Why "ROCK TROWING" tolerated in Middle East? [Archive]

edwino

10-05-2000, 08:14 PM

OK, I'm a little biased here, but lemme lend a few cents :

I maintain the Oslo treaty was not about peace. It was about Israel making a strategic withdrawal from territories it no longer wishes to control while still maintaining face. The same thing happened in Lebanon, except the Israelis could not maintain face.

This being said, if the Israelis had a reasonable partner in Oslo, and could compromise with that reasonable partner, it would stand to reason that peace would be a side effect of Oslo. The Palestinians, getting a homeland, would have no reason to pursue violence against the Israelis.

So, what happened? Three thorns : settlers, refugees, and Jerusalem.

Now, as I see it, these thorns stood insurmountable by the Palestinians. I see the blame resting squarely on Arafat, even though he may not even have the public mandate to compromise on these points.

Barak came to Camp David this year with reasonable compromises. They could not take 1 million destitute, violent, and Israel-hating refugees back into Israel, so they offered to take 10,000 and pay billions for the others.

On Jerusalem, Israel could not compromise any more than it did at Camp David. They allegedly came with an offer of partial sovereignty for Temple Mount, and formation of a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem named Al-Quds, with incorporation of the large Jewish suburbs in East Jerusalem into Jerusalem proper. This was farther than anybody has ever gone, by far.

Arafat rejected both of these (allegedly). He needed total sovereignty in Jerusalem, and did not accept on the refugees. He stated that he is negotiating for Jerusalem with 1 billion Muslims behind him.

A little bit of background on the Old City. Temple Mount's western margin is called the Western Wall. It is the holiest site in Judaism. 100 meters away, on Temple Mount, is the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa mosque (I think this is the name of the black-domed mosque) which is the 3rd holiest site in Islam. From 1948-1967, Jordan occupied Jerusalem, and all the synagogues in the Old City were destroyed. Access to the Western Wall was of course denied to Jews. In 1967, when the Israeli army took the Western Wall, they found a donkey stable on it, and had to climb through donkey excrememnt in order to pray there.

There must be a compromise on Jerusalem. Israel cannot afford to battle a jihad. Yet, history states that Jews need access to their holy sites. Barak cannot negotiate with 1 billion Muslims. Arafat cannot expect to put the needs of 1 billion Muslims ahead of his people, who are starving.

The last (and I will get flamed for this) point is this : I truly believe that the Palestinians (and most of the Arab world) cannot accept that there will be a Jewish state in 50 years. I think they view the Jewish presence in the Middle East as temporary, and that with enough momentum, they will be able to push the Jews into the sea. This I belive has been their attitude since 1948, when many of the people who would become the refugees left their homes voluntarily because the invading Arab armies told them that they would make short work of Israel. The Jews, in my opinion, have mostly been on the side of peace, from the beginning. They accepted the UN boundaries for Israel that did not include Jerusalem. The Palestinians never did even that, as from the beginning, they could never accept a Jewish state in the region.

*catches breath*

I know I'm relatively new here, but I just had to get that off of my chest. Flame away.

Grendel69

10-05-2000, 08:53 PM

It goes to show you how volatile this issue is when an OP that is obviously trolling actually succeeds and no one notices.

Rock throwing and the death penalty??? Come on people.

And on a side note, I have vehemently diagreed with cmkeller on several occasions, but he is absolutely correct.

Both sides were firing at each other. Say whatever you want about the Israeli armed forces, they are highly trained and given the choice to shoot at an unarmed boy and man or a group of men with guns firing at them what do you think they would choose?

In spite of my feelings that this is a trolling thread, I do feel obligated to comment that I think that sailor's quote "No sooner do they get the land when they start the violence all over again." is quite a simplistic way of viewing things.

As I have siad dozens of times, both sides have a measure of culpability in these issues.

Grendel69

10-05-2000, 09:15 PM

Nobody will flame you Edwino especially as you have been concise, articulate and polite.

I disagree, however, with much of what you say.

Let's begin...
"This I believe has been their attitude since 1948, when many of the people who would become the refugees left their homes voluntarily because the invading Arab armies told them that they would make short work of Israel."

This is an incomplete statement. Many of the Palestinians who left were forced out by an advancing Israeli army.

"The Jews, in my opinion, have mostly been on the side of peace, from the beginning."

This too, I believe, is quite broad. I would have agreed if you had said that "The Jews...on the side of SELF PRESERVATION..." The Stern Gang and Irgun are two rather intriguin examples of this.

I also disagree with this statement because of the stance that the state of Israel takes on the settler issue. While they have taken action against the more radical groups, they continue to treat the majority of settlers with disgression at the expense of the peace process.

My two cents. Anyways...

Freedom

10-05-2000, 10:12 PM

I swear that I read a legitimate article today about someone shipping 500,000 rocks and slings to throw them with over to the Palestinians.

Of course I can't find it right now, but I will post it when I do. (anybody think the palestinians wish they had their own 2nd Amendment?)

Olentzero

10-05-2000, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Grendel69
It goes to show you how volatile this issue is when an OP that is obviously trolling actually succeeds and no one notices.

Actually I don't think it was a successful example of trolling. If it were we'd be in the Pit by now.

This discussion certainly has some strong opinions at its base, some of which I strongly disagree, but on the whole it's been relatively flame- and aggression free. Pretty decent, at least as far as I see it.

edwino

10-05-2000, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by Grendel69
edwino:
This I believe has been their attitude since 1948, when many of the people who would become the refugees left their homes voluntarily because the invading Arab armies told them that they would make short work of Israel.

This is an incomplete statement. Many of the Palestinians who left were forced out by an advancing Israeli army.

I agree that my statement was incomplete, but true at the core. I think that there was a lot of urging and persuasion for them to leave by people leading the Arab world, such as the Mufti (sp?) of Jerusalem. IIRC, the land gains in the 1948 War of Independence were modest or nonexistant. I'll agree with you more about the refugees in 1967. I'll just point out that they were treated perhaps far worse in the refugee camps in Jordan than they were in Israeli occupied territory.

The Jews, in my opinion, have mostly been on the side of peace, from the beginning.

This too, I believe, is quite broad. I would have agreed if you had said that "The Jews...on the side of SELF PRESERVATION..." The Stern Gang and Irgun are two rather intriguin examples of this.

I should have been more clear. Irgun and Stern Gang were before 1948, which is what I use as "beginning". Besides a few regrettable incidences, I think that Israel has pursued a course of action not far removed from any democratic state faced with daily threats of extinction. I agree that neither side is sinless, but by and large the Israeli populace is less likely to resort to terror attacks against schoolchildren to get their way.

I also disagree with this statement because of the stance that the state of Israel takes on the settler issue. While they have taken action against the more radical groups, they continue to treat the majority of settlers with disgression at the expense of the peace process.

I have mixed feelings about the settlers. While I am not a particularly observant Jew, I still feel that it is a defendable human right for Jews to be allowed access to all of their holy sites, even if it is in "disputed territory." Just like Israel has never restricted access to Muslim holy sites for Arabs. This doesn't mean I side with every settlement on every hilltop in the West Bank. This means that I believe, given 1948-1967 and the treatment of Jews in most Arab countries throughout the 20th century, that the only way to guarantee access to these sites is to put the Jews who actually care about the sites at the sites.

The problem is that I also feel that I am a "realist" when it comes to Israeli politics. I want a left-wing government who is willing to make peace. In order for such a government to have a mandate, they need to make coalitions. In modern Israel, these governments are centered around Labor but usually depend on an assortment of religious parties to prevent votes of no confidence. So, I want a peace making government. The only way I see that one can exist is with some support from the settlers. So, while against most settlements in theory, I can see why the Israeli government backs most of them in practice.

sdimbert

10-06-2000, 12:06 AM

RickJay,

Me: Let's start waaaay over here: If the colonies had lost the Revolutionary War, would we be British today?

You: No, they wouldn't. What's the connection?

I think you're wrong. If the colonies had lost the Revolutionary War, Britain would have maintained control in the New World, and I would be British, not American.

Of course, that is a silly assertion, as meaningless as it is speculative, and I only use it to raise a single point: Israel is a hot offering... lots of people have wanted it for a long time. In 1948, the Zionist fought for it and won. Since then, lots of people have tried to conquer them. To date, no one has.

Period.

It's really that simple. The Palastinians have begun a Revolutionary War for Independence. It is a war that they have not, to date, been able to win. If they win, they get their own Nation. If they lose, they become Israeli Arabs, just like the Israeli's wanted them to be loooong ago.

That is the connection. The problem now is that they don't know that they can't win.

sailor

10-06-2000, 01:49 AM

Grendel said: I think that sailor's quote "No sooner do they get the land when they start the violence all over again." is quite a simplistic way of viewing things

Yes, it was meant that way. I cannot summarize such a complex problem in a short sentence.

cmkeller and edwino have done a better job than I can.

I am not saying this is black or white but in general the israelis have been above the palestinians in every sense. They have about the only democracy in that part of the world and are much more cpable of respecting their treaties. The palestinians are quite disorganized, signing agreements with them is poitless and they cannot even get organized in the parts they already control. I saw some news that palestinian police were thugs preying on their own people.

I know this issue has two sides but, IMHO, the Israelis have somewhat more respectability in this.

Freedom

10-06-2000, 09:12 AM

Dubai businessman plans to send 500,000 rocks to Palestinian rioters

http://www2.haaretz.co.il/breaking-news/peace_process/329214.asp

The Halji Times, a United Arab Emirates newspaper, has reported that a Dubai businessman intends to send 500,000 rocks and fifty rock projectors to Palestinians so that they can use them in riots against Israeli security forces.

snip.....

The rock projectors, he explained, are made of palm tree branches and cotton strips. They are generally used to chase birds and can kill from a distance of one hundred meters. "We want the Zionists to know that when we are pushed into a corner, we are capable of moving mountains in order to crush their skulls," al-Haza added.

RickJay

10-06-2000, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by sdimbert
RickJay,

Me: Let's start waaaay over here: If the colonies had lost the Revolutionary War, would we be British today?

You: No, they wouldn't. What's the connection?

I think you're wrong. If the colonies had lost the Revolutionary War, Britain would have maintained control in the New World, and I would be British, not American.

Okay; there was no revolution in Canada, but it's no longer British. There was no revolution in Australia, but it's no longer British. What colonies does Britain have left that aren't miniscule, dinky islands like the Falklands?

It's really that simple. The Palastinians have begun a Revolutionary War for Independence. It is a war that they have not, to date, been able to win. If they win, they get their own Nation. If they lose, they become Israeli Arabs, just like the Israeli's wanted them to be loooong ago.

That is the connection. The problem now is that they don't know that they can't win. [/B]

This is all true, I guess, but your disagreement was with this statement I made:

This is one of those unfortunately common cases where both sides are generations away from being mature enough to solve the problem on their own. It's cliche, but for all intents and purposes, they're both wrong.

I fail to see how I'm wrong. This problem is going to go on for decades and decades, mark my words. And yes, I think they're both responsible for the mess.

Your assessment of the situation sums it up very nicely. More than one group wants essentially exclusive ownership of the same land. Unless one or both sides will concede land, it's irresolvable.

I know this sounds like a simplistic approach, but the entire situation is such a mess I don't have the energy to comment on the details. I spent years trying to explain the Bosnia situation to people (I was an intelligence analyst) and after awhile it just boiled down to "these people want it all for themselves and those people want it all for themselves and it won't end until one wins or we kill them all ourselves." It was a depressing subject to be an expert on.

Olentzero

10-06-2000, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by sdimbert
In 1948, the Zionist fought for it and won. Since then, lots of people have tried to conquer them. To date, no one has.

Period.

Hardly surprising, considering that the U.S. pours more military and economic aid into Israel than any other of its allies around the world. Without that kind of backup they wouldn't have lasted this long.

From edwino:

The problem is that I also feel that I am a "realist" when it comes to Israeli politics.

In my experience, I find that 'realism' is a thin veneer for cynicism. 'The Zionists have a firm hold over Palestine, there's no chance the Palestinian Arabs will ever change the situation, so let's just try and hope that the Zionists can be convinced to be nicer. Let's just try to make the best out of the situation we have instead of trying to change it if it's not good to begin with.'

It's not going to happen. The Zionists are an invasion force that conquered a native population, and bloodily so. This kind of situation naturally creates resistance and it's no surprise that they're 'faced with the threat of extinction', as you put it.

The Zionists wanted a homeland because they argued that it was not possible for Jews to exist harmoniously alongside the rest of the world. The horrors of the Holocaust lent credence to their argument, but sixty years on it's pretty clear that Jews, Christians, Muslims, and everyone can live together without serious conflict. The logic underlying Israel's existence is seriously flawed, and I cannot hold the Israelis either blameless or above the Palestinians.

sdimbert

10-06-2000, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by Olentzero
[QUOTE]The Zionists wanted a homeland because they argued that it was not possible for Jews to exist harmoniously alongside the rest of the world. The horrors of the Holocaust lent credence to their argument, but sixty years on it's pretty clear that Jews, Christians, Muslims, and everyone can live together without serious conflict. The logic underlying Israel's existence is seriously flawed, and I cannot hold the Israelis either blameless or above the Palestinians.
:confused:
You lost me here.

