
No problem in "talking" with terrorists; I take issue with negotiating. Specifically, where those negotiating are offering up the idea of "we shall stop terrorizing your citizens if you make concessions". Only those at the table will know if such is going on and I would imagine it is couched in gentle language with a smirk and a nod. To that end, I do not understand the PIRA's concept of weapons "put beyond use" and find it hard to accept that any group should be allowed to keep such weapons long-term.
I admire the families of the victims who endorsed the peace plan and like you, accept that talking to the likes of Adams is a price worth paying for peace. However, if those weapons ever return "from beyond use", Adams and Co should pay a very high personal price for such deception and that price should be endless nights of playing Mummies and Daddies with a guy named Bubba!!!
No problem in "talking" with terrorists; I take issue with negotiating. Specifically, where those negotiating are offering up the idea of "we shall stop terrorizing your citizens if you make concessions". Only those at the table will know if such is going on and I would imagine it is couched in gentle language with a smirk and a nod. To that end, I do not understand the PIRA's concept of weapons "put beyond use" and find it hard to accept that any group should be allowed to keep such weapons long-term.
I admire the families of the victims who endorsed the peace plan and like you, accept that talking to the likes of Adams is a price worth paying for peace. However, if those weapons ever return "from beyond use", Adams and Co should pay a very high personal price for such deception and that price should be endless nights of playing Mummies and Daddies with a guy named Bubba!!!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middle East
Posts: 1,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bubbette....from the history books...
The Balfour Declaration - In November 1917, before Britain had conquered Jerusalem and the area to be known as Palestine, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration. The declaration stated Britain's support for the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine, without violating the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities. The declaration was the result of lobbying by the small British Zionist movement, especially by Dr. Haim Weizmann, who had emigrated from Russia to Britain, but it was motivated by British strategic considerations. Paradoxically, perhaps, a major motivation for the declaration may have been the belief, inspired by anti-Semitism, that international Jewry would come to the aid of the British if they declared themselves in favor of a Jewish homeland, and the fear that the Germans were about to issue such a declaration.
The Balfour Declaration - In November 1917, before Britain had conquered Jerusalem and the area to be known as Palestine, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration. The declaration stated Britain's support for the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine, without violating the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities. The declaration was the result of lobbying by the small British Zionist movement, especially by Dr. Haim Weizmann, who had emigrated from Russia to Britain, but it was motivated by British strategic considerations. Paradoxically, perhaps, a major motivation for the declaration may have been the belief, inspired by anti-Semitism, that international Jewry would come to the aid of the British if they declared themselves in favor of a Jewish homeland, and the fear that the Germans were about to issue such a declaration.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: World
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bubbette, Before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire the majority of Jews and Arabs in the Middle East lived in peace and harmony. They traded with each other and even intermarried (why do Sephardic Jews look like Arabs, Ashkenazic Jews look like Europeans and Falasha look like Ethiopians?) The largest and oldest synagogues were in cities like Damascus (burnt down in the late 40s in reponse to the seizure of Arab lands and the ethnic cleansing of over 400 Arab villages in Palestine). The problem dates back to the Balfour Declaration, which does not predict a state of Israel, but a homeland for Jews within Palestine. Herzl, in the 19th century, thought that no more than 50,000 Jews would settle and the original settlements from the 19th century onwards were developed through negotiation, land purchase and tolerance. Herzl recognised that the Arabs are Semitic and claim descent from Abraham through his son Ishmael. It all went pear shaped during the Mandate and, yes, Jewish settlers were killed as were Arab farmers and merchants.
I have lived and worked in modern Israel/Palestine and most people I met wanted peace. The young Palestinians want a western style pluralist democracy. They were also happy to live with the moderate and tolerant Jews, many of whom have Arab friends and business partners (the latest suicide bombing was in a restaurant jointly owned by Jews and Arabs in a city which has a Jewish Mayor and an Arab Deputy Mayor). There are 1 million Arabs living in towns and cities across Israel. They are Israeli citizens and are represented in the Knesset (itself built by agreement and subject to a lease on Armenian Christian land). The Christian Arabs, of which there are several hundred thousand, are brutalised by Israel even though they are under threat from the Islamic state demanded by Hamas.
