You are correct. My account was somewhat simplified, because otherwise it would be a book, not a post.
Jordan was, is, and has always been, a majority Palistinian state.
However, I believe that I am correct in stating that the Jordanian monarchy’s fears of millions of politicised WB Palistinians played a major role in its decision to renounce the territory, particularly after the attempted violent overthrow of the monarchy by the PLO.
They don’t vote because they are not citizens of Israel. If Israel ever attempted to make them citizens by formally annexing these territories, the outcry would make the current situation seem like a tea-party.
As for what motivates the suicide bombers, I fully believe that it is a millenial vision of a land purified by faith - i.e. a Jihad. That is what they themselves say, why should I not believe them?
And as for Arafat, he is clearly not identical to Bin Laden. But he has been responsible for as many deaths via terrorism over his four decades in power. What is so offensive about pointing that out?
If by “explain” you mean “justify”, I don’t.
I think it is clear what they are up to - to grab as much of the best locations as they can get away with, before handing the place back (minus the bits they have grabbed). Plus, it increases the pressure on the Palistinians to make a deal - as every year that goes by, they grab a bit more.
Indeed, the settlement policy only makes sense if one assumes that they regard handing back the place as inevitable. If they wanted to annex the whole region, why would they bother with this nip-and-tuck strategy?
For sure. But effectively being governed by the state of Israel leaves the Palestinians hanging in a particularly nasty form of limbo wouldn’t you say? Even without the public outcry Israel would never make the Palestinians citizens since that would leave as many arabs as jews with a right to vote.
I don’t know which suicide bombers you have spoken to, or read about. But i don’t question that some (maybe all) of them would believe in something like that. But I would also think some of them would say they were motivated by the current situation Israel/Palestine. So I maintain that you’re characterization of the suicide bombings as a “cry for jihad” is a simplification.
Well first of all i would say that you are stating a belief more than actually pointing something out. Secondly i would ask you what definitions of “terrorism” and "responsibility you would use to arrive at that conclusion.
Well. Darnit, Malthus, i would say that it takes a new take on logic to construe the encouragement of settlers on occupied land as a undisputable proof of a commitment to hand that occupied land back! As well as a willingness to disregard large parts of world history.
See, when you have citizens on a disputed strip of land, suddenly there arises the issue of these citizens security. Ergo the need for military presence to protect them. Ergo a strong argument not to return disputed strip of land since security of settlers cannot be guaranteed. (Invasion, for that matter, of a disputed strip of land can also be justified this way, as a lot of Nazi germanys arguments in the outbreak of WWII would show).
Surely you are aware of this?
Yes they have been in limbo. But Israel has not exactly stolen the land. Plans are and have been in the works for that Palestinian state everyone talks about. Last year the US brought the matter to the UN Security Council resulting in resolution 1397 (reaffirming the two-state solution, calling for an end to acts of violence) with Israel’s blessing. And Arafat’s, obviously.
One issue holding up the works is the right of return for Palestinians. I can’t see them agreeing to let all the refugees back into Israel on the land they’d been on previously, and speaking as their ally I’d say that’s a few different kinds of suicide…but anyway, that’s one example of something the Palestinians are holding out for in the process. It involves much more than land-swapping.
Yes, Tee, i would agree that the right of return for all Palestinian refugees is a major problem. It is obvious that this is not practically possible. Still it is a claim that the PLO has made, and one that would extremely unpopular with the palestinian public to give up for Arafat.
Still PLO knows they have to, and i actually thought that they had been willing to do so, recent years? Anyone know more about this?
I agree - a bad situation all around.
But Israel has been pushing to change it.
How are the two - “Jihad” and “motivated by the current situation” - mutually exclusive?
The definition of “terrorism” and responsibility for it demands its own thread, actually - it is a diversion that threatens to swallow the topic here.
I would gladly debate this, but maybe it should be elsewhere - I will start a new thread, if any are interested.
I don’t see that we are in any disagreement here - or if we are, I don’t know what it is.
I say, the settlement policy is a naked land grab - of the bits taken. Another “bonus” is that it pressures the Palistinians.
Agree so far?
However, taking little bits a bit at a time would be pointless, if you intended to take the whole thing at one gulp by annexing the whole place.
Does that make sense to you?
Naturally, those thinking about the policy intend to make the argument that those bits “settled” should not be subsequently handed back - only those parts which have not been settled.
Still with me?
So, this policy logically pre-supposes that at some future time an act of “handing back” some land (that is, the WB and Gaza minus the bits ‘settled’) is very likely.
If you do not agree, I would be happy to hear why.
On re-reading, I think the confusion lies here, in the first sentence: “Well. Darnit, Malthus, i would say that it takes a new take on logic to construe the encouragement of settlers on occupied land as a undisputable proof of a commitment to hand that occupied land back!” [emphasis added]
It is not “that land” (i.e. the ‘settled’ bits) which the planners of the policy intend to hand back, but the parts not ‘settled’.