Could you explain?

cmkeller

10-06-2000, 11:29 AM

Olentzero:

Unfortunately, while cherry-picking my quotes, you don't mention having visited the link I provided. On the other hand, I can't entirely blame you for that, because when I tried the link just now, it didn't work, so maybe you just didn't see it fit to mention getting another good ol' 404 error. Obviously Newsday's archive doesn't use a static naming scheme. I've re-hunted down the article, and am providing more quotes to address the new points you mention, rather than merely addressing your denial that the child was accidentally killed in the middle of a gunbattle between other parties, which had been the point of that previous post of mine.

Was he caught in the crossfire on his way home or did he bring his death upon himself by rioting?

He was caught in the crossfire. I mentioned the stone-throwing because you insisted, in your pro-Palestinian way, on insisting on the child as "innocent." While his death might have been an accident, he was hardly innocent prior to that. Here's the relevant quote from that Newsday article (in the issue dated 10/4/2000, since obviously my attempt at a link didn't work):

"This is not the first incident in which civilians were injured, but it has never been intentional...It is known that [Mohammed al- Durra] participated in stone-throwing in the past," (Israeli Army head of Operations Giora) Eiland added.

End Newday quote. Back to your message:

I responded that the 12-year-old's death was an accidental casualty

Where? I've read this thread three times and I see no such assertion from you previous to the post in which this appeared.

This is what I meant when I said:

You prove to me that whoever fired the fatal shot into the kid was aiming for him

Since my intent was obviously not clear to you then, I'll restate it more simply: If the person who fired the fatal shot into the kid had not been aiming for him, it was an accident, and not "tolerated behavior."

I may have what you consider a propagandized view of history, but if that's what you call decrying a country that asserted itself through such atrocities as the massacre at Dir Yassein, then I'm content to live with that.

No, but it is what I call decrying Israel for Dir Yassein while ignoring such Arab-perpetrated anti-Palestinian violence such as King Hussein's (eulogized as a great peacemaker!) "Black September" massacre in 1970 and others. It is what I call calling the Palestinian stone-throwing following a non-violent visit by an Israeli politician (and an opposition politician, at that, who is clearly working against his own government) "Palestinians' obstinate refusal to be steamrollered into submission." While I think that Sharon's visiting the Haram-al-Sharif compound extremely stupid, because he should have realized it would give rise to violence amongst the extremely touchy Palestinians, I certainly think that a visit that began and ended without the slightest hint of violence does not imply a "steamrolling into submission" that needs to be responded to by stone-throwing.

Chaim Mattis Keller

Olentzero

10-06-2000, 11:31 AM

I meant that the Zionists were certain that anti-Semitism couldn't be successfully fought and therefore the Jews should close themselves off in their own country where nobody would bother them.

While it's true that anti-Semitism still exists, it's possible to fight it successfully. A refuge from anti-Semitism in the form of a homeland for Jews isn't necessary. The Zionists were wrong.

zev_steinhardt

10-06-2000, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Olentzero
I meant that the Zionists were certain that anti-Semitism couldn't be successfully fought and therefore the Jews should close themselves off in their own country where nobody would bother them.

While it's true that anti-Semitism still exists, it's possible to fight it successfully.

You mean like they did in Germany in the 30s and 40s?

A refuge from anti-Semitism in the form of a homeland for Jews isn't necessary. The Zionists were wrong.

Obviously, they were not. Modern Zionism started in the late 1800s. By 1930s there was still no homeland for refuge from antisemitism. We know the result of that over the next 15 years. The Zionists were right.

Zev Steinhardt

Olentzero

10-06-2000, 12:00 PM

No, to be honest, I didn't visit the site you'd provided a link to. Then again, I haven't heard that you viewed the article I linked to, either.

Originally posted by cmkeller
While his death might have been an accident, he was hardly innocent prior to that.

So what? You think that was the first time any of the Israeli soldiers involved in this particular gunfight killed a Palestinian?

Since my intent was obviously not clear to you then, I'll restate it more simply: If the person who fired the fatal shot into the kid had not been aiming for him, it was an accident, and not "tolerated behavior."

..but if the little snotnosed bastard had been throwing rocks at the heroic Israeli soldiers two minutes previously, it justifies blowing his brains out?

[A propagandized view of history] is what I call decrying Israel for Dir Yassein while ignoring Arab-perpetrated anti-Palestinian violence... It is what I call calling the Palestinian stone-throwing following a non-violent visit by an Israeli politician[/B]

Ariel Sharon has a past far more violent and bloody than Mohammed al-Durra's. I'm hardly surprised the Palestinians felt his visit to be a provocation - "we can go where we want when we want and you can't stop us". You can't gloss over Mohammed's death by citing his 'checkered' past on the one hand and say the Palestinians shouldn't view Sharon's visit through the screen of his past on the other. That's a double standard and quite unacceptable.

I certainly don't think the "Black September" massacre is any more palatable than the massacre at Dir Yassein. Nor is "Black September" really germane to this discussion.

All nation-states are more or less founded on violence. Israel is a modern nation-state founded on violence against a specific indigenous population and as such begets the violence of that population's fightback. Israel provoked the intifadeh and is responsible for it.

Grendel69

10-06-2000, 12:08 PM

Edwino...
The land gains made by Israel in the 1948 war were at the very least 5000 square km. It was a relatively large expansion that displaced somewhere near (according to the UN) 850,000-1,000,000 Palestinians. in '67 approximately 300,000 Palestinians were displaced.
As for how they were treated in Jordanian refugee camps , that is quite complicated. Jordan wasn't necessarily equipped with an influx of 1,000,000 (more than doubling the countries population in the span of a several months) so to utterly blame them is probably not the best approach.
Hussein's black September was precipitated by the Palestinian terrorist activity in which they would attack Israel and then flee back into Jordan while Jordan would then be subject to Israeli retaliation. Hussein made a choice. He chose to avoid war with Israel. unfortunately it resulted in approximately 3,000 deaths, many of the innocents.

As per Stern Gang and Irgun...They didn't cease to exist in 1948. Many members of both groups were incorporated into Haganah and sunsequently the IDF. While Haganah has been blamed for incidents like Deir Yassin, it is suspected that the "Haganah forces" present at the massacre were primarily composed of old members of the Stern Gang and Irgun.

On the settler issue I am less educated and will refrain from further commentary unless it is generally applied.

I think it's unfair to label the Israeli history as "a few regrettably incidents". Many people on both sides like to assert that "both sides have committed atrocities, but then they claim that the other side has done these things to a much greater extent."

This,IMHO, is bullhonky and a poor analysis. Where is the justification and proof? Simply saying "I saw some news that the Palestinian police were thugs preying on their own people" isn't enough in my opinion. And to say "I'm not saying this is black or whit but in general the Israelis have been above the palestinians in every sense." is, for one thing, a bit paradoxical, but more than that it is this unfounded assertion that is fostered by the perpetual 60 Minutes interviews with the Hamas terorist of the week. In other words, where is your proof?

CMK...I think that you are ignoring some thing's about Sharon's visit. Whether or not it began or ended with non violence is tertiary to the issue. This wasn't a trip in which he was accompanied by a cadre of bodyguards. He had 1000 soldiers with him!!!

If I were a Palestinian, I think that would signal something akin to steamrolling to me :)

Olentzero

10-06-2000, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by zev_steinhardt
While it's true that anti-Semitism still exists, it's possible to fight it successfully.

You mean like they did in Germany in the 30s and 40s?

I said it was possible to fight anti-Semitism successfully. I didn't say that success was guaranteed. The Holocaust had a number of social and political causes, none of which was some sort of 'inherent' German anti-Semitism.

Modern Zionism started in the late 1800s. By 1930s there was still no homeland for refuge from antisemitism.

That's because Zionism really didn't enjoy widespread support from the general Jewish population until after the scope of the Holocaust became clear. Zionism provided an answer that made the most sense at the time, though it was incorrect.

zev_steinhardt

10-06-2000, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Olentzero

I said it was possible to fight anti-Semitism successfully. I didn't say that success was guaranteed. The Holocaust had a number of social and political causes, none of which was some sort of 'inherent' German anti-Semitism.

You really think the Jews stood a chance in Germany?

That's because Zionism really didn't enjoy widespread support from the general Jewish population until after the scope of the Holocaust became clear. Zionism provided an answer that made the most sense at the time, though it was incorrect.

Even if so, all it means is that the Jews were complacent. It's like someone who doesn't get renter's insurance until after he's been robbed. Sure, it would have been nicer to have it beforehand, but that doesn't negate the argument of having it now.

Zev Steinhardt

Olentzero

10-06-2000, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by zev_steinhardt
You really think the Jews stood a chance in Germany?

Not by themselves, of course not! That's the whole point of fighting anti-Semitism - it's not just the job of the Jews, it's the job of everyone who's against it in the first place. Besides, if the Germans were that rabidly anti-Semitic by nature, would the Jews have been able to stay in the country for the 700-1000 years that they did beforehand?

Even if so, all it means is that the Jews were complacent.

Oh, HELL, no! As a matter of fact there were thousands of Jews in the KPD and the SPD in the decades before the rise of Hitler. Let's not forget the Bund, either. The Jews were anything but complacent.

zev_steinhardt

10-06-2000, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Olentzero

Not by themselves, of course not! That's the whole point of fighting anti-Semitism - it's not just the job of the Jews, it's the job of everyone who's against it in the first place. Besides, if the Germans were that rabidly anti-Semitic by nature, would the Jews have been able to stay in the country for the 700-1000 years that they did beforehand?

Do you have any knowledge of the history of the Jewish people in Europe in general (not just Germany) during the middle ages? It's a miracle that they survived at all.

Oh, HELL, no! As a matter of fact there were thousands of Jews in the KPD and the SPD in the decades before the rise of Hitler. Let's not forget the Bund, either. The Jews were anything but complacent.

OK, agreed, they weren't complacent. Still doesn't answer the argument I presented.

Zev Steinhardt

cmkeller

10-06-2000, 01:08 PM

Olentzero:

So what? You think that was the first time any of the Israeli soldiers involved in this particular gunfight killed a Palestinian?

For most of them, yes. I think you'll find that there were fewer Palestinian deaths at Israeli hands from the start of the Intifada until now than there were in, for example, that single "Black September" inclident (more on the relevance of that below).

..but if the little snotnosed bastard had been throwing rocks at the heroic Israeli soldiers two minutes previously, it justifies blowing his brains out?

Participating in a riot justifies riot-control tactics. Participating in a riot that includes live ammunition justifies the return fire of live ammunition.

Ariel Sharon has a past far more violent and bloody than Mohammed al-Durra's.

True, he was a war general. Nonetheless, he was neither perpetrating nor advocating acts of violence during the visit that touched off this new escalation of hostilities.

I'm hardly surprised the Palestinians felt his visit to be a provocation

Neither am I. Here's what I said in my post, in case you had missed that part:

While I think that Sharon's visiting the Haram-al-Sharif compound extremely stupid, because he should have realized it would give rise to violence amongst the extremely touchy Palestinians,

Back to quotes from you...

You can't gloss over Mohammed's death by citing his 'checkered' past on the one hand and say the Palestinians shouldn't view Sharon's visit through the screen of his past on the other.

I wasn't. You're continuing to mix up two things. I "glossed over" Mohammed's death by stating that it was accidental. I refuted your portrayal of Mohammed as an "innocent" by mentioning his stone-throwing.

I certainly don't think the "Black September" massacre is any more palatable than the massacre at Dir Yassein. Nor is "Black September" really germane to this discussion.

All nation-states are more or less founded on violence. Israel is a modern nation-state founded on violence against a specific indigenous population and as such begets the violence of that population's fightback. Israel provoked the intifadeh and is responsible for it.

Your second paragraph here is exactly the reason why "Black September" is germane. The state of Jordan, which has an indigenous population that is 75% Palestinian, was maintained through violence toward that population. Nonetheless, at no later time has that act of violence been used to condemn Jordan as a racist state, or to justify further acts of rebellion, as you have used Dir Yassein to justify the intifada. At no time has that act been used to suggest that King Hussein should not visit Palestinian shrines within territory controlled by him, as you have used Sharon's wartime past (and that was only during war; he never fired or ordered fire on civilians as King Hussein did) to justify the Palestinian violence following Sharon's visit. No, somehow these justifications for Palestinian violence only apply to Israel. This is very much in line with Palestinian propoganda, which is an organized effort to extract territorial concessions from Israel but from no other source, not even the source which for twenty years controlled the area that the Palestinians are claiming as their own and then lost it in a war that it provoked.