Those who have watched Life of Brian will understand the parody on Popular Front for the Liberation of Judaea, Judaean People's Front etc. The Palestinians have the same arcane set of political groupings. They are disunited and some see peaceful progress as the way forward whilst some espouse terrorism. Some terrorists are selective in their targets, some are random. Some are on ceasefire, some are active. Everybody has break away groups. Arafat, the democratically elected President (one man, one vote, one time), can't even go to the shops and the PA are not allowed to drive their vehicles on any of the A-roads between settlements. Last year the Israelis banned the driving of vehicles in the northern West Bank (donkeys sold at 5 thousand pounds). The whole thing is a mess and, after sitting and talking to people on both sides of the line, I cannot see a solution.
In international terms the Israelis are the illegal aggressors. If you go to the appropriate websites you will find the Fourth Protocol to the Geneva Convention. This makes it clear that an occupying nation that settles it's own civilians on occupied territory commits an offence. It also makes it clear that the occupying power is responsible for the welfare of the occupied people. Israel is in breach of its international obligations, whilst anyone with an understanding of history could see the Palestinian 'terrorists' in the same light as those nasty horrible Frenchmen who fought against the illegal German occupation of their territory during the forties.
Israel is in breach of large numbers of UN resolutions and should withdraw from the occupied territories and dismantle settlements. Unfortunately the Israeli infrastructure will not allow that. Gilo is a suburb of Jerusalem with no clear boundary other than on paper. Ma'ale Adummim (sp) is over 30000 people living in a fortified settlement deep in the West Bank. They have separate roads from the Arabs (who can be and are shot on sight for driving on settler roads). The settlements in the Jordan valley occupy some of the most fertile land in the Middle East and secure access to that most precious commodity, water. Losing the Jordan Valley settlements would cripple the modern Israeli economy (the Oslo Accords gave the PA the Jordan Valley subject to a 100 year lease being granted to the Israelis so that they could occupy it for economic and security reasons).
In the Jerusalem Post the right wing Jews refer to a 'final settlement' of the Palestinian problem. This involves 'transfer' (ethnic cleansing) of all Israeli Arabs to either the West Bank/Gaza or to Jordan and other countries. The most extreme look at the Old Testament lands of Israel including the East Bank of the Jordan as far as Amman and see the transfer of all Arabs from west of the Jordan and the eastern Jordan valley to anywhere (4 Members of the Knesset support this view).
Gaza (Gath) belonged to the Philistines (Arabic for Palestinian is Filistinee), but there are fanatical Jews who want to take that from the Arabs (the as yet undeveloped gas field would make Palestine or Israel economically viable).
Last year 50000 Orthodox Jews circled the walls of the Old City and declared that they would build the third temple in this generation. This requires the destruction of the third most holy site in Islam. Ironically, the most extreme Ultra Orthodox extremists want the secular Jews to do all of the fighting and refuse to join the IDF whilst calling for murder and mayhem on a massive scale.
These snippets are intended to put a different perspective on the situation. Many Israelis don't want to occupy the 'territories' and refusing to bomb people in their own country in contravention of the Geneva Convention is legally correct.
I conclude, however, that there is no solution, because in Isreal and Palestine there are too many Jews living in the first century AD, too many Muslims living in the seventh century and the majority who, live in the 21st century, are unwilling or unable to stop them.
I have lived and worked in modern Israel/Palestine and most people I met wanted peace. The young Palestinians want a western style pluralist democracy. They were also happy to live with the moderate and tolerant Jews, many of whom have Arab friends and business partners (the latest suicide bombing was in a restaurant jointly owned by Jews and Arabs in a city which has a Jewish Mayor and an Arab Deputy Mayor). There are 1 million Arabs living in towns and cities across Israel. They are Israeli citizens and are represented in the Knesset (itself built by agreement and subject to a lease on Armenian Christian land). The Christian Arabs, of which there are several hundred thousand, are brutalised by Israel even though they are under threat from the Islamic state demanded by Hamas.
Those who have watched Life of Brian will understand the parody on Popular Front for the Liberation of Judaea, Judaean People's Front etc. The Palestinians have the same arcane set of political groupings. They are disunited and some see peaceful progress as the way forward whilst some espouse terrorism. Some terrorists are selective in their targets, some are random. Some are on ceasefire, some are active. Everybody has break away groups. Arafat, the democratically elected President (one man, one vote, one time), can't even go to the shops and the PA are not allowed to drive their vehicles on any of the A-roads between settlements. Last year the Israelis banned the driving of vehicles in the northern West Bank (donkeys sold at 5 thousand pounds). The whole thing is a mess and, after sitting and talking to people on both sides of the line, I cannot see a solution.