Malthus,
They are not mutually exclusive; you answered one simplification “provoked by desparation for international attention”, with another one “a rally for a Jihad”. That’s all!
About Arafat, and Bin Ladin: I believe that any argument for the equivalence of the two would need to be based on very inclusive definitions of “terrorism” and “responsibility”. As indeed is often the case.
If you wan’t to make an argument for the equivalence of YA and ObL we can discuss it here. But you have to be a little more explicit on what terrorist kills you believe arrafat to be responsible for in that case, and how their numbers compares to those of ObL.
What we do not agree on here, Malthus, is the following.
You claim that the settlement policy logically pre-supposes handing the land back. I do believe that in the case of the land ever being handed back that policy helps in holding on to some strategic parts. But it also helps making arguments for not returning the land at all.
And to that effect, both these scenarios are being pursued by actors on the Israeli domestic scene.
And even if the benevolent scenario you hope for would come true, I hope you agree with me that it would be quite unsatisfactory? The occupied territories should be handed back whole, and not in some balcanized form without “islands” of Israeli territory.
I wouldn’t characterize the scenario I outlined as “benevolent”. I think it a naked land grab, and unjustified.
I have always said that the settlement policy is wrong, both in a moral sense and wrong because it is counter-productive for a peaceful and just solution. The best thing would be an agreement that saw the Israelis agreeing to remove the settlements (by force if necessary), and the Palistinians agreeing to suppress the terrorists (by force if necessary) - and a Palistinian state.
I don’t think there is any real support in Israel for keeping the whole area. No doubt some extremists dream of an Israeli empire including these territories and more besides. But the vast majority of Israelis are heartily sick of these places, and would like nothing better than to be rid of them - if they could be assured that their security would not be compromised thereby.
Then we agree on issue! Let’s hope for the best.
Sorry for the lateness of this reply. I was trying to find a source that was (in my opinion) not overtly biased one way or the other – a difficult task, I assure you!
Finally, I found this which looks okay:
On the definition of terrorism: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
On Terrorism and Israel:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_against_Israel
Check this out:
"Second Intifada
In Autumn 2000 began the Second Intifada. While the Palestinians blame Ariel Sharon, then the Israeli opposition leader for starting it, while Israel claims, the PA started it intentionally to improve the Palestinian positions at the negotiating table.
Over 100 suicide bombings have taken place in Israeli targets, killing more than three hundred civilians. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah are said to have at their disposal enormous quantities of weapons and explosives, which all sides agree are not made by the individual bombers themselves but at informal factories in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel names the towns of Jenin, Nablus and Ramallah as centers of this activity.
Israel claims that the PA’s position regarding terrorism was shady in the first place. While condemning most terrorist attacks, the PA has never arrested figures of importance to the terrorist networks, confiscated their weaponry or even publicly denounced future violence against Israelis. Operatives from the Fatah movement of Yasser Arafat, the head of the PA, are known to have participated in a large number of attacks themselves.
Since Israel’s recent military incursion into the West Bank (including the town of Jenin) the Israeli government has obtained and published thousands of pages of internal Palestinian Authority documents which demonstrate that the PA has been covertly funding and directing, many of the suicide bombings. The head of the United States’ CIA, as well as many other US politicians and analysts, have gone on record as saying that these documents are without a doubt real, and prove that Arafat personally orders terrorism through his Al Aksa Martyr’s brigade. The Palestinian Authority initially responded by saying that these documents were taken out of context. However, the PA’s current position is that the documents never existed, that they are fabrications – and that they are the property of the Palestine Authority and must be returned. The change in position is interpreted by many in the US and Israel as tacit admissions that the documents were authentic.
As an international consensus on the proper definition of terrorism (against Israel or any other country) has not been achieved yet. Notwithstanding the continued European general condemnation of any violence towards civilians, Israelis included, the State of Israel continues to complain that acts taken against European citizens are always labeled as terrorist, but that similar actions against Israel are seldom labeled as such." [emphasis added]
And more specifically, this article: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat
However, as of 2002, the Israeli government and many neutral commentators were convinced that the Fatah faction’s Al Aqsa Brigades had simply adopted the methods of the fundamentalist groups, and were under Arafat’s direct command. What is more, spokesmen for Hamas and Islamic Jihad were publicly supporting Arafat. Arafat seemed to be adopting a similar structure to that of the Irish Republican Army and its political wing Sinn Fein, wherein the political arm can claim plausible deniability of actions undertaken by the military arm.
On May 6, 2002, the Israeli government released a report, based in part on documents allegedly captured during the Israel Defense Forces’ occupation of Arafat’s Ramallah headquarters, which shows the connections, and includes copies of papers seemingly signed by Arafat himself authorizing funding for those organizations’ terror activities. These documents however drew skepticism from various quarters since the IDF forcefully prevented any independent observers or reporters from observing the operation.
Others simply point to the constraints of the political situation, and argue that Arafat could neither condemn nor constrain the tactics employed; and that any attempt to do so would endanger his rule or his life. Furthermore, Prefusal to employ terrorism would amount to a de facto surrender to Israel, which has access to weapons that Palestinians so far lack. The use of suicide bombers appears to be a permanent feature of this conflict. The number and intensity of attacks rose sharply in the first months of 2002.