Grendel69:

CMK...I think that you are ignoring some thing's about Sharon's visit. Whether or not it began or ended with non violence is tertiary to the issue. This wasn't a trip in which he was accompanied by a cadre of bodyguards. He had 1000 soldiers with him!!!

Yes he did...and what of it? Did he or they make any threats? Did they do anything other than defend his person? Is Sharon even in a position to make orders vis a vis the peace talks? No, no and no.

But somehow, a step onto that land by an opposition politician has translated into indiscriminate acts of violence against all Israelis.

Chaim Mattis Keller

Grendel69

10-06-2000, 03:21 PM

CMK...
You seriously don't think that the use of 1000 soldiers wasn't a purposeful message being sent to the Palestinians???

Sharon would have been just as well protected with 100. There was no need for 1000. It was his attempt to antagonize and create friction. If anything it was designed to put pressure on Barak.

tradesilicon

10-06-2000, 04:39 PM

This may or may not be of interest for this discussion, but what the heck.

In previous visits to Israel, we have been present at Israely Army bases (during times of peace, but still very high tensions between Israel, it's neighbors, and the Palestinian population in Israel). The soldiers were asked to spend some time with us, and talk about their training and their mission.

Each one talked about the fact that they are trained to protect the population and their own person, trained to fire only at targets presenting deadly danger, and not to fire upon civillians unless all other means are not possible.

I have also heard first hand accounts from people who were involved in voilence on both sides, and never did I hear from a single Israeli the idea that shooting any un-armed person is justified (much less a 12 year old). Make what you will of this, but I firmly believe after these experiences that it is not the policy of the Israeli government to consider disposable the lives of Palestinians.

I do have one observation. I just cannot figure out why it is necessary to put children in the midst of all this violence. What I mean is, as a Palestinian, can someone tell me why there have to be fourteen, twelve and ten year olds at demonstrations where the intent is to confront armed soldiers, throw rocks to provoke them (and sometimes fire bombs) and get a responce which can then be televised and prited for the world to see. I can't help but think that some of this is planned for a reason, and I also can't help but think that perents who are allowing their children to participate are less than reasonble.

edwino

10-06-2000, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by Grendel69

This,IMHO, is bullhonky and a poor analysis. Where is the justification and proof? Simply saying "I saw some news that the Palestinian police were thugs preying on their own people" isn't enough in my opinion. And to say "I'm not saying this is black or whit but in general the Israelis have been above the palestinians in every sense." is, for one thing, a bit paradoxical, but more than that it is this unfounded assertion that is fostered by the perpetual 60 Minutes interviews with the Hamas terorist of the week. In other words, where is your proof?

I stand corrected on the refugees from 1949-1967 issue. But, it still doesn't change my point. And I am not saying it is black or white. It is far from it. Both sides have sinned, and both sides have done good.

I've been to Israel 9 times. I have lots of family living there, and of course I am biased to their side. But, I am American at the core, and Judaism does not play a large role in my life. I am a bleeding-heart liberal, and I believe in fair human rights for everybody, whether they be an opposition leader in Israel or a Palestinian 12 year old kid.

Most of all, the Middle East is a beautiful and marvelous place. Jerusalem holds more of the world's history in a city block than all that is contained in North America. Most of all, I want to see peace there.

To Olentzero's comments about the Jews being an invading force. First, I'll point out that there has always been a Jewish population in Israel. Second, I'll point out that most of the 20th century immigration into Israel was legitimate, and the Jews by-and-large bought their land fair and square.

Both of these are besides the real point. The Jews after 1945 had no where to go. After 1948, there was a place for them to go (by 50 country recognition after the 1949 armistice), and they went there. And they stayed there. It is their home, just as I live in Houston (not Lithuania) and my friends live in Sydney (not English prisons) and you live wherever you live. Populations move, and have moved since Homo sapiens left the Olduvai Gorge. Saying that the Israeli state lacks legitimacy is not really saying anything -- do you expect the Jews not to have a state? Do you expect them to go back to Europe? Do you expect them to go find their old homes in Lithuania and Poland and start anew?

Saying that Israel has no right to exist does not forward the debate -- Israel does exist, and the only way it will cease to exist is if the Palestinians literally "push the Jews into the sea." The only way I see this happening is with a full-scale massacre of 4 million people. Also, this was the subject of a lengthy thread last month and I'm not even going back there.

Now, what do I want? I want peace in the area. I want Palestinian children to be able to grow up without fear of getting shot. I want Israeli children to grow up without the fear of getting suicide-bombed.

Realistically, I cannot see this happening for many years. There are a lot of sticking points -- Temple Mount, settlers, and refugees. But, both sides need to keep talking to resolve these, and get their respective people used to the ideas that they can't have everything. The Jews will have to live with an international Old City and few (or no) settlements in Palestine. The Palestinians cannot deny Jews the right to visit their holy sites. They cannot expect Israel to just vanish. This is why I support a left-wing government. While I am against West Bank settlements, I understand that Barak has to live with them in order to keep a mandate. And I want Barak to lead the country, not Ariel "Sabra and Shatila" Sharon.

Now, my Israeli bias speaks. The Palestinians have a long road in front of them in order to become legitimate negotiators for peace. They have yet to control terror organizations in their populace, despite promises to do so. They have yet to fully accept the right of Israel to exist (I believe the line about the abolition of Israel is still in the PLO charter, I'll find a cite). Of course they have a right to land and self-governance. But, they need to be able to accept some compromises. Israel will not be able to take 1 million refugees back. Israel will exist in 50 years. The Jews will not be pushed into the sea. Israel will not just vanish.

This is the heart of my worries. I believe that the Palestinians are not just fighting a war of independence. They are fighting a war of extermination. Their goal is not for a free Palestine. The best route to that is mutual compromise and diplomacy. Israel has been itching to get out of most of the West Bank since 1993 (New Republic last month). Sometimes I feel Palestinians want to abolish the Jewish presence in the Middle East. If it takes a full-scale massacre of 4 million, then they'll do it. They cannot accept a Jewish state and therefore the Israeli attempt to compromise turns into a Palestinian attempt to whittle away at Israel to make it more insecure. The only evidence I have is Arafat's stand towards Jerusalem and towards the refugees -- no compromise, no middle ground. Israel takes back 1 million refugees (impossible, frankly) and Israel leaves the Old City (back to the days of donkey shit on the Western Wall). Barak has extended the olive branch farther than anyone before him, and Arafat slapped it away.

So sue me if I trust the only true democracy in the region more than a fledgling verging-on-the-edge-of-dictatorship run by an infirm man who has possibly lost the mandate of his own people.

Olentzero

10-06-2000, 08:44 PM

cmkeller: I do not condone the acts of King Hussein nor do I support him or his son. But at the same time, Hussein didn't forcibly occupy the territory of neighboring countries for decades at a time, either. The twentieh-century history of the Middle East is nothing but the arbitrary division into protectorates to suit the needs of the imperialist powers in the region (primarily Britain and France, later the US). They all have their faults and shortcomings, Israel included. But pointing out the faults of the other countries in the region doesn't make Israel's faults any less horrific or any more palatable.

A thought struck me earlier this evening, and I'd like to ask this about your original challenge:

Tell you what: You prove to me that whoever fired the fatal shot into the kid was aiming for him (rather than the kid being accidentally caught in the crossfire between two gun-fighting factions), and I'll find out why such a thing is "tolerated."

Are you saying here that if he was merely caught in the crossfire, then it's inexcusable, but if someone was aiming for him, then his death was justifiable?

edwino: I certainly do not deny that there were Jews in Palestine long before 1948. Just like there were Jews in almost every country of the world. What made Palestine so special?

Yes, the pre-1948 occupants owned the land fair and square. But after the founding of the state of Israel the Palestinians were forced off the land they had owned just as long as the Jews in the region. What gave the Israeli Jews the right to do that?

And this argument about the Jews having nowhere to go. True, they may not have felt entirely comfortable with returning to their old homes, with all the memories there both tender and painful, but that doesn't give them the right to go elsewhere and create another refugee problem.

One last thing. When I see Palestinians freely elected to seats in the Knesset and making serious bids for the high governmental posts without fear of repression or retaliation, and allowed to live where they please, not in areas little better than the bantustans of South Africa, then will I agree with you that Israel is closer to 'true democracy'.

tradesilicon: It's not like the children aren't affected by the situation in Palestine as well. If they want to learn how to fight back at age ten, twelve, or fourteen, more power to them.

Grendel69

10-06-2000, 08:44 PM

Tradesilicon...Much of what you say about children is due to the fact that the occupied territories have a ridiculously disproportionate amount of children 18 and under.

Edwino...I am really busy right now and cannot write back to you right now, but I those phrases in the quotation marks are Sailor's words. I was addressing him with that entire paragraph and not you. I apologize for being so vague. It's been a really long day.

More later.

edwino

10-07-2000, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by Olentzero:
What made Palestine so special?

Oh, I dunno. How bout that it was the traditional homeland of the Jews? That Jews had been praying facing towards Jerusalem for 2000 years of diaspora? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand lose my cunning...

What if Saudi Arabia was taken over by some non-Muslim group who gave pilgrims to Mecca and Medina a hard time. Do you think that 2000 years would make the true believers forget Mecca and Medina? Do you think that they would not want to fight to go to Mecca and Medina? If they had the opportunity to return (but it meant displacing the non-Muslim group) do you think they would hesitate?

And this argument about the Jews having nowhere to go. True, they may not have felt entirely comfortable with returning to their old homes, with all the memories there both tender and painful, but that doesn't give them the right to go elsewhere and create another refugee problem.

Their homes were destroyed. Their families were gone. Whole villages were erased from the map. They were still hated. They could not go anywhere else. The prewar Jewish population of Poland was in the millions. The postwar population was in the single thousands. See above for why Palestine was attractive.

One last thing. When I see Palestinians freely elected to seats in the Knesset and making serious bids for the high governmental posts without fear of repression or retaliation, and allowed to live where they please, not in areas little better than the bantustans of South Africa, then will I agree with you that Israel is closer to 'true democracy'.

Lost you here. Aren't we talking about a war of independence? Israeli Arabs are already elected to the Knesset. Barak depends on them for his coalition. Now, Barak needs them to maintain his mandate.

Last time I checked there were no Canadian representatives in the US senate. We are talking about an independent Palestine here, with self governance and self determination. I was born 100 miles from the Transkei -- I can't see how an artificial enclave without self-determination can be compared to a fully autonomous state.

Palestine will be as independent as Lebanon, Jordan, or Israel. Sure, they will at first depend on the Israelis for jobs while they build an economy. They will be aided by a booming tourist trade with Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jericho, Nablus, Hebron, and access to the Dead Sea and nice hotels in Gaza. They will have access to the Mediterranean and a relatively intact infrastructure. All they need is a stable government.

From an Israeli perspective (which I don't support fully) we are talking about forming an aggressive state on lands which were only occupied after a preemptive strike against mobilizing Arab powers in 1967. Without this land, Israel would most probably have fallen when attacked by 6 Arab states on the holiest day of the year in 1973. So, for the average Israeli, you have to convince him to trust his neighbors. You have to convince him that he can live in a peaceful coexistence with his neighbors, and that his neighbors won't try to push him into the sea next week. As they see it, the Palestinians have done a pretty poor job at this, and it makes them nervous. So progress has to go slowly.

tennents

10-07-2000, 02:17 AM

Evolution in its purest form congrats to the fittest, youve earned it

Olentzero

10-07-2000, 06:26 AM

The fact remains, ediwno, that the emigrating Jews pushed the Palestinian Arabs out in order to form Israel. The appeal to emotion you set forth in your post doesn't justify shoving aside a whole section of the population.

The UN partition scheme, it should be remembered, granted 55% of the land of Palestine to the Jews (and there were only 120,000 of them there by 1930), who were 30% of the population but owned only 6% of the land. A minority of the population was given the right to say "We are the ruling authority and we now own all this land."

The Jews wanted to emigrate to Palestine, fine. (Herzl had previously considered other places, like Argentina, as likely candidates.) But it should have been with the goal of working side by side with the existing political and social structures instead of a wholesale replacement with their own.

This is not to blame the Jews entirely for the situation. We also have to look at who actually benefited from the displacement of the Palestinians and the creation of Israel in the first place. I don't want to go into it here in too much detail, as I would like to keep my posts of some readable length, but I will refer you to my quote about who Israel gets military and economic aid from in one of my previous posts.

Alessan

10-07-2000, 10:53 AM

It's interesting how these things work on different levels for different people. You're all having this academic debate, while I'm sitting around waiting to see whether there'll be a general mobilization of reserve forces, and I'll have to fly back home.

That's the thing when you're directly involved in the subject of a Great Debate. I've been staying out of this one because, frankly, I don't really care what anyone thinks of my country, but remember - an academic debate is not always quite academic to those involved.