In international terms the Israelis are the illegal aggressors. If you go to the appropriate websites you will find the Fourth Protocol to the Geneva Convention. This makes it clear that an occupying nation that settles it's own civilians on occupied territory commits an offence. It also makes it clear that the occupying power is responsible for the welfare of the occupied people. Israel is in breach of its international obligations, whilst anyone with an understanding of history could see the Palestinian 'terrorists' in the same light as those nasty horrible Frenchmen who fought against the illegal German occupation of their territory during the forties.
Israel is in breach of large numbers of UN resolutions and should withdraw from the occupied territories and dismantle settlements. Unfortunately the Israeli infrastructure will not allow that. Gilo is a suburb of Jerusalem with no clear boundary other than on paper. Ma'ale Adummim (sp) is over 30000 people living in a fortified settlement deep in the West Bank. They have separate roads from the Arabs (who can be and are shot on sight for driving on settler roads). The settlements in the Jordan valley occupy some of the most fertile land in the Middle East and secure access to that most precious commodity, water. Losing the Jordan Valley settlements would cripple the modern Israeli economy (the Oslo Accords gave the PA the Jordan Valley subject to a 100 year lease being granted to the Israelis so that they could occupy it for economic and security reasons).
In the Jerusalem Post the right wing Jews refer to a 'final settlement' of the Palestinian problem. This involves 'transfer' (ethnic cleansing) of all Israeli Arabs to either the West Bank/Gaza or to Jordan and other countries. The most extreme look at the Old Testament lands of Israel including the East Bank of the Jordan as far as Amman and see the transfer of all Arabs from west of the Jordan and the eastern Jordan valley to anywhere (4 Members of the Knesset support this view).
Gaza (Gath) belonged to the Philistines (Arabic for Palestinian is Filistinee), but there are fanatical Jews who want to take that from the Arabs (the as yet undeveloped gas field would make Palestine or Israel economically viable).
Last year 50000 Orthodox Jews circled the walls of the Old City and declared that they would build the third temple in this generation. This requires the destruction of the third most holy site in Islam. Ironically, the most extreme Ultra Orthodox extremists want the secular Jews to do all of the fighting and refuse to join the IDF whilst calling for murder and mayhem on a massive scale.
These snippets are intended to put a different perspective on the situation. Many Israelis don't want to occupy the 'territories' and refusing to bomb people in their own country in contravention of the Geneva Convention is legally correct.
I conclude, however, that there is no solution, because in Isreal and Palestine there are too many Jews living in the first century AD, too many Muslims living in the seventh century and the majority who, live in the 21st century, are unwilling or unable to stop them.
Nil Nos,
Bloody excellent and even-handed if depressing precis! Did you do the History of the ME course at SOAS or at RHC, then?
Some more snippets:
The Balfour declaration sat uncomfortably with promises made to Arab leaders following their participation in Britain's war against the Ottoman Empire, even though it called for the establishment of a Jewish homeland within Palestine (and not comprising the whole of Palestine).
Violence against the Jews in Palestine began when numbers began to rise and when the pattern of land ownership began to significantly change (through massive illegal immigration and the disproportionate economic strength of the new Jewish immigrants) in the 1930s, with understandable Arab fears that they would become a minority in their own land.
Some fundamentalist Jews actually oppose any Jewish national homeland as being against the will of God, on the grounds that they haven't suffered enough yet (I paraphrase....)!
While a narrow legalistic interpretation of the situation would place Israel firmly in the wrong, even Arab sympathisers like me would urge that some consideration be given to the extraordinary hostility which Israel had to endure from its neighbours until the mid-1970s, and to the fact that the Jewish community had just survived the Nazi holocaust. Some degree of understanding and acceptance of Israel's position is therefore essential.
Bloody excellent and even-handed if depressing precis! Did you do the History of the ME course at SOAS or at RHC, then?
Some more snippets:
The Balfour declaration sat uncomfortably with promises made to Arab leaders following their participation in Britain's war against the Ottoman Empire, even though it called for the establishment of a Jewish homeland within Palestine (and not comprising the whole of Palestine).