In March 2002, the Arab League made an offer to recognize Israel in exchange for Israeli retreat from all territories captured in the Six-Day War and statehood for Palestine and Arafat’s Palestinian Authority. Supporters of this declaartion see this as a historic recognition of Israel by the Arab states, while critics of this offer say that it would constitute a heavy blow to Israel’s security, while not even guaranteeing Israel the cessation of suicide bombing attacks.
The Arab League offer coincided, however, with yet another upsurge of Palestinian terrorism against Israel (some of which came from Arafat’s own Fatah militants), that led to more than 50 Israeli dead. Ariel Sharon has previously pressured Arafat to speak strongly in Arabic against frequent suicide bombings; following the attacks, he declared that Arafat assisted the terrorists and therefore made himself an enemy of Israel and obviously irrelevant to any immediate peace negotiations. The declaration was followed by Israeli entry to the cities of the West Bank, in a program called “Operation Defensive Shield”.
[emphasis added].
And this:
Hm Malthus, i’d like to adress all of that but this disclaimer at the top of your first link made me cautious:
“The neutrality of this article is disputed”. Aha.
Now the wikipedia is obviously an “open-source dictionary” according to themselves. And it’s also a Wiki, meaning that anyone can edit the contents of any page.
I aknowledge the work you put into finding this, but i’d like a more reliable source as a starting point for a useful discussion.
That is going to be difficult.
I chose this site because it had no obvious axe to grind that I could detect, and covered a lot of information. Any article on this topic is likely to be “disputed” by zealots on either side - I think that goes without saying, particularly when the truth is so very damaging to the PA. I seriously doubt however that major inaccuracies are likely - I have not detected many, just by sniffing around.
From the IDF side:
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=430
Try using a search engine and looking for “Al Aksa Martyrs brigade”. You will find a whole lot of screaming articles on both sides, but little in the way of solid info from neutral sources.
I myself think it most likely that the account described below is more or less true - that Arafat uses terrorism as a tool, with the Al Aksa Martyr’s brigade as his instrument, while outwardly stating (for Western consumption) that he has given up his terrorist ways after the Achile Laurel incident (which resulted in much bad publicity). This sham was exposed when the IDF captured and published PA papers detailing the links between the brigade and Arafat – not that anyone in the region was seriously fooled in the first place. Naturally, the PA declared that the papers were fogeries.
For what it is worth, the US has put the brigade on its list of terrorist organizations - but not of course the PA or Fatah. Clearly, if you are a terrorist, splitting your organization into a “terror” wing and a “legitimate” wing pays off - when necessary, you can disown the “terror” wing, while your constituents know the truth.
If you can find more information about the ties - or lack of ties - between the brigade and Arafat, I would be grateful.
Malthus:
I agree with you that this is a subject that is emotion-packed for many. But if you make a comparison between Arafat and Bin Laden and then suggests that Arafat is responsible for as many terrorist kills as ObL you have to back that up with (reasonably) unbiased and reliable sources.
Now, a wiki, is not independent since anyone can write anything and it is hard (or at least takes an unreasonable amount of time) to check out the originators. I think it is reasonable to request a better source.
I checked out the site from the new link you supplied. The name alone (“International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism”) gives me bad vibes. The board of directors should give you a clue to their impartiality:
Shabtai Shavit Chairman, Board of Directors, former director of the Israeli Intelligence Agency (Mossad)
Uriel Reichman President of the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya
Aharon Scherf Former director of Israel’s Foreign Affairs Division and senior official in prime minister’s office
There is a difference in capturing a criminal and killing others as an automatic reprisal.
Your reply seems a bit confused. Are you saying that self defence and eye-for-an-eye behaviour is the same?
I believe that self defense is justified and should be proportional to the agression experienced. This is different to meting out violence after the event.
Just to clarify your moral position. Do you subscibe to the morality of proportional reprisal?
I doubt that the Israeli government has a policy of shooting randomly, however it is evident that the lives of innocent people are not given much value by the Israeli army.
Why in the world did you think I called it “from the IDF side”?
Maybe those initials were unfamiliar. “IDF” = “Israeli Defence Forces”. I was not claiming this site as “impartial”!
As for numbers of kills, that is not really in dispute: prior to his public renunciation of terrorism, Arafat was an organizer of terror attacks on a wide scale (even his supporters in the West acknowledge this).
What is in dispute is whether he has actually renounced terror as a method and is now a peaceful elder statesman or not.
aha ok, i am happy then that i was wrong about that then. But i was not aware of that IDF = “Israeli Defense forces” was common knowledge 
Now I am not a supporter of Arafat. He’s got blood on his hands. But I dp think Sharon would be a better comparison than ObL.
But I have never heard the numbers you are claiming (about 4000 or more?), terrorist act kills for which Arafat is responsible. Are you sure these are not in dispute? I very much doubt it!