That's it. I'm really too distraught about what happened in Lebanon to really right more. I think, thought, that we should all come together and lift a little prayer to Whoever that this mess doesn't get any worse.

edwino

10-07-2000, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Olentzero
The UN partition scheme, it should be remembered, granted 55% of the land of Palestine to the Jews (and there were only 120,000 of them there by 1930), who were 30% of the population but owned only 6% of the land. A minority of the population was given the right to say "We are the ruling authority and we now own all this land."

It doesn't matter! Please read my past posts. The "legitimacy" of Israel is irrelevant to the discussion. Even if I were to agree that the Jews were an occupying force whose only claim on the land was as military victors (which I am not going to do) it still does not change any of my arguments. I argue that the Jews are there. They aren't going to leave, even if the entire rest of the world says that they are not there legitimately.

I could argue against this "legitimacy" crap. I could tell you the demography of Israel has changed many, many, many times over the past 3000 years. I could tell you that the whites of South Africa have a legitimate right to be there, as do the blacks. Albanian Muslims have a legitimate right to be in Kosovo. But it wouldn't change anything.

Today, there are 4 million Jews in Israel. Today, there are many million Palestinians there. The Jews live there. The Palestinians live there. Now, how do we make sure that they can both continue to do so without war?

You can't have it both ways. Either you continue to argue that for the Palestinians because the Jews have no right to be there, or you put forth a legitimate argument about how peace should be made. You can argue the Jews should go back to Europe. They won't, in the real world. Israel is their home. So, your argument about Jewish return to Europe turns into little more IMHO than a veiled support of a war of extermination against the Jews. Either you can debate about a legitimate peace plan, or you can argue that the Jews need to be pushed into the sea.

Olentzero

10-07-2000, 06:41 PM

I myself have never argued that the Jews should return to Europe. As a matter of fact, one exact quote of mine was "If the Jews wanted to emigrate to Palestine, fine." My argument is with the way they have conducted themselves once they got there.

I don't know if your last post was more general argument or specifically directed at me, but if you're implying somehow that I support in any way, shape, form, or manner the extermination or annihilation of the Jews, I shall in all seriousness have to ask you to step outside. The Holocaust was a horror that could have been prevented and should never be repeated, and I don't know how else to drive that point home than to say it as I have here.

cmkeller

10-07-2000, 10:23 PM

Olentzero:

I do not condone the acts of King Hussein nor do I
support him or his son. But at the same time, Hussein didn't forcibly occupy the territory of neighboring countries for decades at a time, either.

Yes he did, if the West Bank and Gaza (okay, Gaza was Nasser rather than Hussein) is rightfully Palestinian territory.

The twentieh-century history of the Middle East is nothing but the arbitrary division into protectorates to suit the needs of the imperialist powers in the region (primarily Britain and France, later the US). They all have their faults and shortcomings, Israel included. But pointing out the faults of the other countries in the region doesn't
make Israel's faults any less horrific or any more palatable.

But if certain concessions or actions (or inactions) are expected of Israel due to actions in Israel's past that have analogs in the pasts of other nations, then the failure to call upon those other nations to engage in actions similar to those demanded of Israel is relevant. It either means that the action is not so horrific, in which case, demanding such actions of Israel is wrong, or it means that such actions are not warranted as payment for such horrors, which also makes the demands on Israel wrong.

A thought struck me earlier this evening, and I'd like to ask this about your original challenge:

Tell you what: You prove to me that whoever fired
the fatal shot into the kid was aiming for him (rather than the kid being accidentally caught in the crossfire between two gun-fighting factions), and I'll find out why such a thing is "tolerated."

Are you saying here that if he was merely caught in the crossfire, then it's inexcusable, but if someone was aiming for him, then his death was justifiable?

No, I'm saying that if he was merely caught in the crossfire, the actions don't require an excuse (since it was an accident), and the shooter not being punished doesn't indicate a societal tolerance for such a shooting, and only if someone was aiming for the kid could it be considered an action that, if not punished by the shooter's society, can be said to be "tolerated" by that society.

Chaim Mattis Keller

edwino

10-08-2000, 03:37 AM

Olentzero:

My last post was not a personal attack. Rereading it, I can see how it may have been taken that way. I apologize. Rather, as you suggested, it was a general attack.

I do still feel, however, that a peace plan based in reality is what is needed. I also feel that the "fact" that Israel is not a "legitimate" state for whatever reason is about as moot of a point as we can get in the debate. I don't believe Israel should be held to concessions due to the "fact" that Jews have no right to be in Israel. I mean, weren't Abraham and Jacob an invading force from Persia? (sarcasm intended)

I maintain one cannot be a partner to peace until one recognizes the legitimacy of your adversary. This is what I think Barak was trying to say today. I think the state of Israel feels very wary about giving up the Western Wall to a group of people who consistently refuse to recognize any type of Jewish connection whatsoever to the Old City of Jerusalem, and indeed the entire region. Comments?

One new point of discussion (new thread here)? I maintain that Israel's actions against the violent uprising are not excessive, given the fact that these uprisings are less than 10 miles away from almost every house in Israel. This place is small. My relatives live in Ra'anana, which is about 1 mile from the sea and about 3 miles from Kalkiliya, an Israeli Arab town on the pre-1967 border. When there is violence in the West Bank, sometimes you can hear it at the beach.

cmkeller

10-10-2000, 10:53 AM

edwino:

I mean, weren't Abraham and Jacob an invading force from Persia? (sarcasm intended)

Abraham, actually, was from Babylonia. And Jacob was a natural third-generation resident of Canaan (count starting from the immigrant Abraham).

Chaim Mattis Keller

Asianmagik

10-10-2000, 06:21 PM

honestly, those rock throwers are nothing but primates! i can see it if this "civil war" was more organised and more civil. this doesn't exclude the offense with their guns drawn and ready to shoot up anything with arms. IT DOESN'T TAKE A MAN TO PULL A TRIGGER! it's a primitive instinct that empowers somebody WITH a gun to take another life. also, did we forget that holy land should be kept holy? whatever happened to religious tolerance? please people! nay, please neandrothols! this violence in the mid east is a baby's tantrum. "ooooohhh, one side blames the other and so does the other!" maybe they should be put in their corners or sent to their rooms to think about what actions they are taking. why risk killing more people for revenge?

zev_steinhardt

10-10-2000, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by edwino
Olentzero:

I maintain one cannot be a partner to peace until one recognizes the legitimacy of your adversary. This is what I think Barak was trying to say today. I think the state of Israel feels very wary about giving up the Western Wall to a group of people who consistently refuse to recognize any type of Jewish connection whatsoever to the Old City of Jerusalem, and indeed the entire region. Comments?

Especially given what happened to the Old City between 1948 and 1967, when Jordan controlled it. Every Jewish synagouge was destroyed, Jewish cemetaries were desecrated and Jews were not allowed to visit the Kotel. I don't think Jews will trust the Palestinians to always allow access to Jewish holy sites. They are (rigthly) afraid that if Arafat controls the Old City, Jews will eventually be cut off from their holy sites.

Zev Steinhardt

sdimbert

10-10-2000, 07:53 PM

Zev, I second that thought.

Hell, I googleth it.

To this day, Palastinian textbooks printed within the last 12 months preach the destruction of the Jewish state to schoolchildren. These are textbooks printed with foreign-aid money the Palastinian's received from the United States.

(No, I do not have a cite. Yet. I will have it tomorrow.)

To call Arafat merely duplicitious is a kindness. He simply can't be trusted.

sdimbert

10-11-2000, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by sdimbert
To this day, Palastinian textbooks printed within the last 12 months preach the destruction of the Jewish state to schoolchildren. These are textbooks printed with foreign-aid money the Palastinian's received from the United States.

(No, I do not have a cite. Yet. I will have it tomorrow.)

From Our Jerusalem (http://www.ourjerusalem.com/news/b0100/0411news.htm):
Palestinian Authority Textbooks Teach Children to Hate and Kill

Jerusalem, April 11 - Two Israeli researchers - Israel Resource journalist David Bedein and Palestinian Media Watch Director Itamar Marcus - have just completed a joint study the Palestinian Authority school system. They presented their findings at a joint press conference at the Beit Agron Press Center yesterday.

<snip>

Commenting on a new Palestinian civics course to be introduced this September, Bedein said, "I got hold of an advanced copy of the curriculum. It comes replete with maps of 'Palestine,' and the imperative of building in it a new Moslem state. Israel is not even mentioned! For the Palestinians, we apparently don't exist..."

Efforts by Israel to introduce materials aimed at promoting normalization between itself and the PA have proven fruitles (sic).

<snip>

The two-part study completed by Itamar Marcus deals with PA Teachers' Guides. Marcus writes, "The teachers are instructed to present Israel as a 'thief' void of legitimacy... to deny Israel's right to exist, and inculcate hateful opinions regarding Jews, Zionism and the State of Israel.... The teachers are repeatedly encouraged to indoctrinate the children to be willing and even eager to fight and destroy Israel in Jihad [Holy War]."

In a section which studies, in depth, a 12th-grade text entitled "The Contemporary History of the Arabs and the World," the teacher is directed to convey the following messages to students:

Zionism is an example of Nazism, Fascism and Racism
Zionism endangers Arab society and must be stopped
The Jews' evil behavior causes anti-Semitic persecution
Jews welcome their own persecution because it is profitable.

From On CAMERA (http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/oncamera/oc99incite.html) (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America):

June 1, 1999 by Andrea Levin

Palestinian Textbooks Teach Anti-Israel Hate

Israel and [the Palestinians] will ensure that their respective educational systems contribute to the peace between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples and to peace in the entire region, and will refrain from the introduction of any motifs that could adversely affect the process of reconciliation. -Interim Agreement,Chapter 4, Article XXII, Par. 2 (1995)

In Israeli schools, peace education was introduced by the government after the 1993 Oslo Agreements to promote understanding of the nation's efforts to achieve peace. More generally, throughout the system children are taught from books that encourage acceptance and respect for Arabs. Prejudice is deplored in stories and anecdotes. Arab traditions are presented as admirable and Arab people as good human beings with feelings like those of Jews. Hearts, flowers and doves decorate books about getting along with Arab neighbors.

Understandably, journalists would not be expected to report such ordinary information—unless it stood in dramatic contrast to the educational endeavors of Israel's peace partners. And so it does. Yet the media have ignored the Israeli publications which promote humane images of Arabs, and, far more importantly, have turned a blind eye to the systematic incitement to hatred of Jews and Israel sponsored by the Palestinian Authority in PA schools. That Israel is in compliance with its Oslo commitments on this matter while the Palestinians are flagrantly violating theirs is equally unremarked by the media.

What do the Palestinian schools teach? Ninth-graders study from official textbooks that assert, "treachery and disloyalty are character traits of the Jews and therefore one should beware of them." Jews are cast as Satanic, violent and cunning, as "thieving conquerors" who have stolen Arab land and must be fought and defeated.

<snip>

"Palestine" replaces Israel on all maps in PA textbooks, and Israeli towns and cities are designated Palestinian locales. Jews are cast as enemies of Islam and European colonizers. An eighth-grade literary text denies Jewish connection to the Western Wall and children are taught to identify Muslim and Christian holy sites, while Jewish ones are omitted.

Bogus history teaches that Arabs lived in "Palestine" before the Jews. Thus, students learn Palestinian Arabs are descendants of Canaanites and Jerusalem is an ancient Arab city built before Islam. Jews are cast as an illegitimate, foreign, evil presence in the land of Palestine.

<snip>

And the media coverage of these alarming abuses? The New York Times has provided its readers just two sentences directly on the subject, in an October 25, 1998 article that otherwise wrongly suggested an equal culpability by Israelis and Palestinians for not having "alter[ed] the sense they had of each other" after the signing of the 1993 Oslo Accords (note: add this complaint to my thread about the NY Times (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=41126) - sdimbert).

<snip>

In June 1997, the same Times reporter returned to the subject. In a story entitled "Palestinian Maps For A Nation That Doesn't Exist," Greenberg quoted a Palestinian saying, "We are free as educators not to lie to our kids and not to distort history." The reporter then noted that Palestinian children are taught they are descendants of Canaanites in a land devoid ofJewish history, but gave no hint to readers that this is itself, of course, a "lie" and fuels Palestinian enmity against Jews as intruders in a land to which they allegedly have no attachment...

All formatting and emphasis is, obviously, mine.

There is more. Lots more. I reiterate: To call Arafat anything less than duplicitous is generous.

tradesilicon

10-11-2000, 12:22 PM

sdimbert, looking at it from the other side, how do Palestinians fare under Israeli rule? Do they have access to the sites they want to visit, etc? I don’t have any info on this one way or the other, just curious.

Shodan

10-11-2000, 12:54 PM

Could a stranger, nervous of offending, ask why Sharon's visiting the Haram-al-Sharif compound is considered a provocation worthy of riot by the Palestinians?

PeeQueue

10-11-2000, 12:57 PM

sdimbert, if those quotes are accurate, they are extremely damning, and scary to say the least. It sounds like we can look forward to at least another generation of hatred, at least from the Palestinian side.