Violence against the Jews in Palestine began when numbers began to rise and when the pattern of land ownership began to significantly change (through massive illegal immigration and the disproportionate economic strength of the new Jewish immigrants) in the 1930s, with understandable Arab fears that they would become a minority in their own land.
Some fundamentalist Jews actually oppose any Jewish national homeland as being against the will of God, on the grounds that they haven't suffered enough yet (I paraphrase....)!
While a narrow legalistic interpretation of the situation would place Israel firmly in the wrong, even Arab sympathisers like me would urge that some consideration be given to the extraordinary hostility which Israel had to endure from its neighbours until the mid-1970s, and to the fact that the Jewish community had just survived the Nazi holocaust. Some degree of understanding and acceptance of Israel's position is therefore essential.
Swounger
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York, NY USA
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Nils where to start. The violence started because, as was often the case throughout history, most markedly in Europe, the Jews became successful, and others hated them for that. It's still going on now--why are the Palest. Arabs clamoring to work in Israel--why don't they go to Jordan, or Egypt or Lebanon or Syria to work?
Re Christian Arabs, I think you meant to say they are brutalized by the PA, (see the exodus of over 1/3 of the Palestinian Christian Arab population living under the PA).
Your whole post was a joke, right? You surely are not asserting that Arafat was democratically elected, no? I think some of the Palestinians want to stop the murders; poll after poll shows that they are not in the majority, and those that do business with Israelis, like selling land, are routinely assassinated if their Israeli partners do not relocated them.
Re "international aggressors," Israel is in violation of no international laws, so I'm not sure where you get your information.
The Biblical Philistines were a seafaring people who are not related in any way to the Palestinian Arabs who are from Saudi Arabia.
RE ethnic cleansing, I"m not sure where you get this concept. Re resettlement of refugees, well, all of Israel is founded by refugees who were resettled, so I'm not sure why resettling WWII era refugees is a bad thing. Last I checked, all other WWII era refugees had found new homes.
Again, are you sure your whole post was not a joke? Because 99% of it is not based on truth, reality, or fact.
Re Christian Arabs, I think you meant to say they are brutalized by the PA, (see the exodus of over 1/3 of the Palestinian Christian Arab population living under the PA).
Your whole post was a joke, right? You surely are not asserting that Arafat was democratically elected, no? I think some of the Palestinians want to stop the murders; poll after poll shows that they are not in the majority, and those that do business with Israelis, like selling land, are routinely assassinated if their Israeli partners do not relocated them.
Re "international aggressors," Israel is in violation of no international laws, so I'm not sure where you get your information.
The Biblical Philistines were a seafaring people who are not related in any way to the Palestinian Arabs who are from Saudi Arabia.
RE ethnic cleansing, I"m not sure where you get this concept. Re resettlement of refugees, well, all of Israel is founded by refugees who were resettled, so I'm not sure why resettling WWII era refugees is a bad thing. Last I checked, all other WWII era refugees had found new homes.
Again, are you sure your whole post was not a joke? Because 99% of it is not based on truth, reality, or fact.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: World
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bubba
I don't think you really understand what you are talking about.
The violence started for a number of reasons. Success of the Jews was perhaps a small part of it, but there were many Jewish settlers before WWII who were not successful and who were involved in acts of violence against the largely Arab community in Palestine. Even today there are non-Arab beggars in both West Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. I tried to be balanced and emphasised that the initial settlements were arranged by negotiation and many Arabs welcomed the new trading opportunities afforded.
The Palestinian Arabs are not clamouring to work in Israel any more than the other countries you mention. Over half of the current population of Jordan comes from Palestine, there are large numbers of Palestinians working in Lebanon and Syria and to a lesser extent in Egypt. The Palestinian diaspora, about two thirds of the total Palestinian population is scattered throughout the ME and exists also in the US and UK. Those Palestinians seeking to work in Israel are doing so because it is the closest place. The Arab population of East Jerusalem lives in close proximity to West Jerusalem (yards not miles) - why look for work in Jordan (30 miles), Egypt, Syria and Lebanon (no borders and no transit passes allowed by Israel). The population of Gaza can work nowhere else. The small industries that Arabs favour have been smashed by Israel - jewellery shops are called 'bomb making' factories because of the chemicals used, metal workshops are bulldozed for the same reason.