Can anyone rebutt this? Say it ain't so!

PeeQueue

tradesilicon

10-11-2000, 04:34 PM

PeeQueue, I am not familiar with those school teachings, but I do know that the Palestinian people (or at least their leadership) has not renounced their old goal of 'driving the Jews into the sea', even while trying to negotiate with Israel.

zev_steinhardt

10-11-2000, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by PeeQueue
sdimbert, if those quotes are accurate, they are extremely damning, and scary to say the least. It sounds like we can look forward to at least another generation of hatred, at least from the Palestinian side.

Can anyone rebutt this? Say it ain't so!

PeeQueue

I'm afraid not. It is true.

It's akin to a situation like this:

I have a neighbor, Bill Bully. Bill Bully has wanted to kill me for years. With the help of God and some friends here on earth, I've been able to survive despite his attempts to kill me. Yet, during the years he's been trying to kill me, he's done the following things:

He's put up a huge sign on their front yard, for all the world to see saying "We hate Zev Steinhardt and it is our stated purpose in life to kill him."

He's taught his kids, little Bob, Barbara and Brandon Bully to think of me as a devil who must be killed to liberate the neighborhood from me.

He's enlisted aid from many of the other neighbors to have me killed.

Now, however, perhaps because I'm tired of fighting the Bullys, or because my other friends want me to stop fighting them, I go to them and offer to stop the fighting if I give them part of my yard. All they have to do, I tell them, is to stop fighting me, stop telling your kids that I am the devil and take down the sign saying you want to kill me.

Well, Bill Bully, agrees to meet me. However, as he's talking "peace" with me, he's still has his kids yelling out the windows toward my house that they're going to kill me, he's still got the huge sign up, and he's still privately telling his kids and friends that I'm still to be killed.

Zev Steinhardt

zen101

10-11-2000, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Olentzero
So does the fact that he may have been caught in crossfire make that boy's death any more acceptable? Or is it just an unfortunate incident resulting from the Palestinians' obstinate refusal to be steamrollered into submission?

Perhaps I'm reading too much into cmkeller's original challenge, but it smacks too much to me of "If the Palestinians didn't use guns or even have them, that boy wouldn't have died in the first place."

I have a problem with this whole line of assumption.

It was not the kid's fault he got shot. Not in any I can think of. But making the gun carrying Palestinians into folk heroes because of the valliant struggle is sheer bullshit.

The two concepts of fighting for one's freedom and responsibility for the lives of innocents just don't seem to reconcile here.

Lets go all out and grant that the current Israeli government is an evil fascist power and does nothing but shit all over the poor members of the Palestinean community. Ok, then you could indeed state that they were "freedom fighters" and entitled to take up arms against an opressive government. But even with that stipulated they are responsible for the times and methods they choose to effect their freedom and release from dictatorship.

Even if we can justify the struggly, that does not make them free of responsibility for innocent lives lost.

Car and bus bombs in marketplaces as well as attacks on Israeli forces in populated areas (usually areas in which many of their own people reside) are choices they make in a calculated effort to both scare the Israeli people and get the attention of the world media. When a Palestenian dies as the result of conflict the first assumption by the guilty mass is that those in power are responsible and those who initiate the conflict with violent tactics are exonerated in the public eye. Contrawise when a bombing upon Israeli citizens happens great care is take to make sure everyone knows that this is the action of a small few extremists.

The simple fact is that it is just a few people who make this happen but those few are responsible for death in their own communities as well. We just love to pick on those in power. Same thing with the Contras and the Sandinistas, the Contras were in power so they must have been evil. Guess what, both regiemes were psychotic killers but the popular assumption was and has been against those in power. David vs Goliath.

The big picture is this. Israel=little tiny country that depends on foreign aid from the US in order to exist. Also surrounded by people who have sworn to exterminate them at any cost.

It is very easay to fight with chivalry as a guideline when things are even, but when you are outnumbered by more than ten to one you need to be a mean son of a bitch to survive. Personally I'm surprised they just don't bomb the west bank until it glows and then build a mall there. May not be the kind way, but they are taking a lot of crap that they don't have to in the name of peace and still getting bushwhacked on a regular basis.

Remember during the Rodney King riots in LA and elsewhere, people made note that while there was good reason for upset. All that seemed to be happening was people burning their own neighborhoods down and using legitimate issues as an excust to behave like animals.

What good is it to win freedom for your people if you get them all killed in the process?

zen101
D.F.A.

Punoqllads

10-11-2000, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Shodan
Could a stranger, nervous of offending, ask why Sharon's visiting the Haram-al-Sharif compound is considered a provocation worthy of riot by the Palestinians?
It was not his going there, but his manner of going there. He all but forced his way in there, with armed guards. Now, as I am sure he is not on the top 100 people popular with Palestinians, I can understand him not wanting to go there without protection, I can also understand how Muslims would feel he had desecrated such a holy site by bringing weapons there.

He knew it was a provocation to go there with armed guards, but did so anyway. The next day, Palestinians retaliated by throwing stones at Jews praying at the Western Wall. Israelis retaliated by shooting at the demonstrators. Palestinians retaliated by shooting back at the Israelis.

edwino

10-11-2000, 06:56 PM

*checks back in*

First of all, if you read my previous posts in this thread, you will see that in no way do I side with the Palestinians in what they are doing.

The problem with preaching that the Palestinians are a bunch of fundamentalist non-thinkers is that this can equally be argued about segments of the Israeli population. The Ultra-Orthodox and Ultra-Nationalistic parts of the Israeli government like Moledet and the bunch have equal and opposite mentalities as the most fundamentalist Palestinians who deny that there was ever a Jewish temple on Temple Mount.

For instance, when I went on a trip to Israel with Betar, the youth group of the Likud party, I often heard the cry of "shtei godot ha-Yarden", or both banks of the Jordan River. As in, when Abraham was given the Promised Land by God, he was promised both banks of the Jordan River, so by gum, that's what we want. Add that to recent Moledet rallies with the supporters screaming "Death to the Arabs" and throwing stones at Israeli Arabs.

So, pointing fingers at Palestinians as being overly fundamentalist is sometimes the pot calling the kettle black. The difference, as I see it is that
1) The Israeli government can usually control the Jewish populace and prevent it from large-scale rioting and destruction.
2) The prevailing Israeli government is farther away from these viewpoints than the prevailing Palestinian Authority government.
3) The "fundamentalist" Jews or what have you are less likely to resort to terror campaigns in order to bring attention to their goals (one or two isolated incidents perhaps).

OK, back to the story at hand.

The Jerusalem Issue, as I see it, is unresolvable. The Israelis rightfully are distrustful of the Palestinians when it comes to control of holy sites. See 1948-1967 Old City Jerusalem and the recent events in Nablus as examples. I fully believe that, if given the opportunity, Palestinians will gladly go at the Western Wall with pick axes and crowbars. The Palestinians assert that they need control over Haram-al-Sharif, which is within 100 meters of the Western Wall.

That being said, the Jews I believe can live without control over the Al-Aqsa and Dome of the Rock complex on Temple Mount. Traditionally, Jews are not encouraged to walk around there because it is thought that underneath all of this lies the Holy of Holies of the Temple. In the days of the Temple, the Holy of Holies was off-limits to everyone except the top Jewish priest, and that only on Yom Kippur. Not knowing where it is exactly, accidentaly trespassing over it would defile it. At least that's how I've heard it told.

Anyway, that still doesn't make the issue resolvable. The Old City is not the place to stick a border through -- that is totally unworkable, as it is really, really tiny. Neither side will accept international control. Neither side will accept opposing sovereignty over the region.

So what are you going to do? It is an argument the Palestinians can't win. Israel will happily give them all of the West Bank that they want, except I feel the Old City of Jerusalem. But, Arafat does not possess the mandate to compromise on Jerusalem. He claims that a billion Muslims depend on him to get Jerusalem. That is a poor claim -- if he really cared about his people, then having a state and starting to build a place for the Palestinians in the world should be more important than the needs of a billion Muslims. The more likely case is that since he is in such a poor position of control, he fears for his own head if he compromises on Jerusalem.

This is not to say that the Palestinians don't have a legitimate right to the Temple Mount -- it is just to say that the only way they are ever gonna get it back is if they kick the Israelis out militarily. And I have a feeling that the only way the Israelis will lose that militarily is if they lose absolutely everything else. We are talking about the holiest site in Judaism here. I have a feeling a lot of people would gladly give up their lives for that 100 square meters of real estate.

Grendel69

10-11-2000, 07:58 PM

Shodan.

It also wasn't a contigent of armed guards. It was close to 1000 soldiers fully armed and outfitted while displaying their arms openly.

From what I hear, Barak is really really really pissed because he's in an even tighter jam now than he was before, if that could be possible :)

sdimbert

10-12-2000, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Grendel69
It [Sharon's "escort during his Sept 28th visit to the Temple Mount] also wasn't a contigent of armed guards. It was close to 1000 soldiers fully armed and outfitted while displaying their arms openly.
:rolleyes:

Facts, please. Facts.

First of all, soldiers are a fact of life in Jerusalem. In all of Israel, as a matter of fact. I have sat on Jerusalem busses while a "fully armed solder openly displaying his arms" slept on my shoulder.

Don't use rhetoric please; facts.

Secondly, my search of the articles posted on CNN's webstite concerning Sharon's visit turned up no mention of a compliment of "close to 1000 soldiers fully armed and outfitted while displaying their arms openly."

I checked the following articles:

Sept. 29 (http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/09/29/us.mideast.ap/index.html)
Sept. 29 (http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/09/29/israel.violence.03/index.html)
Sept. 29 (http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/09/29/israel.newyear.ap/index.html)
Sept. 28 (http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/09/28/jerusalem.violence.02/)

Please either substantiate your assertion or retract it.

edwino

10-12-2000, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by sdimbert

First of all, soldiers are a fact of life in Jerusalem. In all of Israel, as a matter of fact. I have sat on Jerusalem busses while a "fully armed solder openly displaying his arms" slept on my shoulder.

Aside :
Last time I was in Israel, I got off the plane at 3 AM after traveling 36 hours through Amsterdam from Houston. At 7 AM, I was on a bus to Be'ersheva with my girlfriend who was studying there. I kept falling asleep on the shoulder of the "fully armed soldier openly displaying his arms" while my girlfriend (now wife) pulled my head straight.

To move to new ground :
This morning, I woke to read the news about 2 Israeli soldiers being killed in (or around) a Palestinian police station. Allegedly, an angry mob broke through the police guards. It doesn't make matters any better to state that the police weren't involved directly.

This is a clear example that Arafat has no mandate to negotiate peace. He cannot control his own population, and it is possible that the population is more powerful than his armed police force. He does not speak for the whole Palestinian people -- there is obviously a large and strong contingent (at least large enough to break into a police station) who doesn't want to negotiate peace, and who want to kill every Israeli that they can find.

edwino

10-12-2000, 10:17 AM

This morning, a US destroyer was attacked (http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/10/12/ship.rammed.04/index.html) in the harbor of Aden, Yemen. 4 US soldiers were killed. Apparently, a rubber boat filled with explosives was aimed/steered at the ship.

Yemen has been the site of daily pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli demonstrations, and the president recently called for an Arab war against Israel.

Nice.

tradesilicon

10-12-2000, 11:04 AM

I know heard a pullback from the rubber boat story, and something about a service boat blowing up.

Regarding the Sharon visit, I did hear a bit about this on ABC when Barak was interviewed, and I'm not sure if it was Barak who said it, but the Sharon visit was pre-arranged with Palestinian security. How can you have a 'security' firce which is operating so poorly? Granted they have not had much time and experience at it, but if you are fighting for self-determination you must have some self control, IMO.

Zev - regarding your analogy with Bill Bully, I think you left out part of the story - Bill claims that the way you came to live in your house and yard was not all together Kosher. He also claims that you are the Bully. Not taking sides, just presenting the other point of view. (I know this can be an entirely new debate, which has been done, just fell like it should be added).

Complete aside: as far as I can recall, there are armed soldiers everywhere in Israel, and no one seems to have any problem with it. I have stopped to give a soldier a ride, and his machine gun was in his lap the whole time. Just seemed OK. Also, when we went to the Mosque (at the 'Dome of the Rock'?) we had an entire group of Jews entering without any problems. What's going on these days?

sdimbert

10-12-2000, 11:52 AM

[GETTING ON SOAPBOX]

tradescillion,

What's "going on" is that some of the Palestinians are underhandedly preying on the natural inclination decent world citizens have to believe in the rights of the underdog.

No news reports of Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount included the fact that he saw piles of stones there, obviously stockpiled in advance of some sort of attack on the Kotel site, did they?

Did those news reports include the fact that Sharon was accompanied by other MK's who are, as of now, not charged with "provocation"?

How about these facts?

The Thursday before Sharon's visit, an Israeli Border Patrol soldier was murdered by a double roadside bomb inside if Israel, an unprovoked act of violence we had not seen in years.
The next morning (before Sharon's ascent to the Mount) a Palestinian policeman, on a joint patrol with an Israeli partner, pulled his automatic rifle on his partner murdering him and then wounded another Israeli policeman.
After Sharon left, the Imam in the El Aksa mosque on the Mount whipped the congregation (about 2 thousand worshipers) into a frenzy repeating the "new Palestinian truth" that the Israelis have secret plans to take over
the mount and destroy the mosques there and that Sharon represented their scout. The Moslem sermon on the Temple Mount today included the following supplications: "We want the battle against the enemy to be orderly. We want dead amidst the enemy. We want to kill and not be killed. We must fight guerrilla warfare." Thus the violence started as
the crowds surged out after their prayers and began throwing the awaiting boulders over the wall and surging into the Old City to take over and burn an Israeli police station there, severely injuring a number of policeman who did not shoot into the crowds.
Last week, in an incredibly well-planned attack, Hizbullah forces crashed the Lebanese-border fence, drew a
small patrol to the fence break with fire and then kidnaped 3 soldiers who were whisked away in a civilian automobile.
When the BBC asked Arafat if he truly had the power to stop the mob violence, he said that it probably could not
be done without exerting fatal force on the rioters. The logical follow-up question was not asked: "Then how do you expectthe Israeli forces to stop this violence without using fatal force?" That question has never been probed in any media report I have seen.

[CLIMBING OFF SOAPBOX]

I am sorry to rant and rave, but the current situation turns my stomach. It hurts me to see the Israelis painted in so poor a light, and it hurts me to see most Americans duped by such a clumsy propaganda campaign.

Grendel69

10-12-2000, 12:05 PM

Please do not roll your eyes at me. If anything it is tacky. You could politely ask me for the cite. The cite for the soldiers was from the times. They aren't letting me access their back issues... According to them the vast majority of the soldiers lined the access routes to the site in full view of everyone around it while a small number went into the site with Sharon.

You know fully well that the presence of arms at holy sites is a touchy issue especially when it's this particular site. There is a clear difference between your bus example and the soldiers at the Temple Mount. That's not rhetoric. That's facts.

The Big Bully analogy was inflammatory rhetoric and I don't see you objecting to that!?!

This analogy is probably the poorest I have ever heard on this board.

How much of a bully can the Palestinians be when of the 97 deaths in the past two weeks, 90 of them have been Palestinian Arabs??? That cite by the way is today's New York Times. Read it while you can :)

It is simplistic and could easily be applied in a vice versa manner. Despite the fact that it would probably be more apt when turned about (due to the fact that Israel is an established/fully functional state), IMHO it would be as just as simplistic.

Seriously! We are discussing world politics using Big Bully analogies?!?!?!

The problem with these discussion is that virtually no one here (with the possible exception of edwino) is willing to do either of two things: Criticize themselves and Israel (or Palestine if you happen to be Palestinian, but methinks there aren't many on this board) and, more importantly, put themselves in each other's shoes.

For instance, the Occupied Territories are not a nice place to live. Poor health care, inadequate housing, crappy sanitation (pun fully intended), etc. Much of this is due to Israel's interaction with and control over these areas. Why does no one on these boards criticize Israel for this or at least analyze why Israel deems it to be necessary?

On the other hand why does no one on the Palestinian side attempt to realize that Jews have been historically shat upon and much of their current attitude is justifiably due to this (i.e. it's not paranoia if people are really trying to get you).

arrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhhhh! This is so frustrating!!!

Grendel69

10-12-2000, 12:08 PM

Turn about is fair play.

Let's not be hypocrites so sdimbert can I please have the cites for that litany of facts?

sdimbert

10-12-2000, 12:25 PM

Grendel69,

In no particular order:

The "occupied terretories" are no longer occupied. That is a term rendered obselete by Oslo. Those areas are now governed by the PA. If the toilet backs up, it is their problem, not the Israeli government's.

Zev's Big Bully analogy is not inflammatory; it is accurate. If you feel otherwise, please explain.

I knew you would ask me to back up the assertions I made from atop my soapbox. The problem is that, as I explained, not one of those events were reported in the general media. I can't provide proof that something wasn't reported!

My source is an email I received from an Jewish Israeli. Take it or leave it. If you doubt his word, fine. Then I retract the statements.

Either way, a Times article about "a thousand soldiers" should be easier to find. It it is not online, send me the date and page number and I will look at in IRL.

I reiterate, back it up or retract it.

[Edited by TubaDiva on 10-12-2000 at 12:38 PM]

zev_steinhardt

10-12-2000, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Grendel69

The Big Bully analogy was inflammatory rhetoric and I don't see you objecting to that!?!

This analogy is probably the poorest I have ever heard on this board.

Inflamatory rhetoric? Hardly. The analogy is accurate. I'll even spell it out for you:

I have a neighbor, Bill Bully. Bill Bully has wanted to kill me for years. With the help of God and some friends here on earth, I've been able to survive despite his attempts to kill me. Yet, during the years he's been trying to kill me

What's so inflammatory about this? The Arab countries have been trying to get rid of Israel for years. With help from God (and financial and military aid from the U.S.), Israel has been able to fend off the Arab countries in war after war after war after war.

He's put up a huge sign on their front yard, for all the world to see saying "We hate Zev Steinhardt and it is our stated purpose in life to kill him."

The Palestinial charter clearly stated that their goal was to "liberate Palestine (read: destroy Israel)."

He's taught his kids, little Bob, Barbara and Brandon Bully to think of me as a devil who must be killed to liberate the neighborhood from me.

Palestinial schoolbooks teach that Israel is the "Zionist Entity" that must be destroyed. Zionism is considered a form of Nazism and Fascism. Children are taught that the highest honor they can attain is to be a martyr to the Palestinian cause.

He's enlisted aid from many of the other neighbors to have me killed.

The Palestinians have enlisted aid from the other Arab countries. In addition, they were supplied, for many years, by the Soviets.

Now, however, perhaps because I'm tired of fighting the Bullys, or because my other friends want me to stop fighting them, I go to them and offer to stop the fighting if I give them part of my yard. All they have to do, I tell them, is to stop fighting me, stop telling your kids that I am the devil and take down the sign saying you want to kill me.

This is what happened. Israel (for whatever reason) extended a hand to the PLO. All they had to do was agree to peace, stop the antisemitic and anti-Zionist rhetoric and repeal the portions of the Palestinian charter that called for Israel's destruction.

Well, Bill Bully, agrees to meet me. However, as he's talking "peace" with me, he's still has his kids yelling out the windows toward my house that they're going to kill me, he's still got the huge sign up, and he's still privately telling his kids and friends that I'm still to be killed.

Arafat still says he wants peace. However, he hasn't moved one iota off of his original position, he still has anitsemitic material being broadcast on the PNA's TV/Radio stations, still teaches schoolchildren to hate and (maybe) still has the items in the PLO charter (I haven't been able to find an "updated" version of the charter on the PNA website, even though I found the original.)

Back to you:

How much of a bully can the Palestinians be when of the 97 deaths in the past two weeks, 90 of them have been Palestinian Arabs??? That cite by the way is today's New York Times. Read it while you can :)

Because Arafat incites his people to violence. He knows they are no match for the Israeli army. Arafat is minting martyrs.

Zev Steinhardt

Batard

10-12-2000, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by cmkeller

Are we clear now? At no time did I say that the Palestinian possession of guns made the 12-year-old's death acceptable. On the contrary, my point was that the death was accidental, in the middle of a shootout, and therefore could not be said to be an act that was "tolerated."

Chaim Mattis Keller

It cannot have been accidental. From the published pictures (I didn't see the film footage) the boy was sitting in a corner, half hidden by his father. Even in crossfire, you don't "accidentally" shoot someone >in a corner< if you aim at people shooting with guns somewhere else.
Incidentally, the medic coming to their aid also was shot dead - if the first shooting was acccidental, I would expect both sides to respect red cross/red halfmoon/red David star - at least most of the time. Taken together, there is little doubt the shooting of the boy - and the father - and the medic - was intended.

By the way, I have been reading the online version of the Haaretz http://www3.haaretz.co.il/eng/htmls/1_1.htm, which gives mostly impassioned comments and analysis of the events . They found that the israelic defence force often has their statement out very fast and so nearly always gets cited, but the statements are often enough incomplete - in a systematic way...

I have changed my opinion of the situation in Israel/palestine in the last weeks due to an isrealic newspaper.

sailor

10-12-2000, 08:30 PM

The more I learn about the conflict the more I find myself sympathising with Israel. As has been said, there is a general tendency to side with the underdog but come on, enough is enough. The Palestinians are the ones always wanting violence and when they get it they complain. The keep getting their asses whooped and they keep comming back for more. What's their complaint? They are the ones choosing violence. Maybe they should learn that the prefect is the enemy of the good and that a bad peace is better than a good war (especially if you keep loosing). They are no more than an unruly mob.

Note: this is just my personal opinion with no attempt to cast any useful information on the subject being discussed.

Batard

10-12-2000, 08:49 PM

[note: I have published the following a few days ago in alt-fan.cecil-adams in the string "The good, the bad, and the ugly".
I corrected or clarified a few remarks without notice.]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In the last 2 or 3 weeks I found the Haaretz daily
http://www3.haaretz.co.il/eng/htmls/1_1.htm
very interesting reading.
While articles speculating on Arafats aims and mean were quite mixed -
and mostly suspicious of him - the tenor of most comments was that the
Arabs - not only in the occupied territories but also those "within the
green line" have never been treated fairly - they have remained citizens
second class legally and factually. At the same time they stated that
most of them probably have had resigned to the facts and possibly would
prefer Israel to palestine - for economic reasons.

So I think the basis for a peaceful neighborship of jews and arabs could
easily have been created - and, yes, we all know that there are
extremists on both sides who never will agree to something like that.
However, equal treatment never has been estabished, it seems:

- expropriations in Israel almost always seem to be done to arabs - and
often enough, these lands end up in jewish hands.

- WHen the ultraorthodox riot and throw stones, the police may fire
smoke grenades or use water hoses. When the palestines riot and throw
stones [added: or the israelic arabs], the IDF (israel defense force, I suppose) fires rubber bullets,
and occaisionally live bullets when the rubber bullets run out - or
perhaps when the rubber bullets "run out" - I'm getting more and more
suspicious over the official positions.
Rubber bullets are supposed to be not deadly when fired at the legs -
however, most of the palestine victims and "victims" have been hit on
head and torso - accounting for the 3000 wounded and 80+ dead.
I grant the IDF forces that they are not the police and that they follow
orders - but are these orders to fire at head and torso (somehow I doubt
there is a written order of this content)?

- In Nazareth, the reports are confused. According to one article in the
Haaretz, however, a group of young jewish people started rioting,
attacking arab shops. When the police was called, they shoved the jewish
rioters away and then started shooting into the arabs which were in (a)
dead-end street - conclusion: defending themselves against the jewish
rioters. Here, israelic arabs - citizens of Israel, after all - were
treated the same way as the palestines.
- The israelic arabs also are effectively hindered from getting grants
and economic helps for building homes. In Jerusalem, quarters where jews
live are kept up much better then arab quarters. street repair, sewers,
water, electricity, telephone etc. are neglected; jewish quarters get
three times as much money per person.
- The Haaretz also stated that the IDF were also very quick getting
their official statements to the press. In some cases, there were clear
discrepancies with eyewitness reports, like single shots and volleys
fired from a jewish settlement into a demonstration which have bben left
out in their report. - In the general press, the IDF reports were
brought but - possibly due to the heated atmoshere? - no "neutral"
reports, resulting in, to put it plainly, misinformation of the israelic
public.
Does this mean that the IDF put a not-so-subtle spin an the news "from
the front"? I think the answer is yes. Whatever the reasons they do it,
they should be aware of the consequences - and of the possible
consequences if the public in Israel ever gets aware of this.

Lets face it: I always had thought that Israel was/is a democratic
country. I'm not so sure of that any more. It rather looks like a
religous state with democratic features. This is due to a large part to
the circumstances of the creation of the israelic state - especially
Zionists from Europe who wanted a jewish state after the second world
war with all its gruesome facts - , with the surrounding arabs extremely
hostile (to state it mildly). This all is a large backpack for anyone to
carry - but now Israel is tired of the continuous warfare, and the
palestines probably too. However, if I were a palestine I probably would
go on throwing rocks under the circumstances described above;
humiliation does work that way.
The Jews in Israel pride themselves of not submitting to force, but
somehow "they" (how I hate this generalization) fail to apply the same
to the palestines.

The israelic state cannot kill or drive off all arabs. So either they
have to live with them peacefully (and the palestines peacefully with
them) or live with continuous or cyclic intifada.