Yasser Arafat's wife Sonia is a Christian and there are Christians in the PA (most famously Hanan Ashrawi has been involved in diplomatic negotiations on the part of Palestine). The Christian community is indeed in meltdown - when I was in Palestine Hamas planted a particularly bad bomb and the Israelis went ploughing into Bethlehem. What would you do if you were blamed for the work of your enemies?
Nobody lives under the PA. Israel occupies towns and villages at will. At the time of the Jenin punch up last year Israel had invaded all the major Palestinian towns bar Jericho and smashed the hospitals, schools and public buildings and burnt all the records. The Muqatta, Arafat's HQ, is reduced to rubble. How can you run an authority when your Parliament is not allowed to meet unless Israel allows Gaza representatives to cross its territory? Frequently PA meetings are cancelled because MPs are detained. E-mail doesn't work - Israel confiscated the Palnet servers for 4 days last year (I had a Palnet account so was considerably p*ssed off).
Arafat was democratically elected. The UN declared the results of the PA elections as free and fair. There has not been a repeat election and Arafat should have stood down some years ago (hence 'one man, one vote, one time'). The UN will not allow fresh PA elections to take place because the conditions are not right and Israel will not allow campaigning by those political groups of which it disapproves. The election of George Bush was less fair than the election of Yasser Arafat.
You refer to 'poll after poll' - polling by whom of whom? The Palestinians are understandably unwilling to participate in such things.
Yes, some Arabs who have traded with Israelis have been murdered. I didn't say they hadn't and I didn't suggest that they hadn't. The PM of Israel was assassinated by an Israeli for deakling with the PA.
Re international law - I refer you to the Fourth Protocol to the Geneva Convention. The demolition of Palestinian homes is illegal, the settlement of Palestinian land is illegal and the failure to provide for the welfare of the Palestinians is illegal.
The biblical Philistines did not become extinct, but like most of the Jews in Palestine during the Islamic conquest they were assimilated into the population and learnt Arabic. The Palestinian Arabs are not from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a twentieth century creation. The tribes and peoples that populated the provinces of the Ottoman empire moved freely within its loose boundaries, but the idea that Hejaz Arabs have moved into Palestine in modern times is absurd. The present Palestinians have lived in the area for centuries. The idea that some resettled Europeans have the right to dispossess them is absurd. The removal of a people is ethnic cleansing. The Arabs have a right to be where they are. I do not subscribe to the idea that the Jews from northern Europe have any prior right based on a book that is disputed. Palestine was not empty when the European settlers arrived and they had no right to take the land.
Sadly Bubba, unlike you, I have been there seen it done it. My post is based on fact, you are the one who lowers the tone of the debate by not accepting the Balfour Declaration is fact, Herzl's writings are fact (have you read them), the Geneva Convention and UN resolutions are international law and what I saw with my own eyes is fact.
I don't think you really understand what you are talking about.
The violence started for a number of reasons. Success of the Jews was perhaps a small part of it, but there were many Jewish settlers before WWII who were not successful and who were involved in acts of violence against the largely Arab community in Palestine. Even today there are non-Arab beggars in both West Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. I tried to be balanced and emphasised that the initial settlements were arranged by negotiation and many Arabs welcomed the new trading opportunities afforded.
The Palestinian Arabs are not clamouring to work in Israel any more than the other countries you mention. Over half of the current population of Jordan comes from Palestine, there are large numbers of Palestinians working in Lebanon and Syria and to a lesser extent in Egypt. The Palestinian diaspora, about two thirds of the total Palestinian population is scattered throughout the ME and exists also in the US and UK. Those Palestinians seeking to work in Israel are doing so because it is the closest place. The Arab population of East Jerusalem lives in close proximity to West Jerusalem (yards not miles) - why look for work in Jordan (30 miles), Egypt, Syria and Lebanon (no borders and no transit passes allowed by Israel). The population of Gaza can work nowhere else. The small industries that Arabs favour have been smashed by Israel - jewellery shops are called 'bomb making' factories because of the chemicals used, metal workshops are bulldozed for the same reason.
Yasser Arafat's wife Sonia is a Christian and there are Christians in the PA (most famously Hanan Ashrawi has been involved in diplomatic negotiations on the part of Palestine). The Christian community is indeed in meltdown - when I was in Palestine Hamas planted a particularly bad bomb and the Israelis went ploughing into Bethlehem. What would you do if you were blamed for the work of your enemies?