If and how Arafat fits into this I don't know. If he is willing or not,
if he is fully in power or not, roll your dice. However, he is the only
one they can negotiate with if they still >want< to negotiate. And I
suspect that an equal treatment of at least the israelic arabs - or a
serious attempt - will go a long way with the israelic arabs and even
the palestines - because it will give them hope again, something in very
short supply just now. So if the israelic state gives back the land to
the arabs where possible and makes restitution. A lot of these measures
would be possible without violating security or even risking the safety
of the israelic state - although in the long run it will be the end of
the jewish state, according to the demographic figures; the arab
population grows faster. Really ? - everywhere in the world there is a
correlation between poverty, education (especially of the women), and
population growth. So if the arabs are treated fairly economically and
have the same chances, their population ultimately will have the same
growth rate as the jewish population. Somehow that sounds safer to me
than an impoverished, humiliated arab population, partially in the same
state, partially in annexed territories, and partially in the
neighboring countries. The longer the jews wait, the more unfavorable
the demographics will become.

So the israelis - jewish israelis - will have to decide between a secular state
which treats all its citizens equally, or a basically religiously based
state surrounded by hostile people with different religions, with
continuous low-level conflicts and the occasional war. In the long run,
I don't see a third solution short of annihilation of either most jews
or most palestines.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I should add to the text abovethat for me the decisive point in changing my opinion from pro-israeli to not-quite-pro-palestinian is the treatment of the israelic arabs in israel by the israelis, >not< the treatment of the palestinians on the westbanks.
Both historically and presently, both sides have much to answer for. Both sides claim the moral high ground. In the western press, the israelic state has been more successful to cover it, since Israel is viewed as a democracy, and the palestinians as not.
While historically [meaning from 1948 until at least 1973, possibly until 1982 (? until Invasion of southern lebanon - I'm not sure when this happened)] the israelis did have the moral high ground against the palestines, they have slid back step for step since then and have largely lost it today. In my eyes, however, they have no excuse for their treatment of the israelic arabs from early on - not if they consider themselves a democracy.

Grendel69

10-12-2000, 09:17 PM

Posting from work. Must be quick.

I believed it was inflammatory because I was under the impression that the Big Bully analogy was referring solely to the Palestinians, which seemed a bit ridiculous to me.

If it refers to the all of the surrounding Arab states, I can see where it holds more water. I still don't think it is very apt though because it has these connotations that portray the Arab states as being ever so powerful over the state of Israel, which has one of the most advanced militaries in the world. They have consistently won their battles and they are a nuclear power. I don't think that there is the disparity of power that the Big Bully analogy implies. I also think that analogies aren't the best way to explain this situation to people. Just my opinion.

As per cites. First of all the Times has crappy access to their back issues. I can't afford their system of pay per article so I can't cite it for you. As per your wish, I retract it.

I do have to ask you, what does that litany of facts do?

I don't think it accomplishes much. The pro-Israeli side is already well versed in the long list of Palestinian violence so it isn't granting them any new knowledge and it just inflames the pro-Palestinian side who will do their best to discredit that info.

Just as I have said before, it works the other way around. What if I were to spit out a lengthy list of Israeli atrocities? You would do your best to critique the validity of that list.

Guess what? I think everything thrown down would be true to a certain extent. The lists of atrocities would probably be mostly accurate. The critiques would have a grain of truth as well.

But it doesn't do jack squat. And the vicious cycle continues.

On a side note...Did anyone see Arafat today? I think that something is wrong with his health. Perhaps his afflictions have reached a later stage than they have described to us.

Batard

10-12-2000, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by sailor
The more I learn about the conflict the more I find myself sympathising with Israel. As has been said, there is a general tendency to side with the underdog but come on, enough is enough. The Palestinians are the ones always wanting violence and when they get it they complain. The keep getting their asses whooped and they keep comming back for more. What's their complaint? They are the ones choosing violence. Maybe they should learn that the prefect is the enemy of the good and that a bad peace is better than a good war (especially if you keep loosing). They are no more than an unruly mob.

Note: this is just my personal opinion with no attempt to cast any useful information on the subject being discussed.

Siding with the underdog - Israel is the David, the surrounding states are the Goliath. True as far as it goes but doesn't cover all the ground.

If I were a palestinian I probably would throw rocks too. Being treated as a citizen second class is humiliating. Also, being treated as an underdog makes you behave like an underdog.
As stated in my post above: the israelis pride themselves as not giving in to force. Obviously, the palestinians feel the same - despite 80+ dead and 3000 wounded, they go on throwing stones. And if you believe Arafat ordered it all - why do the palestinians follow these orders? They don't have to follow his orders.
Two possible reasons:
- They are religious fanatics (all of them??? I doubt that in any given population, more than 5 or 10% lean towards true religious fanatism - and probably that number is far overstated. "Religious fanatism", if occurring as a popular phenomenon, has to be backed up by bad treatment, percieved or real, or the group which is attacked.
- They do feel humiliated and treated badly (all of them).
Remember that the israelis, in answer to terrorist attacks, have bombed civilians - lots of times. And now they complain that the arabs hate them? Come on. I have said it and I say it again - they have lost the high moral ground even against the palestinians. Now both sides have the same amount of blame.

In 1948, the arabs attacked the new-founded israelic state.
That was morally reprehensible. But also consider that before the second world war, there were next to no jews in palestine - nearly all the ground was owned by arabs. The Zionists brought a lot of money and bought large pieces of estate. So far so good. But after Israel was founded, large pieces of land were appropriated (is that the correct word?)
from arabs - not only plantation-sized but also homes of poor arabs. That is also morally reprehensible.

Today we like to think that all people are equal. This is, of course, far from being true. People should be treated equally, and all should have the same chances. Even this is far from achieved, but officially we try to achieve this goal. South africa was an international pariah because of the apartheid policy - and I hope rightly so? Nobody shunned or admonished the south african blacks if they rioted in the ghettoes.
You don't think this is a valid comparison? So did I, until shortly ago.

But the comparison is even better than I thought in the beginning: The white in south africa were also heavily outnumbered, they were better armed, they looked down on the "niggers" (not all of them, but enough), they had the economic advantage and did everything to keep it, they crowded the blacks into townships and gave some of them badly-paid jobs. The townships were even declared independent states by the south african government, and in case of rioting they were cut off, and nobody was allowed to leave.

Come to think of: The first white settlers in south africa thought it was their god-given right to drive off the blacks since they were an inferior race.
The israelis thought it was their god-given right to drive off the palestinians since they owned this piece of real estate 200 years ago and was promised to them by god.

The longer I think about this comparison, the more it frightens me: Is it really that similar??

pantom

10-12-2000, 10:00 PM

A parable (this is a true story. It happened on Times Square, something like 25 years ago, when my brother was a teenager. We're getting old!):

My brother and a few of his friends were hanging out around Times Square when, on one of the side streets branching off from it, they saw a large crowd. Being curious, they wandered over and saw a little Arab attempting to get loose of two of his friends and beat up on a large black man who was watching, amazed, this little Arab work himself into a frenzy. The Arab was screaming "I want to die with honor!" The amazing thing about this story for my brother was not what was going on between the participants but the fact that a Maserati had been left with the engine running just waiting for someone to hop in and take it for a spin. Needless to say, my brother stood there and wished he could do that, just take it around the block and bring it back. Even if he wanted to, the crowd watching the goings on was too thick to get the car out of there.
Anyway, the black man's girlfriend was there and pulled him away and into a taxi that was waiting there. As they got into the taxi and closed the door, the little Arab broke free, ran up to the taxi, and began banging on the door and the windows, trying to get at the black man, still screaming "I want to die with honor!"
Well, our man had had enough. Getting out of the taxi, he grabs the little twerp and begins banging him against the side of the taxi, yelling "Why you wanna fuck with me?" until he's unconscious. The girlfriend and a white man from the crowd pull the black man away from the Arab. The white man pulls a badge out and id's himself as an undercover cop. "Look", he says, "I saw the whole thing. Just get back in the taxi and get out of here." In the girlfriend and the man go, and the taxi pulls away from the scene.
In the meantime, the little Arab had been tossed in the back seat of the Maserati, and his two friends get in and start negotiating the car's way through the crowd. As this is happening, the little Arab wakes up, sees where he is, and starts banging on the windows of the car (it must have been a two-door job) screaming again, "I want to die with honor!"

Remind you of anyone?

You may now go back to your previously scheduled thread.

Batard

10-12-2000, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by pantom
A parable (this is a true story. It happened on Times Square, something like 25 years ago, when my brother was a teenager. We're getting old!):

...

Remind you of anyone?

You may now go back to your previously scheduled thread.

Like any good parable, yours is a bit difficult to interpret. Should it be interpreted on all levels? Or only on one? You >can< apply it to both sides (Arafat/Sharon), you know.

P.S.: I have used "morally reprehensible" for both the intention of killing a whole nation on one side, and appropriation of lands on the other side. I did not want to equate them. My point only was that no-one in this mess has the moral high ground.

zev_steinhardt

10-12-2000, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by tradesilicon

Zev - regarding your analogy with Bill Bully, I think you left out part of the story - Bill claims that the way you came to live in your house and yard was not all together Kosher. He also claims that you are the Bully. Not taking sides, just presenting the other point of view. (I know this can be an entirely new debate, which has been done, just fell like it should be added).

Well, of course. There are two sides to every story. In mine, Bill Bully has to have some justification for what he is doing. Otherwise the rest of the neighborhood (from whom he is trying to draw support) would just tell him to bug off.

Zev Steinhardt

edwino

10-13-2000, 01:52 AM

I will respond to a few of Batard's points at a time. My initd seems to be going wiggidy-wiggidy-wack, and the system keeps having kernel faults. Nice.

Originally posted by Batard
...(T)he tenor of most comments was that the Arabs - not only in the occupied territories but also those "within the green line" have never been treated fairly - they have remained citizens second class legally and factually.

and

South africa was an international pariah because of the apartheid policy - and I hope rightly so? Nobody shunned or admonished the south african blacks if they rioted in the ghettoes. You don't think this is a valid comparison? So did I, until shortly ago.

Again, this comparison between Israeli Arabs and South African Blacks or African Americans before Jim Crow is inflammatory rhetoric IMHO. It is no better than the old line about "Jews treat Arabs like Hitler treated Jews." Israeli Arabs have the right to travel, the right to gather, the right to vote, religious freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This makes them free in my book. South African Blacks were not free -- trust me, I was born there. I do think that Israeli Arabs are underpriveleged. Maybe a good comparison would be between them and African Americans today. In some places, African Americans are forming a psedo-underclass, and battle against societal bias (another thread, another time), but there are no laws against them rising to the highest ranks of the country.

Another nitpick -- the "n-word" was not used in South Africa. They had an equally reprehensible "k-word."

WHen the ultraorthodox riot and throw stones, the police may fire smoke grenades or use water hoses. When the palestines riot and throw stones [added: or the israelic arabs], the IDF (israel defense force, I suppose) fires rubber bullets, and occaisionally live bullets when the rubber bullets run out - or perhaps when the rubber bullets "run out" - I'm getting more and more suspicious over the official positions.

Maybe this is because when the Ultraorthodox riot, the IDF generally isn't afraid for their lives. The Ultraorthodox tend not to storm police stations, find unarmed reservists in the office of the police commissioner, stab them several times, throw one of them out a window, beat him until he is dead, then mutilate the body by setting it on fire and dragging it through the streets behind a car. The IDF can contain Ultraorthodox riots, but have to act to stop Palestinian riots lest they themselves be killed.

This is due to a large part to the circumstances of the creation of the israelic state - especially Zionists from Europe who wanted a jewish state after the second world war with all its gruesome facts - , with the surrounding arabs extremely hostile (to state it mildly).

See my above posts about arguing over the legitimacy of the State of Israel. The fact of the matter is that there are 4 million Jews there, and saying that the place that they live in has no right to exist is the equivalent of telling them all to move back to Europe. This is the equivalent of saying that all African Americans need to go back to Africa.

- The Haaretz also stated that the IDF were also very quick getting their official statements to the press. In some cases, there were clear discrepancies with eyewitness reports, like single shots and volleys fired from a jewish settlement into a demonstration which have bben left out in their report. - In the general press, the IDF reports were brought but - possibly due to the heated atmoshere? - no "neutral" reports, resulting in, to put it plainly, misinformation of the israelic public. Does this mean that the IDF put a not-so-subtle spin an the news "from the front"? I think the answer is yes. Whatever the reasons they do it, they should be aware of the consequences - and of the possible consequences if the public in Israel ever gets aware of this.

1) We are talking about Ha'Aretz. As in "The Land." As in the Land of Israel. Of course they are going to have an Israeli bias. They are Israelis. I can guarantee you, however, that Ha'aretz is more objective than any of the Arab newspapers around the world.
2) Faulting the IDF to be quicker than the PA with press releases is not saying that the news media are particularly biases towards the IDF. They just get more information from them. Given the current state of affairs in Israel and taking point 1) into account, they are also going to trust the IDF releases more than the PA ones. The USA didn't broadcast Japanese and German propoganda during World War II.
3) The IDF feels it is justified, so it releases press reports telling how it feels it was justified. That, and they are in a crisis, and so of course they are looking to boost morale. So they don't publish all of their screw-ups.