Nobody lives under the PA. Israel occupies towns and villages at will. At the time of the Jenin punch up last year Israel had invaded all the major Palestinian towns bar Jericho and smashed the hospitals, schools and public buildings and burnt all the records. The Muqatta, Arafat's HQ, is reduced to rubble. How can you run an authority when your Parliament is not allowed to meet unless Israel allows Gaza representatives to cross its territory? Frequently PA meetings are cancelled because MPs are detained. E-mail doesn't work - Israel confiscated the Palnet servers for 4 days last year (I had a Palnet account so was considerably p*ssed off).
Arafat was democratically elected. The UN declared the results of the PA elections as free and fair. There has not been a repeat election and Arafat should have stood down some years ago (hence 'one man, one vote, one time'). The UN will not allow fresh PA elections to take place because the conditions are not right and Israel will not allow campaigning by those political groups of which it disapproves. The election of George Bush was less fair than the election of Yasser Arafat.
You refer to 'poll after poll' - polling by whom of whom? The Palestinians are understandably unwilling to participate in such things.
Yes, some Arabs who have traded with Israelis have been murdered. I didn't say they hadn't and I didn't suggest that they hadn't. The PM of Israel was assassinated by an Israeli for deakling with the PA.
Re international law - I refer you to the Fourth Protocol to the Geneva Convention. The demolition of Palestinian homes is illegal, the settlement of Palestinian land is illegal and the failure to provide for the welfare of the Palestinians is illegal.
The biblical Philistines did not become extinct, but like most of the Jews in Palestine during the Islamic conquest they were assimilated into the population and learnt Arabic. The Palestinian Arabs are not from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a twentieth century creation. The tribes and peoples that populated the provinces of the Ottoman empire moved freely within its loose boundaries, but the idea that Hejaz Arabs have moved into Palestine in modern times is absurd. The present Palestinians have lived in the area for centuries. The idea that some resettled Europeans have the right to dispossess them is absurd. The removal of a people is ethnic cleansing. The Arabs have a right to be where they are. I do not subscribe to the idea that the Jews from northern Europe have any prior right based on a book that is disputed. Palestine was not empty when the European settlers arrived and they had no right to take the land.
Sadly Bubba, unlike you, I have been there seen it done it. My post is based on fact, you are the one who lowers the tone of the debate by not accepting the Balfour Declaration is fact, Herzl's writings are fact (have you read them), the Geneva Convention and UN resolutions are international law and what I saw with my own eyes is fact.
"Those Palestinians seeking to work in Israel are doing so because it is the closest place. The Arab population of East Jerusalem lives in close proximity to West Jerusalem (yards not miles) - why look for work in Jordan (30 miles), Egypt, Syria and Lebanon (no borders and no transit passes allowed by Israel)."
And some want to work in Palestine because it is their home and their country.
And some want to work in Palestine because it is their home and their country.
Swounger
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York, NY USA
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What country of Palestine are you referring to jackonicko? When and where did it exist?
Um, Nils, I think this will actually have to be my last response to you unless you pick up a. a history book and b. a newspaper. The Palestinians are constantly clamoring about roadblocks, and not being able to work, etc. in Israel. The Philistines most certainly died out, and the Palestinian Arabs are just that---Arabs. And anyone who thinks that the PA runs a democracy, well, I just don't have words for that other than I hope you are not in any kind of policy making position. Israel only destroys institutions of terror--not institutions of democracy, and last I checked, there were very few, if any, of those in the PA controlled areas. And regarding Palestinians' welfare, the PA was in charge of that not Israel.
BTW, Arafat's wife is "Suha" not "Sonia," and she lives in Paris.
Um, Nils, I think this will actually have to be my last response to you unless you pick up a. a history book and b. a newspaper. The Palestinians are constantly clamoring about roadblocks, and not being able to work, etc. in Israel. The Philistines most certainly died out, and the Palestinian Arabs are just that---Arabs. And anyone who thinks that the PA runs a democracy, well, I just don't have words for that other than I hope you are not in any kind of policy making position. Israel only destroys institutions of terror--not institutions of democracy, and last I checked, there were very few, if any, of those in the PA controlled areas. And regarding Palestinians' welfare, the PA was in charge of that not Israel.
BTW, Arafat's wife is "Suha" not "Sonia," and she lives in Paris.