I agree with your points on Arafat, except I have now become cynical. I feel that the purpose of Oslo was a "withdrawal with strength" approach to the West Bank. Peace would have been an amazing side-effect. The fact of the matter is the Israelis don't want to send their sons into the West Bank any more than the Palestinians want them there. The Israelis need to guarantee that the Palestinian state will not work against Israel and not work to destabilize Israel. A good cite is "Let the Palestinians Declare Independence" by Douglas J. Feith in the September 11, 2000 "New Republic."

Barak wanted to seal the deal Rabin and crew started. So, he came to Camp David this year with reasonable compromises on the 3 hangup points -- settlers, Jerusalem, and refugees. On each, he was rebuffed. The Palestinians did not want to negotiate.

You see, Arafat knows perfectly well that, until he gets exactly what he wants, he can hold out and gain favorable propoganda points with the world media by sending stone-throwing children into the line of fire. He plays into the underdog sympathies of the world and the Israeli Left. And, it has worked. He is a genius. The problem is that he has now lost control.

This brings me to your last point, about population. The large Arab population is yet another fact exploited by Arafat on the refugee issue. Barak showed up at Camp David with a reasonable plan -- take back tens of thousands (out of a million) and pay billions for the rest. Keep in mind that these are by and large indigent, violent, and rabidly anti-Israeli people. Arafat refused -- he wanted guaranteed right of return rights for all 1 million refugees. Try to imagine a country of 4 million taking in 1 million of these refugees. This is like imagining the US taking in 65 million violent anti-US refugees. It isn't a reasonable offer. Arafat knows it, the Israelis refuse, and he makes them look like the bad guys when the 12 year olds start to riot in the PA again. Genius.

The quickest way to a legitimate Palestinian state with a stable economy (and thus control the population) is the foundation of a peaceful Palestinian state which can coexist with Israel. As I have mentioned before in this thread, this new state would have a lot of stuff going for it, and they could receive large amounts of foreign aid from many sources (Arab nations, World Bank, USA, even Israel). Israel and Palestine in my world could be symbiotic. At first, Palestine would supply labor to Israel. With a stable and peaceful government, living conditions will improve. Its prime location for tourism would boost its fledgling economy. It already has infrastructure -- docks, airports, and roads. A decade down the road, they could have the first heavy industry. Within 20 years, Israel and Palestine could both be happy and rich. They would be each other's greatest trading partners.

But this assumes that Arafat will settle for a Palestinian state while Israel is still around. With every day that passes, I doubt this more and more. He could compromise -- he just plain is not going to get Jerusalem while there are still Jews alive in the region to defend the Kotel. He is just plain not gonna get the right of return for 1 million refugees. He needs to be able to guarantee safety for Jews in Palestine, and guarantee access to Jewish and Christian holy sites.

He has not accomplished or compromised on any of these things.

Batard

10-13-2000, 01:55 PM

edwino
I will respond to a few of Batard's points at a time. My initd seems to be going wiggidy-wiggidy-wack, and the system keeps having kernel faults. Nice.

[QUOTE] Batard
...(T)he tenor of most comments was that the Arabs - not only in the occupied territories but also those "within the green line" have never been treated fairly - they have remained citizens second class legally and factually.

and

South africa was an international pariah because of the apartheid policy - and I hope rightly so? Nobody shunned or admonished the south african blacks if they rioted in the ghettoes. You don't think this is a valid comparison? So did I, until shortly ago.

edwino
Again, this comparison between Israeli Arabs and South African Blacks or African Americans before Jim Crow is inflammatory rhetoric IMHO. It is no better than the old line about "Jews treat Arabs like Hitler treated Jews." Israeli Arabs have the right to travel, the right to gather, the right to vote, religious freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This makes them free in my book. South African Blacks were not free -- trust me, I was born there. I do think that Israeli Arabs are underpriveleged. Maybe a good comparison would be between them and African Americans today. In some places, African Americans are forming a psedo-underclass, and battle against societal bias (another thread, another time), but there are no laws against them rising to the highest ranks of the country.

It was not meant to be inflammatory - and I overstated with the citizen second class >legally<, I have to agree.

What I had in mind was a report in Haaretz that by administrative moves/whatever, they (i.e. israelic arabs, citizens of Israel) were not eligible for housing funding, their lands were appropriated (and AFAIK, this is still going on), which often subsequently ended/ends up in jewish hands - private and corporate. Again this is not citizen second class legally - you are right, they can vote and be elected, but it is still far from being treated fair, it is denigrating their rights - I hope you agree. You cannot argue that it was appropriated for the Jews still arriving from Europe who needed the lands to survive - the might does not make the right. I don't want to compare it to Hitler - he did the same but also things far worse, but I can compare it to the serbs in Kosovo (although not Bosnia, that was worse, too).
Citizen second class factually, however, is correct. If the description in the Haaretz on the riots in Nazareth was correct, the israelic arabs were punished by IDF troops for defending against jewish rioters. You can claim error, or you can claim reflex (they are, arabs, after all, and the distinction between israelic arabs and palestinians is mostly a legal one). An error I could swallow - although then they should admit it - but reflex just underlines my point that the isaelic arabs are not treated, and not >viewed< as people with the same rights.

Concerning the comparison between south africa and the situation in israel/palestine - The parallel is between the blacks and the palestinians - >not< the israelic arabs. I did not state it in the part you cited but you should have been able to conclude it from the facts I stated in the following paragraph. The townships, the closing off the borders during violence, which prevented those who wanted to go to work from doing so, the "independent homelands" (not only Gaza, but also the pockets with palestinian rule within the occupied territory - for comparison, take a look at a thankfully obsolete map of the Homeland Bophutatswana. The geographic coincidence may be chance - the israelis probably set it up to maximize their control - but is (or should be) still embarrasing.

I will concede that in every case the israelis had good security reasons for cutting them off during rioting - but the comparison is there, and the reason is that the enclaves are simply too small to be economically self-sufficient in any significant way. The palestinians >had< to look for jobs in israel, where, of course, they only got the badly paid, marginal jobs (again, probably no direct intention).
Now, Israel/palestine is smaller than south africa, so partially this could not have been avoided - example Gaza - but the splintering of the enclaves on the west bank must have been deliberate policy - the same as the jewish settlement in e.g. Jericho, close to the jordan and far from the green line (mostly following the border line of 1967, I suppose)

WHen the ultraorthodox riot and throw stones, the police may fire smoke grenades or use water hoses. When the palestines riot and throw stones [added: or the israelic arabs], the IDF (israel defense force, I suppose) fires rubber bullets, and occaisionally live bullets when the rubber bullets run out - or perhaps when the rubber bullets "run out" - I'm getting more and more suspicious over the official positions.

edwino
[quote]
Maybe this is because when the Ultraorthodox riot, the IDF generally isn't afraid for their lives.

As someone pointed out in this thread (too lazy/busy to find the citation), it is quite difficult to kill someone with a thrown stone.

Use of fireweapons by the palestinians during the intifada is, AFAIK, a new development which does not apply to previous encounters, whereas the use of rubberbullets by the IDF is.

edwino
[quote]
The Ultraorthodox tend not to storm police stations, find unarmed reservists in the office of the police commissioner, stab them several times, throw one of them out a window, beat him until he is dead, then mutilate the body by setting it on fire and dragging it through the streets behind a car. The IDF can contain Ultraorthodox riots, but have to act to stop Palestinian riots lest they themselves be killed.

If I#m correct, this happened after 80+ palestinians were shot dead and over 3000 wounded with shot to head and upper torso. After that (and listening to the no doubt inflammatory rhetoric of the formal and/or informal palsetinian leaders, I probably would have helped them if I were palestinian. The palestinians trowing stones now are young - what they have heard from the history will be distorted; what they experience from Israel is infuriating, and one can stand only so much.

This is due to a large part to the circumstances of the creation of the israelic state - especially Zionists from Europe who wanted a jewish state after the second world war with all its gruesome facts - , with the surrounding arabs extremely hostile (to state it mildly).

edwino
See my above posts about arguing over the legitimacy of the State of Israel. The fact of the matter is that there are 4 million Jews there, and saying that the place that they live in has no right to exist is the equivalent of telling them all to move back to Europe. This is the equivalent of saying that all African Americans need to go back to Africa.

Batard
You read intentions into my paragraph which are, frankly, not there. I did not discuss legitimacy, I discussed historic facts. You obviously felt attacked, which was not my intention. The jews are now where they weren't before. Fact. The jew now have a state in the middle east. Fact. The founding of this state was extremely violent. Fact. I did not assign blame, I did not call to arms. Please read my comments carefully and in this spirit. I am not pysically involved in this situation, my emotional involvement is very little, and I think I can judge the facts fairly >if I know them<!!! And, to state it again, I changed my mind (partially) due to facts, comments, and arguments which I have read in the Haaretz, an israelic (jewish) newspaper.

edwino
1) We are talking about Ha'Aretz. As in "The Land." As in the Land of Israel. Of course they are going to have an Israeli bias. They are Israelis. I can guarantee you, however, that Ha'aretz is more objective than any of the Arab newspapers around the world.
2) Faulting the IDF to be quicker than the PA with press releases is not saying that the news media are particularly biases towards the IDF. They just get more information from them. Given the current state of affairs in Israel and taking point 1) into account, they are also going to trust the IDF releases more than the PA ones. The USA didn't broadcast Japanese and German propoganda during World War II.
3) The IDF feels it is justified, so it releases press reports telling how it feels it was justified. That, and they are in a crisis, and so of course they are looking to boost morale. So they don't publish all of their screw-ups.

Batard
1.)Sorry to disagree with you: I don't think the Haaretz has a typical israeli bias. I found most of their article wonderfully detached, and concerning their coverage of the palestinian/israeli situation, including the riots, I judge it to be as neutral as possible, comparable to the Neue Zuericher Zeitung (Switzerland) when commenting on german politics. I wonder why you thought I found an israelic bias.
P.S.: Haaretz was not citing PA sources but unnamed eyewitnesses in the Nazareth incident. I doubt they would think the PA as trustworthy source - and from what I know (which is not much) I agree.
2&3) I don't fault the israelis for trusting the IDF more than palestinian coverage, that is of course to expect. I should not fault the IDF for slanting their news releases (not too much, at least). I am not even sure that I fault the israeli press for not checking the facts; there is, after all, a time pressure to get the fact to the public fast in a messy situation as this; the public has to know in order to protect itself. Taken together, however, the israelic public is misinformed, possibly critically so. Every little bit helps to inflame the situation.
You compare the "propaganda situation" with the second world war. >That< is quite steep, I would say. Is there a war, a full-fledged war, in Israel/palestine? Why don't the tanks shoot, then? I think we can agree that it is a situation which is some aspects is war-like.

[I suspect that the one-sided reports from the IDF are not coverups but might be deliberate policy influenced from the opinion of right-wing or hawks - after all, thats the problem of every army in the world: The people who feel the urge to protect their country often are conservative or right-wing. This is not unique to israel (That is, if I read the situation correctly).]

Whatever the reason, however, the result is a skewed information of the israelic public, with devastating consequences possible in the long run.

edwino
[...]
The quickest way to a legitimate Palestinian state with a stable economy (and thus control the population) is the foundation of a peaceful Palestinian state which can coexist with Israel. [...] Within 20 years, Israel and Palestine could both be happy and rich. They would be each other's greatest trading partners.

But this assumes that Arafat will settle for a Palestinian state while Israel is still around. [...]

He has not accomplished or compromised on any of these things.

[/B]

I see that, give or take a few differences, we basically agree.

Another point: I doubt that Arafat fully rules the palestinians; I doubt that every riot has been ordered by him, and that he could stop any uprising >whenever he chose<. This is the weak point in the argument against Arafat, which goes like: "Either he is in power, than he does not want to stop the rioting, or he is not, then we don't need to talk to him."
I rather think he is in a position where he sits on the back of a running tiger, sometimes able to steer him by grabbing his ears, sometimes able to stop him, and sometimes deliberately enraging him.
On one hand you have Arafat with unclear political aims, on the other hand you have the palestinian people (most of them young & born after 1967, and indoctrinated - with words from one side, which help to interpret the deeds from the other side), which after so many years were fed up with the situation.
If their situation - especially the economic, but also the legal side - gets better, and visibly so, the full belly will think twice before picking up a stone. And no, some will go on throwing stones and buying Kalashnikovs, And no, the PA propaganda doesn't help either.
If you don't have any success with Arafat, you might think about ways to communicate with the palestine people directly. And with communicate I don`t mean exclusively talking. Fair treatment (I repeat myself), where it does not interfere with security, will help. Start with the israelic arabs - they are israelic citizens, after all.

So, this took quite long. I'm not sure if I will be able to go on discussing it at such length.

Sebastian